Category: Teaching

Harvard. Grading system. Hard subjects: political economy and mathematics, 1886

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-03-03

There are two things I learned in preparing this post. The first (and what initially caught my eye) was the complaint that economics, like mathematics, already in the 1880’s was considered a subject that demanded relatively hard-work to get a good grade. The second was that the Harvard reform of introducing elective courses undermined the percentile precision of the old marking system and led to the adoption of the grading system. It apparently did not occur to anyone that a grade point average (G.P.A.) based on the less granular grading bands would arise from the ashes of the marking system.

______________________

RANKS AND MARKS AT HARVARD.

AN IMPORTANT REFORM PROPOSED IN THE PERCENTAGE SYSTEM.

Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 16 [1886]. — Ever since its establishment last Fall, the conference committee, a joint organization of Faculty and students, has been steadily losing favor with the students of the university until it has at last earned the name of the “Misplaced Confidence Committee,” bestowed upon it by several of the college papers. This result, however, might easily have been anticipated. The college expected too much of the new organization and was naturally disappointed at the non-fulfillment of its expectations. It did not realize that the experiment of intrusting a certain part of the government of the college to the student members must proceed slowly and carefully. The conference committee, however, in spite of the remarks of disapproval which have been frequently bestowed upon it, has been steadily at work on the greatest evil which to-day exists in the university — the marking system. All possible information in regard to the marking systems of other colleges was obtained, and on these data the committee proceeded to work out the solution of the Harvard question of ranks and marks. Finally, after a number of meetings, the conference committee has come to a decision and has adopted the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the members of the conference committee deem the marking system, now in use at Harvard, unsuited to the elective system, and that they strongly recommend a change.

Resolved, That it is desired that by this change the inequalities of marks arising from different degrees of work required in different courses, and from different standards of marking pursued by different instructors, as far as possible, be removed.

The system which the committee recommends is what is known as the “grade system,” i.e., the students are divided up as to rank into certain classes or grades. The first grade represents those who have passed with distinction; the second those who have passed, and the third those who have failed. If necessary more grades can be easily introduced and finer distinctions made between the upper classes of marks. These changes now go before the whole faculty for final action, and although they may not be adopted in toto they will undoubtedly receive due consideration, and will at least, lead to important modifications in the present system of marking by percentage.

The question of the adoption of a grade system for a percentage system was not the only one discussed by the committee. The evil which lies at the root of the whole matter is in the inequalities of marks arising from the different amount of work required in different courses. Under the elective system there are about 200 courses from which the undergraduate is required to take four yearly. Now, it is perfectly obvious that it is impossible to make all these courses require an equal amount of work. But aside from that there are many inequalities which might be done away with. Some of the professors are notoriously hard markers, others are the very reverse. Some require extra work in their courses, others rely entirely on the examination papers to prove to them the amount of work done by the students. There are ordinarily two examinations yearly in each subject. Some of the instructors, however, hold hour examinations every month or two, and count these in as a part of the percentage for the year. Some take no account of the attendance, while others allow a constant attendance to go a long way toward making up a defective examination paper. Notwithstanding such a diversity of marking as this, the students of each class are grouped together, and comparisons are drawn as if they all stood on the same footing, as if they all took the same courses. To this the students, and to a great extent the Faculty, object. There are certain courses in college, in natural history and in the fine arts, in which an average student with very little application can easily obtain a high mark. A student of the same ability may take some of the most difficult courses, those in political economy or mathematics, and with double the application receive about half the marks obtained by this leisure-loving friend. Yet these two students are ranked together, and to the outside world the former is by far the brighter. Had the relative rank been determined by the amount of work the result would have been somewhat different.

The only distinction made by the college authorities between the courses of instruction is by dividing them into two groups — half courses and full courses — two of the former being considered equivalent to one of the latter. Of the 200 courses only a few are half courses. Thus while there is practically one grade in the courses, or at most two grades, there is no limit to the grades in the rank of the students, for the exact standing of every student to the smallest fraction can be ascertained. The names of all who obtain 70 per cent. or over in every course are printed with the per cent. attached and the list sent to every man in college. Those who receive a mark below 70 per cent. are informed privately. To lessen the evils which attend such a fine system of grading, the conference committee has recommended a substitution of broader grades. Seeing, however, that the real trouble extended beyond this, the committee has gone further, and has recommended that as the grades in marks grew broader the grades in the courses should grow finer. That both of these recommendations are in the spirit of reform seems evident. As the committee has among its members five of the Faculty, there is reason to believe that these members will be enabled to convince the rest of the Faculty of the desirability of some important changes, both in the system of marking by percentage and in the system which allows but two grades of courses.

Source: The New York Times, 17 January, 1886.

______________________

New Regulations by the Faculty.

November 24, 1886

The new “Regulations of the Faculty of Harvard College” are out and present many new and entertaining features. A hasty comparison of the last year’s “codex” with the present one may be of interest to those who have not time to make the comparison for themselves.

The first regulation on the list we find changed. Absences are no longer returned to the Dean, but to the secretary, who enters them on each student’s record. Petitions to the faculty may now be handed in up to 10 o’clock on the day of the faculty meeting. The new Rule (5) with regard to the time of changing electives, limiting such changes to Nov. 1 and March 1, are well known already. Rule 7 and 8 is new. Instructors are to report to the Dean from time to time the names of students who have failed to satisfy them in the performance of the work of the course. Any instructor, with the approval of the Dean, may exclude a student from his course for neglect of work, and the fact shall be reported to the faculty at the next meeting.

The scale of scholarship has been changed from the old percentage system to a system of five grades, A, B, C, D, E. Students who fail in a course will be assigned to E. Last year this grade was fixed at two-fifths of the maximum mark. Failure on the work of the year is changed from “failure to get one half the maximum mark,” to those who “stand below grade E.” As the regulation previously read, a student who failed on the year’s work as a whole, although he passed on all his studies, could make up the deficiency by taking one or more electives in addition to those regularly required for a degree. The marks on these courses would be substituted for the lowest marks he received in the previous year’s work. Now, a student may regain his standing “by attaining in some subsequent year such grades, that the average number of courses in which he stands below grade C is not more than three for each of the two years.”

The penalty for dishonesty in examination has been withdrawn from the rules, pending probably the invention of some more terrible scheme. Under the “Degree of Bachelor of Arts,” rule 26 reads: “above group D.” This is changed from “one half of the total maximum.” In rule 27, grade A is substituted for 90 per cent.

The magna cum is now obtained by one “who has stood in grade A in one half of his college work and has not fallen below C in any study. This is changed from the old rule of “80 per cent. for the whole college course, or 85 per cent. for the last three years.” The cum laude cannot be received by anyone who has fallen below grade C in any study.

There are some changes in the requirements for Honors in English; and the assignments of honorable mention and of Degrees with Distinction will be made through standing committees of the Faculty. Application for scholarships must be handed in before the last Monday in May. The establishment of a committee to overlook the work of special students was announced last spring, and needs no additional comment.

Source: The Harvard Crimson archive. 24 November, 1886.

Economists Teaching Undergraduate Williams

Williams. Leading Author of Political Economy Textbooks, Arthur Lathan Perry (1830-1905)

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-11-10

An earlier post mentioned the late 19th century economics textbook writer, Arthur Latham Perry, whose writings in the United States were rated by leading publishers in third/fourth place (behind Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill) in 1876. This post provides some biographical information, links to most editions of his three textbooks and two prefaces that describe his personal intellectual development as an economist.

More about the economics professor Arthur Latham Perry:

Joseph Dorfman. Economic Mind in American Civilization, vol. 3 1865-1918. New York: 1949. pp. 56-63.

Stephen Meardon. A Tale of Two Tariff Commissions and One Dubious “Globalization Backlash”. Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department Working Paper 476 (November 2002), pp. 14-19.

________________________

Perry, Arthur Latham (1830-1905)
By Patrick J. McCurdy (Class of 2002)

Arthur Latham Perry, Williams Class of 1852, was born on February 27, 1830 and died on July 9, 1905. He was raised in poverty in New Hampshire but was able to attend Williams College, where he was one of the founders and charter members of the Alpha Delta Phi Fraternity.

After graduating, he taught in Washington for a year but returned immediately when offered a position at Williams as professor of history and political economy. He taught these subjects from 1854 to 1891. While at the college he also taught German language and literature 1854-1868. As a professor of Political Economy, 1859-1899, he wrote many textbooks and monographs and was considered a leading expert in the field of free trade.

For several years he toured the country during his summer holidays, giving lectures on the principle of free trade for The American Free Trade League. He also wrote important history books on Williamstown and Williams College, Origins of Williamstown (1894) and Williamstown and Williams College (1898).

In 1891 Professor Perry retired and acted as a consultant to the governors of Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut. It was for his great devotion to Williams College that the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity house was named in honor of him.

Perry married Mary Brown Smedley, whose ancestors were some of the first settlers of Williamstown and famous leaders of the Revolutionary War. With her he had five sons and one daughter: Bliss, Arthur, Walter, Carroll, Lewis and Grace. Papers for years to come would describe the brothers as a member of an old and distinguished Williamstown family.”

Source: Williams College. Special Collections Website: Perry, Arthur Latham (1830-1905) webpage.

Image Source: Arthur Latham Perry. Miscellanies. Williamstown, Mass.: Published by the Author, 1902).

________________________

Arthur Latham Perry
Links to Editions of his Three Text-books in Political Economy

Perry, Arthur Latham. Elements of Political Economy (New York: Charles Scribner and Company). 1^st ed. (1866); 2^nd ed. (1867); 4^th ed. (1868); 5^th ed. (1869) ; 6^th ed. (1871); 7^th ed. (1872); 10^th ed. (1873); 11^th ed. (1874); 13^th ed. (1875); 14^th ed. (1877); 15?^th ed. (1878);
Title shortened to Political Economy: 18th ed. (1883); 19^th ed. (1887); 20^th ed. (1888); 21^st ed. (1892); 22^nd ed. (1895).

Perry, Arthur Latham. An Introduction to Political Economy (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, & Company). 1^st ed. (1877); 2^nd ed. (1880).

Perry, Arthur Latham. Principles of Political Economy. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). 1^st ed. (1891);

________________________

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D.
Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE
14^th edition (1877) of Elements of Political Economy

THE good reception given to my book in its previous editions by many practical teachers, as well as by the general public, has prompted me to subject it to another thorough revision, by verifying former statements of fact and introducing many new ones to bring the book abreast of the present time, and by enlarging the discussion of principles at some points and curtailing it at others in the interest of symmetry and completeness; and prompts me also to write, even at this late day, a preface to the book, since I have grounds for believing that some of its friends may be pleased to learn of the circumstances under which it was originally written.

I had taught Political Economy in this Institution [Williams College] for ten or twelve years without ever forming any purpose to try my hand at a treatise on the subject. I had used for my teachers and guides the English writers, particularly Smith, Ricardo, Senior, and Mill; and had familiarized myself also with the American writers, particularly Carey, Wayland, Bowen, and Bascom. Almost from the outset of my studies, however, and increasingly as the years went by, I felt a dissatisfaction with what seemed to me to be the lack of scientific generality common to nearly all these writers. I could see no solid reason why economical discussions should be confined to tangible commodities, and not include as well personal services rendered for pay, and also credits of all kinds. I discussed this point repeatedly with Professor Bascom, at that time my colleague, and my mind had almost reached the conclusion in which it has now rested for many years, when my late friend Amasa Walker, who was even then a political economist of reputation, although he had not yet published his “Science of Wealth,” recommended to me Bastiat’s “Harmonies of Political Economy.” I had scarcely read a dozen pages in that remarkable book, when, closing it, and giving myself to an hour’s reflection, the field of Political Economy, in all its outlines and landmarks, lay before my mind just as it does to-day. I do not know how much I brought to this result, and how much towards it was derived from Bastiat. I only know that from that hour Political Economy has been to me a new science; and that I experienced then and thereafter a sense of having found something, and the cognate sense of having something of my own to say. This was in 1863.

Subsequently I learned much from Bastiat. It is a pleasure to acknowledge, in the amplest manner, one’s indebtedness to such a quickening writer as he is; and whoever will compare carefully with his book the following chapters on Value and Land, will see how much I have profited by his discussions; and he will also see that I have made an independent, not a servile, use of them. I dare to hope that the relations of utility to value are even more clearly and ultimately put than he has put them. Not to have availed myself of the truths which he has actually established would be as unjust to science, as not also to have endeavored, in the chapters on Exchange and Foreign Trade to execute the commission which he left to his readers in these words:

“I hope yet to find at least one among them who will be able to demonstrate rigorously this proposition: the good of each tends to the good of all, as the good of all tends to the good of each ; and who will, moreover, be able to impress this truth upon men’s minds by rendering the proof of it simple, lucid, and irrefragable.”
[Sterling’s Translation of the Harmonies, page 92.]

Under the impression that I could now say something about Political Economy that the public might be willing to hear, I wrote over my initials a series of articles for the “Springfield Republican,” which attracted attention, and brought me letters alike from friends and from entire strangers, – notably from the late Sidney Homer of Boston, whose name I shall always hold in grateful remembrance for this and other reasons, – urging me to continue to write on this subject, and suggesting that a formal treatise might be acceptable to the public. Thus solicited and encouraged, – Mr. Bowles kindly adding his voice to the rest, — I ventured with diffidence upon the composition of this book. It was not at all the primary purpose to prepare a text-book for the use of college students. I thought, indeed, that I might use the book with my own classes; but the general public was in my eye throughout. The supposed needs of merchants’ clerks and farmers’ sons, for example, influenced the matter and form much more than those of people intellectually further advanced. Indeed, there was, for this reason, in the first edition, a familiarity of phrase and illustration which justly elicited criticism, and which has since been gradually eliminated. While the original design, to be intelligible to all classes of readers, may doubtless have betrayed me at times into too familiar a style, it has continued, nevertheless, to control the form of every new and every altered paragraph.

That which is original in my book is perhaps rather to be sought for in the book as a whole than in the specific parts of it. The entire plan is different from that of any book published prior to 1865. I attempted a self-consistent and symmetrical development of the one idea of Value in each of the three forms in which it manifests itself. That the outline at least is complete, is confirmed by the fact that I have found no occasion since for any other chapters than the sixteen originally sketched. I dropped entirely the long-maintained distinctions between the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth. So far as I know, I was the first to drop the technical use of the term Wealth, – a term that has always proved an invincible foe to every one trying to wrestle with it scientifically: even Bastiat, athlete as he was, was floored in this encounter. I believe that new light has been thrown on the value of land, on the delicate relations between money as a medium and money as a measure, on the whole line of objections to free trade, and on the nature of property as related to every form of taxation. The historical chapters of the book cost me very great labor. In sketching the history of American tariffs, I had not before me the tracks of even a solitary pioneer. The same remark applies in the same degree to the chapter on Currency in the United States, – a subject that has since been worthily developed into a volume by my friend Professor Sumner of Yale College. In the opening chapter on the History of the Science, I was aided somewhat by the Introductory Discourse prefixed by Mr. McCulloch to his edition of Adam Smith, and also somewhat by the article “Political in the New American Cyclopedia; but all the quotations from the classical writers, as well as those from Locke, Hume, and Bastiat, were made at first hand.

Two or three editions of the present treatise had been issued before I had seen any of the books of Henry Dunning Macleod, and to the numerous points of our independent coincidence have been added, in my later editions, many points of information in matters of fact, and some distinctions in matters of science, for which I wish here to express in general my obligations to him. Mr. Macleod, in the first volume of his “Principles of Economical Philosophy.” has done me the great honor to associate my name with Condillac, Whately, Bastiat, and Chevalier, — the heads of the third great school in Political Economy. His own name is more worthy than mine, and more likely than mine, to stand permanently in that distinguished list.

The most recent writers, whom I have consulted, and to whom I feel under obligations, – and every writer who is both competent and earnest puts his readers under obligations of some sort, — are ,Governor Musgrave of South Australia, Professors Price and Jevons of England, and General Walker of New Haven; the points of the latter in respect to the so called wages-fund have led me to modify my previous views on that subject.

I can not conclude this preface without expressing my sense of indebtedness to the successive classes of intelligent young men, to whom I have presented, and with whom I have discussed, now for almost a quarter of a century, the facts and principles of this fascinating science. It seems to me as if every possible objection to the leading points in this book has been raised, at one time or another, in my own lecture-room. Sometimes I have been convicted of error in minor points, and many times been fortified in the truth, through an attempt to remove objections started thus by students. Nearly every one of the objections to free exchange answered in the chapter on Foreign Trade was broached in this way; and I deem it of the greatest advantage to any political economist, — an advantage to which Adam Smith himself was much indebted, – to have the opportunity to test views and theories over and over again in the presence of fresh and bright minds. It has not infrequently happened in my experience that new light has been thrown out upon a subject by a young man just grasping the thought for the first time.

A. L. P.

Williams College,
July 4, 1876.

Source: Arthur Latham Perry. Elements of Political Economy, 14^th edition (1877), pp. v-xi.

________________________

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D.
Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE.
Principles of Political Economy (1891)

It is now exactly twenty-five years since was published my first book upon the large topics at present in hand. It was but as a bow drawn at a venture, and was very properly entitled “Elements of Political Economy.” At that time I had been teaching for about a dozen years in this Institution the closely cognate subjects of History and Political Economy; cognate indeed, since Hermann Lotze, a distinguished German philosopher of our day, makes prominent among its only five most general phases, the “industrial” element in all human history; and since Goldwin Smith, an able English scholar, resolves the elements of human progress, and thus of universal history, into only three, namely, “the moral, the intellectual, and the productive.”

During these studious and observant years of teaching, I had slowly come to a settled conviction that I could say something of my own and something of consequence about Political Economy, especially at two points ; and these two proved in the sequel to be more radical and transforming points than was even thought of at the first. For one thing, I had satisfied myself, that the word “Wealth,” as at once a strangely indefinite and grossly misleading term, was worse than useless in the nomenclature of the Science, and would have to be utterly dislodged from it, before a scientific content and defensible form could by any possibility be given to what had long been called in all the modern languages the “Science of Wealth.” Accordingly, so far as has appeared in the long interval of time since 1865, these “Elements” were the very first attempt to undertake an orderly construction of Economics from beginning to end without once using or having occasion to use the obnoxious word. A scientific substitute for it was of course required, which, with the help of Bastiat, himself however still clinging to the technical term “Richesse,” was discerned and appropriated in the word “Value” ; a good word indeed, that can be simply and perfectly defined in a scientific sense of its own; and, what is more important still, that precisely covers in that sense all the three sorts of things which are ever bought and sold, the three only Valuables in short, namely, material Commodities, personal Services, commercial Credits. It is of course involved in this simple-looking but far-reaching change from “Wealth” to “Value,” that Economics become at once and throughout a science of Persons buying and selling, and no longer as before a science of Things howsoever manipulated for and in their market.

For another thing, before beginning to write out the first word of that book, I believed myself to have made sure, by repeated and multiform inductions, of this deepest truth in the whole Science, which was a little after embodied (I hope I may even say embalmed) in a phrase taking its proper place in the book itself, — A market for Products is products in Market. The fundamental thus tersely expressed may be formulated more at length in this way: One cannot Sell without at the same instant and in the same act Buying, nor Buy anything without simultaneously Selling something else; because in Buying one pays for what he buys, which is Selling, and in Selling one must take pay for what is sold, which is Buying. As these universal actions among men are always voluntary, there must be also an universal motive leading up to them; this motive on the part of both parties to each and every Sale can be no other than the mutual satisfaction derivable to both; the inference, accordingly, is easy and invincible, that governmental restrictions on Sales, or prohibitions of them, must lessen the satisfactions and retard the progress of mankind.

Organizing strictly all the matter of my book along these two lines of Personality and Reciprocity, notwithstanding much in it that was crude and more that was redundant and something that was ill-reasoned and unsound, the book made on account of this original mode of treatment an immediate impression upon the public, particularly upon teachers and pupils; new streaks of light could not but be cast from these new points of view, upon such topics especially as Land and Money and Foreign Trade; and nothing is likely ever to rob the author of the satisfaction, which he is willing to share with the public, of having contributed something of importance both in substance and in feature to the permanent upbuilding of that Science, which comes closer, it may be, to the homes and happiness and progress of the People, than any other science. And let it be said in passing, that there is one consideration well-fitted to stimulate and to reward each patient and competent scientific inquirer, no matter what that science may be in which he labors, namely, this: Any just generalization, made and fortified inductively, is put thereby beyond hazard of essential change for all time; for this best of reasons, that God has constructed the World and Men on everlasting lines of Order.

As successive editions of this first book were called for, and as its many defects were brought out into the light through teaching my own classes from it year after year, occasion was taken to revise it and amend it and in large parts to rewrite it again and again; until, in 1883, and for the eighteenth edition, it was recast from bottom up for wholly new plates, and a riper title was ventured upon, — “Political Economy,” — instead of the original more tentative “Elements.” Since then have been weeded out the slight typographical and other minute errors, and the book stands now in its ultimate shape.

My excellent publishers, who have always been keenly and wisely alive to my interests as an author, suggested several times after the success of the first book was reasonably assured, that a second and smaller one should be written out, with an especial eye to the needs of high schools and academies and colleges for a text-book within moderate limits, yet soundly based and covering in full outline the whole subject. This is the origin of the “Introduction to Political Economy” first published in 1877, twelve years after the other. Its success as a text-book and as a book of reading for young people has already justified, and will doubtless continue to justify in the future, the forethought of its promoters. It has found a place in many popular libraries, and in courses of prescribed reading. Twice it has been carefully corrected and somewhat enlarged, and is now in its final form. In the preface to the later editions of the ” Introduction ” may be found the following sentence, which expresses a feeling not likely to undergo any change in the time to come: — “I have long been, and am still, ambitious that these books of mine may become the horn-books of my countrymen in the study of this fascinating Science.”

Why, then, should I have undertaken of my own motion a new and third book on Political Economy, and attempted to mark the completion of the third cycle of a dozen years each of teaching it, by offering to the public the present volume? One reason is implied in the title, “Principles of Political Economy.” There are three extended historical chapters in the earlier book, occupying more than one-quarter of its entire space, which were indeed novel, which cost me wide research and very great labor, and which have also proven useful and largely illustrative of almost every phase of Economics ; but I wanted to leave behind me one book of about the same size as that, devoted exclusively to the Principles of the Science, and using History only incidentally to illustrate in passing each topic as it came under review. For a college text-book as this is designed to become, and for a book of reading and reference for technical purposes, it seems better that all the space should be taken up by purely scientific discussion and illustration. This does not mean, however, that great pains have not been taken in every part to make this book also easily intelligible, and as readable and interesting as such careful discussions can be made.

A second reason is, to provide for myself a fresh text-book to teach from. My mind has become quite too thoroughly familiarized with the other, even down to the very words, by so long a course of instructing from it, for the best results in the class-room. Accordingly, a new plan of construction has been adopted. Instead of the fourteen chapters there, there are but seven chapters here. Not a page nor a paragraph as such has been copied from either of the preceding books. Single sentences, and sometimes several of them together, when they exactly fitted the purposes of the new context, have been incorporated here and there, in what is throughout both in form and style a new book, neither an enlargement nor an abridgment nor a recasting of any other. I anticipate great pleasure in the years immediately to come from the handling with my classes, who have always been of much assistance to me from the first in studying Political Economy, a fresh book written expressly for them and for others like-circumstanced; in which every principle is drawn from the facts of every-day life by way of induction, and also stands in vital touch with such facts (past or present) by way of illustration.

The third and only other reason needful to be mentioned here is, that in recent years the legislation of my country in the matter of cheap Money and of artificial restrictions on Trade has run so directly counter to sound Economics in their very core, that I felt it a debt due to my countrymen to use once more the best and ripest results of my life-long studies, in the most cogent and persuasive way possible within strictly scientific limits, to help them see and act for themselves in the way of escape from false counsels and impoverishing statutes. Wantonly and enormously heavy lies the hand of the national Government upon the masses of the people at present. But the People are sovereign, and not their transient agents in the government; and the signs are now cheering indeed, that they have not forgotten their native word of command, nor that government is instituted for the sole benefit of the governed and governing people, nor that the greatest good of the greatest number is the true aim and guide of Legislation. I am grateful for the proofs that appear on every hand, that former labors in these directions and under these motives have proven themselves to have been both opportune and effective; and I am sanguine almost to certainty, that this reiterated effort undertaken for the sake of my fellow-citizens as a whole, will slowly bear abundant fruit also, as towards their liberty of action as individuals, and in their harmonious co-operation together as entire classes to the end of popular comforts and universal progress.

A. L. PERRY.

Williams College,
November 25, 1890.

Source: Preface to Arthur Latham Perry, Principles of Political Economy (New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons), pp. vii-xii.

Tags PerryAL

Chicago Economist Market Economists Teaching

Chicago. Laughlin’s observations on state of economics department, 1924

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-09-20

This post features a memorandum from 1924 that summarizes a conversation between the president of the University of Chicago and the first head of the department of political economy called in after retirement to help the department in covering a vacancy in its professorial ranks. Among other things we learn that Laughlin’s pension from the university was $3000/year.

Backstory 1: Shortly after being promoted to professor of economics, Harold G. Moulton left the University of Chicago in September 1922 to head the Institute of Economics established by the Carnegie Corporation in Washington, D.C. The department had trouble finding a successor, so among temporary measures it brought James Laurence Laughlin out of retirement during the academic year 1924-25 to help cover the money field. The last item transcribed below summarizes Laughlin’s observations on the state of the department ca. eight years after his retirement in 1916.

Backstory 2: L. C. Marshall’s request to resign both the Deanship of the school of Commerce and Administration [succeeded by W. H. Spencer] and school of Social Service Administration [succeeded by Edith Abbott] was accepted to take effect 31 December 1923. He agreed to continue on as Chairman of the Department of Political Economy under the condition that funds be provided for additional clerical services.

____________________

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to President Ernest D. Burton

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

June 1, 1924

My dear Mr. Burton:

The department of Political Economy sees no way of filling Mr. Moulton’s place in terms of the present situation. We turn, therefore, to temporary measures.

As one phase of the matter, will you approve of bringing Mr. Laughlin back for the Autumn Quarter, in case he is available? The 1924-25 budget contains the funds. I am at this same time asking Mr. Plimpton what would be involved as far as the relationship of stipend to retiring allowance is concerned.

A carbon of this letter is going to Mr. Tufts and Mr. Laing for their information.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:OU

____________________

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to Nathan C. Plimpton, comptroller

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

June 2, 1924

My dear Mr. Plimpton:

In case Mr. J. L. Laughlin should be engaged to give work with us this coming Autumn Quarter would his compensation for this work be in addition to his retiring allowance for that period, or would the allowance be discontinued for that period?

The department is thinking in terms of a stipend of about $2500 if his allowance continues. If it does not, probably $3000 would suffice even though this would less than $2500 plus allowance.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:OU

____________________

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to President Ernest D. Burton

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

May 29, 1924

President Ernest DeWitt Burton
The University of Chicago

My dear Mr. Burton:

This is a request to include in the Political Economy budget for the year 1924-25 the sum of $1,500.00 for clerical assistance.

In order that you may not need to consult files I give below an abstract of the situation up to the present time.

Along about January 1 you expressed a willingness to take up with the expenditures committee the provision of clerical assistance. While you were on your vacation I took the matter up through Mr. Dickerson and a sum was granted providing for clerical assistance during the remainder of this current budgetary year.
I asked Mr. Tufts to insert in the 1924-25 budget a request for $1,500.00 but he indicated the need of awaiting your return before taking action on the matter.
Sometime after your return I asked Mr. Tufts whether he wished to take the matter up with you or whether I should take it up. The reply received indicated that Mr. Plimpton was under the impression that you had some understanding on the matter.
The official copy of the budget received from Mr. Tufts a day or two ago contains no such item.

Yours very sincerely,
[signed] L C Marshall

LCM:EL

____________________

Carbon copy of letter
from President Ernest D. Burton to L. C. Marshall

June 4, 1924

My dear Mr. Marshall:

In reference to your letter of May 29 I am glad to be able to state that the budget of next year as approved by the Board of Trustees carried with it an appropriation of $1500 for clerical service for your department. The statement sent to you by Mr. Tufts was intended to cover only the salaries of the teaching staff.

I am sure the Board of Trustees would approve the recommendation of the department that Mr. Laughlin be invited to give lectures in the autumn quarter. As respects his compensation, concerning which you wrote to Mr. Plimpton, the custom has been to add a stipend for such service to the retiring allowance which is continued without interruption. Mr. Small [Department of Sociology] and Mr. Coulter [Department of Botony] are both being retained next year on this basis, each of them rendering substantially half service throughout the year. The extra compensation is, in one case, $1500, in the other $2000. May I raise the question whether either sum would not be sufficient in Mr. Laughlin’s case also? In other words, $2000 for the special service, in addition to the $3000 of his regular retiring allowance?

Very truly yours,

Mr. L.C. Marshall
The University of Chicago

EDB:HP

____________________

Memorandum of Conversation with
Professor Laughlin
—November 19, 1924

On returning to the University Mr. Laughlin is struck with two things in respect to the Department of Political Economy.

1) The introductory courses are not as well conducted as they were in 1916. Then some of the abler men of the department were giving them. Now they are largely in the hands of instructors and assistants.

2) There has been a large increase in the number of graduate students.

There are four Universities that have graduate departments in Political Economy that need to be taken into account by us.

Columbia has the largest department.

Chicago is second in size.

Harvard is falling off.

Wisconsin is falling off.

The task of meeting graduate students and overseeing their work is an arduous one. We must, however, hold our own in dealing with this class of students. It would be desirable to raise the level of undergraduate work, but not at the expense of sacrificing our graduate work.

We must hold our present staff. Marshall, Clark and Viner are the best men. Wright is a good man. Field and Millis are pretty set in their ways, but this whole staff should be retained.

(In subsequent conversation with Marshall he said Field was the best man of the whole group, but that his Harvard inhibitions made it impossible for him to bring things to pass. He is afraid of what people will say and of the tendency of things. Millis is a good man, but no longer capable of much re-adjustment.)

Mr. Laughlin urges that we must get a first class man in money. He believes that the business interests should be asked to give money for this particular purpose.

The weakness of the undergraduate department is due to the lack of good men and salaries to pay them. C & A is doing most of the undergraduate work. This is not in itself objectionable. The spirit of C & A is good.

It is very desirable to unify the Department of Economics and the School of Commerce and Administration further.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Office of the President. Harper, Judson and Burton Administration Records. Box 23, Folder 6 “Department of Political Economy, 1894-1925) Part 2”

Image Source: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03687, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags ClarkJM, Edith Abbott, Field, Laughlin, MarshallLC, Millis, Moulton, Viner

Chicago Columbia Sociology Teaching Undergraduate

Columbia. Encyclopedia article on teaching and university research in sociology. Tenney and Giddings, 1913

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-06-10

About a dozen posts ago I provided the text to a 1913 article on economics education written by E. R. A. Seligman and James Sullivan that was published in A Cyclopedia of Education, edited by Paul Monroe and published by Macmillan. Since the field of sociology was a fraternal twin of economics in many academic divisions at the time and not an uncommon field for graduate students of economics to choose as one of their fields of examination, this post provides now the text for the analogous article on sociology education published in the same 1913 “Cyclopedia”.

____________________

SOCIOLOGY.

Alvan A. Tenney, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Columbia University.

Franklin H. Giddings, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Sociology and the History of Civilization, Columbia University.

Scope of the Subject. —

Sociology is the scientific study of society. Men, and many of the lower animals, live in groups. The scientific problem is to dis cover, by means of observation, induction, and verification, quantitative expressions for the regular ways in which group life operates, i.e. what, in quantitative terms, are the consequences of the fact that “man is a political animal.” Study of this problem necessitates inquiry into the origin, composition, interrelationships and activities of groups. It includes consideration of the environmental, biological, and psychological factors which, historically, have conditioned the character of such groups as the process of evolution has produced. It requires investigation also of such differences and resemblances among groups as are of significance in explaining the control which the group exercises over the individuals composing it. For quantitative expression the statistical method must be used. The ultimate aim of such study is to create a scientific basis for the conscious control of human society, to the end that evolution may be transformed into progress both for the race and for the individual. Unfortunately the scope of the subject has not been always thus conceived by teachers who label their courses Sociology. The latter half of the nineteenth century, the pioneer period in scientific sociology, witnessed a remarkable development of interest in the problems of philanthropy and penology. Inquiries into the causes of poverty and crime stimulated inquiry into the broader field of social causation in general, and the term sociology was used loosely to cover any portion of these fields. (See Social Sciences.) The term “applied sociology” for some time was equivalent to philanthropy and penology (q.v.). Recognition of the fact, however, that a theory of sociology can be “applied” in the guidance of public policy in every department of social life has initiated a movement, in America especially, to segregate the special problems of philanthropy and penology under the term social economy. This movement has not worked itself out fully, and there are still many courses given as sociology that should be called social economy. Sociology, in the scientific sense, of necessity uses the materials of history, and the demonstration or the concrete illustration of sociological principles has led naturally to systematic treatment of the historical evolution of society. It has been customary, therefore, to include, as a legitimate part of the scientific study of society, the history of social institutions. Beyond these limits there is a more or less indefinite zone of subjects such as social ethics, civics, social legislation, or even certain special questions in political economy and philosophy that have been included under the term sociology. The popular tendency, however, to make the term cover discussion of any social question whatsoever is gradually disappearing.

The present status of sociology as a science has been a direct result of the history of the subject itself. No one has yet done for sociology what Marshall did for economics. None of the textbooks is entirely satisfactory nor has entire agreement yet been reached as to the subjects which should receive most attention in a fundamental course. Nearly all the pioneers in sociology, with the exception of the very earliest, still retain leadership both in the science itself and in university chairs. Though all such leaders agree on fundamental points, each has naturally emphasized in his teaching that phase of the subject to which he has contributed most. At the present time, however, both the leaders and the large body of younger teachers who have been trained by them are beginning to place somewhat the same relative emphasis on the various factors that have been found useful in explaining the problems of the science. Nevertheless, even now the teacher is compelled to organize his own courses to a considerable extent on the basis of his own reading and such special training as he may be fortunate enough to have had. The particular form which that organization takes in any given instance is usually dependent to a considerable degree upon the university at which the teacher has studied and upon the sources with which he has become familiar. The conditions which have made this situation inevitable can be appreciated only by understanding the history of the subject itself and thus realizing both the richness of the field and the freedom in choice of material which is open to the teacher.

History of the Subject. —

The beginning of sociology, in the study of society itself, must have commenced far earlier than historical records permit proof of the fact; for the propensity of individuals to take thought as to how a group of men may be controlled can hardly be considered a recently acquired trait. Primitive man early developed systematic methods for teaching youth the means whereby both nature and man could apparently be controlled, and the teaching of that part of primitive magic which pertained to social control must have constituted one of the first courses in sociology. Problems of warfare, leadership, and group dominion must have also led both to practical knowledge of the nature of group activity and to the transmission of that knowledge from generation to generation.

Of necessity the statesman has ever been a sociologist. Likewise the philosopher has always busied himself with the relation of man to his fellow man. When Plato wrote the Republic and Aristotle the Politics the philosophical study of the subject was well advanced. A considerable part of the education of a Grecian youth was thus definitely in the field now called sociology. Later, when the evolution of world-empires led to the study of how great bodies of heterogeneous groups might be maintained in a single organized and harmoniously working system, men began to construct theories of group action, e.g. those of sovereignty and of the contractual nature of the state. Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each added elements to the growing body of social theory and helped to render the theory of group action more precise. Finally, in the nineteenth century, when the bounds of knowledge had become world-wide, when the development of the natural sciences had demonstrated the utility of exact scientific method and when the rise of modern nations, the growth of the industrial system, the ideals of democratic government, and the theory of evolution had begun to influence men, Comte and Spencer led the way in the construction of a comprehensive theory of society, utilizing scientific method to elucidate modern problems of social evolution and of social progress. August Comte (q.v.) first used the word sociology in the Cours de Philosophie positive, and it was he who first insisted upon the use of the positive method in the development of the subject. It was Herbert Spencer, however, who in Social Statics, in the various volumes of the Synthetic Philosophy, and in The Study of Sociology attempted by wide observation to demonstrate that universal laws operate in human society. The work of many other men ought, however, to be included in a fuller statement of the important contributors to the development of scientific sociology in the latter half of the nineteenth century. To the influence of Charles Darwin and his kinsman Francis Galton, for example, must chiefly be credited that intensification of interest in the part which biological influences play in society which has resulted in the so-called eugenic school. (See Eugenics.) In the comparative study of institutions the pioneer work of Sir H. S. Maine cannot be forgotten, nor in the philological method of tracing social relationships, that of the Grimm brothers. In anthropo-geography and ethnology, moreover, there were such men as Ratzel, Robertson-Smith, McLennan, Morgan, and many others. Without the work of these men and their followers sociology must have rested upon a far more speculative foundation than is now the case.

Concerning the chief writers who have followed these leaders and who have contributed more particularly to sociological theory in the narrower sense of the term, it must suffice merely to mention names and to indicate the portion of the field in which each has done his chief work. Of such writers Durkheim has particularly emphasized division of labor as the essential factor in the explanation of society; Tarde, imitation; Le Bon, the impression of the mass on the individual; Gumplowicz, the struggle of races; Ratzenhofer, the motivating power of interests; De Greef, social contact and social contract ; Simmel, the forms of society and the process of socialization; Ward, the importance of human intelligence and inventiveness ; Sumner, the unconscious processes in the evolution of institutions; Giddings, sympathy and likemindedness as subjective causes of the origin and maintenance of groups, the tendency to type formation, and the identification of type form with that of the group; Small, the interests to which men react and the methods of the subject; Ross, social control; and Cooley, social organization.

The competent teacher of sociology to-day utilizes the work of all of these men and that of many others who have elucidated less striking phases of the subject. If, perchance, he be capable of contributing to the science, he may be aiding in the recently inaugurated effort to place the entire subject on a quantitative basis.

The Teaching of Sociology.—

The organized teaching of sociology as a university subject began long after the questions with which it deals had gained a firm hold upon the public mind. Little by little teachers of other political or social sciences which had already attained a recognized place in the educational system began to introduce sociological material into their courses and sometimes without sufficient justification to call the result sociology. Popular courses of lectures under the authority of recognized institutions of learning and dealing with almost every conceivable social question sprang up in nearly every civilized land and were called sociology. It was on this inclusive basis that in 1886 a report was made to the American Social Science Association that practically all of some hundred or more universities and colleges in the United States gave instruction in some branch of social science. A similar report could doubt less have been made for every country in Europe.

The first teaching of scientific sociology as a regular part of a college curriculum appears to have been in the United States when Professor Sumner in 1873 introduced Spencer’s Study of Sociology as a textbook at Yale. In 1880 the Trustees of Columbia College established the School of Political Science in that institution, and in it Professor Mayo-Smith received the chair of adjunct professor of political economy and social science. The first department of social science was created at Chicago University in 1894. In the same year the first chair of sociology definitely so called was created in Columbia, and was held then, as now, by Professor Giddings.

The entire decade in which these last mentioned events occurred, however, showed a marked increase of interest, by educators, in sociology. By 1895 the University of Chicago announced numerous courses in the subject and at least twenty-five other colleges and universities in the United States were teaching sociology proper. As many more had made provision for instruction in charities and correction. In Belgium the Université Nouvelle de Bruxelles, established in 1894, with the eminent sociologist Guillaume de Greef as its first Rector, was itself launched largely because of a revolt against the conservatism of other universities with respect to the social sciences. De Greef’s work is now largely supplemented by that of Professor Waxweiler and his staff of the Institut Solvay in the same city. Instruction is both in scientific sociology and social economy. In Switzerland as late as 1900 the only instruction in the subject consisted of a course by Professor Wuarin, the economist, given at Geneva, and one by Dr. Ludwig Stein, Professor of Philosophy at Bern. Italy has produced a number of sociologists of eminence, e.g.Lombroso, Ferri, Sighele, Ferrero, and Sergi, but even in 1900 not one of them was teaching in a university. In that year also there did not exist a single chair of sociology, so called, in Germany. Throughout the preceding six academic years, however, or during one or more of them, courses in sociology were given by Simmel (Berlin), Sombart (Breslau), Bernheim (Greifswald), Sherrer (Heidelberg), Tönnies (Kiel), and Barth (Leipzig). Schäffle of Stuttgart had also become known as the chief representative of the “organic” school. France, the land of the early physiocrats in economics and the home of Comte, was almost the last to organize instruction in the social sciences. During the first three quarters of the nineteenth century no other social sciences were taught in France than the strictly juridical and moral. At the beginning of the last quarter, however, a place for political economy was made in the examination for the bachelor’s degree in law. Even in 1900, according to Professor Gide, sociology was not taught anywhere in France in the form of a regular course, but three professors of philosophy and one of law were delivering free lectures on the subject, Durkheim at Bordeaux, Bouglé at Montpellier, Bertrand at Lyon, and Haurion at Toulouse. Letourneau, however, had by this time achieved a reputation in Paris. The privately supported Collège Libre des Sciences Sociales, had been found in 1892, but the courses included in its somewhat glittering program consisted of but ten lectures each, and were not well attended. Nevertheless, the most celebrated of French sociologists, Gabriel Tarde, first delivered at that institution in 1897 the lectures that subsequently appeared as his Lois Sociales. The school was later organized as the École des Hautes Études Sociales. At the Collège de France, also, certain courses in sociology were given after 1895, honoris causa.

In Austria Gumplowicz and Ratzenhofer have been the most noted names. The former taught at Graz. Russia contributed Lilienfeld and Novicow, but did not establish chairs for them. In Great Britain there was no chair or lectureship in the subject in any university prior to 1904 in spite of the fact that the Sociological Society was already in existence. The first important systematic series of lectures on sociology in the University of London was given in that year. Prior to that, however, Professor Geddes had been lecturing in Glasgow, and at the London School of Economics the sociological movement had received encouragement.

Such were the beginnings of systematic instruction in sociology. It is not practicable here to follow in detail the later development of the movement in all countries. The United States has introduced the subject in institutions of learning more rapidly than has been the case elsewhere. Nevertheless there has been advance in all countries. The present status of the subject in educational institutions in the United States is well reflected by the report of December, 1910, upon the questionnaire issued by the committee on the teaching of sociology of the American Sociological Society. The questionnaire was sent to 396 institutions, of which over 366 were known to give courses in sociology. One hundred and forty-five replies were received. One hundred and twenty-eight institutions reported one or more courses in sociology. In addition to universities and colleges, five theological and twelve normal schools answered the questionnaire. In an effort to gauge the character of subject matter chiefly emphasized in the 128 institutions the number of times various types of subject matter were specifically mentioned in the replies was tabulated and resulted in the following classification and marks: historical subject matter, 84 ; psychological, 80; practical, 56; economic, 22; descriptive and analytic, 21; biological, 16; In addition, definite reference to “sociological theory” occurred 40 times and to “social pathology” 13 times. Under the first subject was included specific mention of anthropology, ethnology, institutions, and social evolution; under the second, social psychology, association, and imitation; under the third, congestion, housing, philanthropy, criminology, and “social problems”; under the fourth, industrial and labor conditions and socialism; under the fifth, physical influences and the study of a specific social group; under the sixth, eugenics and statistical treatment of population. These figures and classes do not imply exclusive or preponderating attention to any one of the classes of subjects mentioned, but merely indicate roughly the type of sociological subject matter which is primarily emphasized in the educational institutions of the country at large. Eighty-six specific suggestions for subject matter to form a fundamental course distributed emphasis as follows historical, 28; psychological, 25; practical, 16; biological, 7; descriptive and analytic, 7; economic, 3. The same report includes a statement of texts and authorities cited in five or more replies to the questionnaire.

From the foregoing it is possible to understand clearly why sociology has not as yet made its way into the high school. The subject is already beginning to find a place in the curricula of normal schools, however, and sooner or later it will make its way in a simple form either to supplement or eventually to precede elementary courses in economics, civics, and history. Logically, a discussion of the fundamental bases of social organization should precede any of the questions that assume the existence of a particular sort of social organization, and there is, in reality, no reason at all why the essential factors that cooperate to produce the activities of social groups cannot be explained in such a way that a child may appreciate the simpler modes of their operation and thus be helped to understand later the complex relations of the social life of modern civilization.

Methods of Teaching Sociology. —

The subject matter of sociology, as is evident from the preceding review, lends itself most conveniently to the lecture method of presentation — at least when it is taught as a university subject. This is preeminently true if the historical evolution of society is to be treated in an adequate fashion. No student can be required to do the reading necessary for independent judgment upon the disputed points which often baffle the expert, nor would it be possible to discuss all phases of the subject in the brief time which the ordinary student can devote to sociology. The teacher may usually consider his work in this field fairly satisfactory if he succeeds in making clear the fact that the causes of social evolution can be subjected to scientific analysis as truly, if not as exactly, as any other phenomena whatsoever, if he is able to explain how the combination of various factors — physical environment, race, dynamic personality, economic, religious, and other cultural institutions — created the various types of society that have existed from the earliest forms of tribal organization to the modern world society, if he indicates the sources of information and their trustworthiness, and if in the presentation of these subjects he develops in the student a realization of the historical perspective from which it is necessary to view mankind’s development whenever rational criticism of public policy is required.

In the more closely analytical study of sociological theory more use can be made of existing texts. Even with these, however, the teacher must be ready to illustrate, explain, supplement, and criticize on the basis of reading inaccessible to the student or too extensive for him to master. Discussion of special problems in theory that arise from assigned readings in original sources is indispensable, however, if independent thinking is to be gained. For this purpose source books are a valuable aid. Many teachers have found it possible to stimulate intense interest and thought by setting each student the task of independently observing and interpreting for himself by the Le Play monographic method the phenomena of sociological significance in a concrete social group or community with which he himself is or may become familiar (e.g. his home town, college, or club). By collecting, through observation of such a group, data concerning situation, healthfulness, resources, economic opportunities, racial types, religious, educational, political, and other cultural traits, sex and age classes, nationality, ambitions and desire for wealth, justice and liberty, degree of self-reliance or dependence, amount of cooperation, constraint, discipline, tolerance, emotional and rational reactions, relations with other groups and other such matters, the student gains a lively appreciation of the factors which make or mar the efficiency of the group of which he is himself a member. By comparison of the results of such study in the seminar, characteristic and important differences may be made vivid and vitality given to discussion of the regular antecedents of social activities.

More general studies in demography, based on the census or other official records, and pursued in such a way as to throw light on current problems such as immigration, race questions, growth of cities, significant movements of population, mortality, birth, marriage and divorce rates, or sanitary conditions, often serve to give a concreteness to theory that could not otherwise be gained. Such work, moreover, often forms an excellent preparation for the more difficult task of analyzing the mental phases of collective activity, such as mob action and the formation of rational public opinion, or of determining the conditions under which social choice is free or controlled, conservative or radical, impulsive or deliberate, governed by tradition or based on scrutiny of evidence.

In addition to methods of this sort some teachers have even inspired their students with enthusiasm for making sociology a quantitative science by first grounding them well in statistical methods and then setting them simple though definite and concrete sociological problems that involve the use of that method. For example, it is quite within the power of any college class acquainted with such a simple text as Elderton’s Primer of Statistics to count the number of hours per week spent by each person in a group upon such recreational activities as are carried on, plot out the result, find the prevailing tendency, apply the usual statistical measures, median, mode, quartiles, etc., and gradually acquire facility in attacking more extensive data. (See Graphic Curve.) For instruction of this character the regular meeting of seminars or practicums for report by students upon their particular tasks becomes the most convenient pedagogical device to promote independent criticism and discussion. The seminar method is also useful for the discussion of special reports upon readings in the works of the more prominent sociological writers. In order that the observational method may be successfully applied it is evident that the canons of inductive method must be thoroughly understood by the student. It is also apparent that in the review of extant theory there must be appreciation of the criteria for judging the value of evidence. Above all, encouragement must be given to every inclination on the part of the student to investigate particular problems for himself. He must be made to realize, moreover, that sociologists must be as willing to undertake protracted and laborious tasks in the assembling of data as are the biologists, the psychologists, or the chemists.

The foregoing methods are applicable chiefly to the university student. In college or in high school the methods employed are naturally more useful if they arouse the student’s interest in problems that pertain to civic welfare, and if they aid him in understanding the forces that make or mar the efficiency of the particular social groups in which he is himself to play a part. For such purposes the method of studying current social problems becomes extremely useful, provided the teacher is skillful in the selection of the topics for discussion and can utilize sociological principles of interpretation. By using the ordinary facts present in every town or village, it is possible much earlier than is usually supposed to have the pupil observe significant sociological facts and become familiar with the scientific mode of interpreting them.

In addition to these simple statements of method it is, perhaps, unnecessary to remark that in the teaching of the science itself the most inspiring instructor is he who is himself able to employ successfully the usual deductive, inductive, comparative, historical, and statistical methods in the discovery of new truth.

References: —

Bagehot, W. Physics and Politics. (New York, 1887.)

Bernard, L. L. The Teaching of Sociology in the United States. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XV, p. 164. (1909-1910.)

Carver, T. N. Sociology and Social Progress. (Boston, 1905.)

Chapin, F. S. Report of the Questionnaire of the Committee on Teaching of the American Sociological Society. Publications of the Amer. Sociological Society, Vol. V. (1900.)

Clow, F. R. Sociology in Normal Schools. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XVI, p. 253. (1910- 1911.)

Cooley, C. H. Social Organization. (New York, 1909.)

Dealey, J. Q. The Teaching of Sociology. Publications of the Amer. Sociological Society, Vol. IV, p. 177. (1909.)

Ellwood, C. A. How Should Sociology be Taught as a College or University Subject? Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. XII. p. 588. (1906-1907.)

Giddings, F. H. Modern Sociology. The International Monthly, Vol. II, No. 5. (Nov., 1900.)

___________. Democracy and Empire. (New York, 1901.)

___________. Principles of Sociology. (New York, 1896.)

___________. Sociology. Columbia Univ. Series on Science, Philosophy, and Art. (New York, 1908.)

___________. Sociology as a University Subject. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. VI, p. 635. (1891.)

___________. The Province of Sociology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. I, p. 76. (1890.)

Hobhouse, L. T. Social Evolution and Political Theory. (New York, 1911.)

Howerth, I. W. The Present Condition of Sociology in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. V, Pt. I, p. 260. (1894.)

Ross, E. A. Foundations of Sociology. (New York, 1905.)

___________. Social Control. (New York, 1908.)

Semple, E. C. Influences of Geographic Environment. (New York, 1911.)

Small, A. W. General Sociology. (Chicago, 1905.)

Spencer, H. First Principles, Pt. II. (London, 1887.)

___________. Principles of Sociology. (London, 1885.)

___________. The Study of Sociology. (New York, 1884.)

Sumner, W. G. Folkways. (Boston, 1907.)

Tarde, G. Laws of Imitation. (New York, 1903.)

Tenney, A. A. Some Recent Advances in Sociology. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 3. (Sept., 1910.)

Thomas, W. I. Source Book for Social Origins. (Chicago, 1909.)

Ward L. F. Contemporary Sociology. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, Vol. VII, p. 476. (1900-1901.)

___________. Pure Sociology. (New York, 1907.)

___________. Applied Sociology. (Boston, 1906.)

___________. Sociology at the Paris Exposition of 1900. Rep. U. S. Com. Ed., 1899-1900, Vol. II, pp. 1451-1593.

For a list of textbooks, together with statistics of their use in institutions of learning, see Reportof the Committee on Teaching of the American Sociological Society in Publications of the American Sociological Society, Vol. V., p. 123. (1910.)

Source: A Cyclopedia of Education, Paul Monroe (ed.), Vol. 5. (New York: Macmillan, 1913), pp. 356-361.

Image Source: Franklin H. Giddings in University and their Sons. History, Influence and Characteristics of American Universities with Biographical Sketches and Portraits of Alumni and Recipients of Honorary Degrees. Editor-in-chief, General Joshua L. Chamberlain, LL.D. Vol. II, pp. 453-5.

Tags Giddings, Tenney

Columbia Teaching Undergraduate

Columbia. On Research Seminaries, a.k.a., graduate workshops. Seligman, 1892

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-05-26

The previous post contained a survey of the teaching of economics in Europe and the United States written by Columbia’s E.R.A. Seligman and published in an encyclopedia of education in 1911. In the short list of references there Seligman cites his paper presented in 1892 on the research seminarium, a.k.a. seminary, a.k.a. seminar, a.k.a. graduate workshop. The general points are illustrated with a paragraph about the dual mandate of an economic seminarium: (i) to teach methods of interpretation and explanation (à la history) and (ii) to teach the methods of the formulation and criticism of ideas (à la political science, philosophy or philology).

Seligman strongly argues for keeping the functions of college (undergraduate) education vs. university (graduate) education distinct from each other.

Also of some interest is the following evidence that the combative and raw tone of economists in seminars appears to have rather deep historical roots:

“Let each member bring in his report, which should be both explanatory and critical; let this report be opened to a running fire of merciless criticism from the other members present…[the student] is spurred on to do his best work by the fear of pitiless criticism and good-natured ridicule.”

Oh yes, and for collectors of ex cathedra sexist remarks, it is time to put on your safety goggles, e.g. “…when we dub every little second rate college or female seminary a university, we are degrading the title.”

______________________

THE SEMINARIUM:
ITS ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
1892

By Edwin R. A. Seligman
Professor of Political Economy and Finance, Columbia College, New York

The word seminarium has a very un-American sound. Yet like so many other plants of exotic growth it has been successfully transplanted to American soil. Not only has it become thoroughly acclimatized; but with characteristic American energy, attempts are continually being made to foster its growth in places and under conditions entirely unsuited to its development. What is the real meaning of the seminarium, what are its methods and its limitations?

The original home of the seminarium, it is well known, is to be found in the ecclesiastical schools of the middle ages. The medieval “seminaries” were, as the word implies, veritable seed-plats, institutions in which the youthful would-be religious writer and teacher was taught to unfold the seed of doctrinal disputation, of theological acumen and of pulpit eloquence. The medieval seminaries, however, like the medieval universities were called upon to perform a two-fold task. They were supposed on the one hand to impart to the students a comprehensive knowledge of particular topics, and on the other hand to teach them methods of special work. This latter part of their duties was gradually relegated to an inferior place in the institutions of the 17th and 18th centuries. In the theological seminaries of America it has until very recently played but a minor role; while the creation of general seminaries throughout the land, devoted solely to the ends of high school education, has hopelessly discredited the word. A seminary, in American parlance, has become a place where a not very high grade of secondary education can be received.

With the revival of the interest in science in Germany there came a change. By science, I do not of course mean natural science. The philosophical, the political, the philological disciplines are assuredly as purely scientific as the mathematical or physical or biological. Not so very long ago it had become the fashion to denote by “science” simply the group of natural sciences, and to speak in a rather patronizing tone of the other domains of human knowledge. This was to be ascribed in part indeed to the presumption of the advocates of these youthful disciplines: in part also to the reaction against the philosophical mysticism and transcendentalism of the times. But the main reason, as I take it, was the one that especially concerns us here. These new disciplines — the natural sciences — prospered and grew strong chiefly because they laid hold of and subserved to their ends the important feature of the old medieval seminary idea. They transformed and assimilated this feature and converted it into the principle of original research, of laboratory work. The laboratory is the seedplat of natural science. And it is to the immense and successful extension of laboratory work that we owe the marvelous development of natural science, and the frequent identification of natural science with science in general during a part of the 19th century. If the philosophical disciplines, in the larger sense of the word, were to retain anything of their pristine position, it would be absolutely necessary to quicken them into renewed life by the application of the same principle.

And thus it was that there came about, modestly enough at first, the employment of the seminarium method in Germany. In the beginning used by a few eminent teachers of philology and history, it spread rapidly, until it has become to-day the very core of university work. The seminarium is to the moral, the philosophical, the political sciences what the laboratory is to the natural sciences. It is the wheel within the wheel, the real center of the life-giving, the stimulating, the creative forces of the modern university. Without it no university instruction is complete; with it, correctly conducted, no university can fail to accomplish the main purpose of its being.

The seminarium may be defined as an assemblage of teacher with a number of selected advanced students, where methods of original research are expounded, where the creative faculty is trained and where the spirit of scientific independence is inculcated. Starting out from this definition it will be profitable to discuss in turn the nature and methods of the seminarium, its advantages, its dangers and limitations.

The seminarium is, in the first place, a peculiarly university feature, and an indispensable adjunct to true university work. The difference between the college and the university I take to be this: the college is the place where men are made; the university is the place where scholars are made. The college attempts to develop all the educational sides of a young man’s character; the university confines itself primarily to one side. The college gives him an all-round training, it teaches him to think and to express himself, it acquaints him with the general trend of human knowledge, but it at the same time lays stress on his physical development and to a certain extent on his ethical development; the college wants to turn out true men, gentlemen — men in attainments, in manners, in physique. The most successful college is the one that best combines all these various duties. As Cicero expressed it, the college is to give the education befitting the gentleman. The university on the other hand has quite different aims and purposes. With general all-round knowledge it has nothing to do; for the candidate for university degrees is expected to have already received this general groundwork of training. With physical and ethical or religious training the university has still less to do. Its students are men, not boys: men with serious objects in view, who have neither the leisure for nor the necessity of frittering away their time in athletic pursuits: men whose ethical and religious nature is presumed to have been developed so that they need no further tutelage or moral supervision from their lay preceptors. To sum it up in a word, the college is the place for general education; the university is the place for specialization. In the college students are taught to imbibe; in the university they are taught to expound. In the college the goal is culture; in the university the goal is independence.

But how can this purpose of the university be best attained? The university lectures are indeed good so far as they go: but in themselves they do not fully accomplish the desired end. The university lecture is supposed to give the special student knowledge of his special work. The university professor who is worthy of the name will afford his students what they can not find in books: otherwise there would be no need of attending lectures. He will not only keep his classes informed as to the latest progress and recent thought in the particular field, but will endeavor to expound his own views, to mould the mass of existing knowledge of the topic into a plastic whole, and to shape it by the imprint of his scholarship and his convictions. The university student goes as often to hear the professor as to attend the course. The function of the university lecturer after all is, in the main, to present in compact form the actual condition of the subject; to show the seeker for truth how far the specialization of knowledge has advanced. Specialized information, particular knowledge, — that is the watchword of the university lecture course.

But this in itself is only one-half, and in truth the lesser half, of university work. There remains the instruction in method, in original research, in critical comparison, in creative faculty. Mere knowledge of what others have done, while of supreme importance in preventing sciolism [a superficial show of learning], will in itself never make a thinker. It may give erudition, but will never give method. Were university instruction confined to university lectures, the outlook for the perpetuation and advance of science would be dark indeed.

Let us ascertain, then, the advantages of the seminarium. The advantages are two fold: the advantages to the student; the advantages to the instructor.

In the first place we must note the creation of ties of friendship between the students. In the university, as opposed to the college, the students are as a rule unacquainted with each other. There are commonly no athletic sports, no secret societies, no organizations for mutual good fellowship, to draw the students together. The university students come primarily to work, and have neither time nor inclination for these outside pursuits. They enter the lecture room as strangers, and depart as strangers. The seminarium, which collects the ablest and brightest students around one table, gives them an opportunity of gauging each other’s abilities, of familiarizing each with the other’s strong points, of laying the seeds of future collaboration in scientific or professional work. The value of such acquaintanceship can not be overestimated. Every one who has worked in a seminarium as a student will testify to the fact that he has carried with him not only pleasant memories but also the inspiration from stimulating arguments with his fellow members. The seminarium does in this respect for the better class of university students what the debating society and fraternity do for the college student.

In the second place we notice the increased familiarity with the recent literature. The average student will be content to follow his lecture and do nothing more. He desires to pass his examination, to attain his degree; and he imagines, generally correctly enough, that if he is thoroughly acquainted with his professor’s exposition, he will somehow pull through. A few students may be so interested in the topic that they will voluntarily endeavor to supplement the lectures by an exhaustive course of outside reading. But they for the most part do not know either where to turn or how to begin. The seminarium here again supplies the defect. It is a valuable practice to begin each seminarium exercise with a half hour devoted to the review of current periodical and other scientific publications. If each member e. g. is assigned the periodical literature of some one country, not only will he be required to thoroughly familiarize himself with the current work in that language, but the whole seminarium will thus have presented to it piecemeal the very latest stage of scientific inquiry. If to the review of periodical literature be added a critical review of the newest books, the members will soon find that their range is being extended and that their appetite for further work is being whetted.

In the third place, and most important we note the knowledge of methods of work.

This is the real raison d’être of the seminarium. To teach the student how to handle his material and by interpretation or discovery to make a contribution to the store of existing knowledge, that is the real purpose of the seminarium. The methods must to a certain extent differ according to the nature of the discipline. If the study be history, the method must of course consist primarily in a critical analysis and comment upon the sources, the documents. The members of the seminarium try their hand in turn at interpretation and explanation, and have their endeavors supplemented and rectified by the comments of the professor. To estimate at its true weight the value of historical material in the light of contemporary events and recent criticism is the most difficult task for the incipient historian to learn.

On the other hand if the subject is political science or philosophy or philology, the methods must be a little different. Here the training must be, not in original material, but in the formulation and criticism of ideas. Take political economy, for example. The long and bitter contest between the two factions in economics now bids fair to be settled by mutual compromise. The more tolerant and wiser economists of to-day in all countries recognize that both the historical and the comparative method on the one hand, and the deductive method on the other are not only not mutually exclusive, but complementary; and that the use of each method in turn is of the utmost value in the elucidation of different problems. In discussing such a problem as land tenure e. g. the historical and comparative method is indispensable; in discussing such a problem as the incidence of taxation the historical and comparative method is useless. Economists are becoming catholic in their methods as well as in their aims.

The economic seminarium therefore must train in both methods. The historical and comparative method must be taught by the same canons that are used in the historical seminarium. The original material is found in all manner of documents, statutes, decisions and what not. The student must be shown how to use these documents, how to separate the chaff from the wheat, how to retain the essentials, how to arrange and coordinate the facts. The economic seminarium is in this respect an historical and comparative workshop. But when we come to the other method, different tactics must be employed. Here the wiser plan is to take up a carefully defined special topic, and to spend a number of consecutive sessions in its examination. The best way to learn to think correctly is to ascertain the flaws in the thoughts of others. Let each student be assigned the works of a definite author or class of authors, so that the whole field of the literature will be parceled out to the class. Let each member bring in his report, which should be both explanatory and critical; let this report be opened to a running fire of merciless criticism from the other members present; and let the professor in summing up the day’s discussion point out wherein the advance, if any, has been made. If this discussion goes on from week to week, it may be assumed that the members will at all events have learned what pitfalls to avoid, what examples to follow. Such a training can not fail to produce its good results, if they consist in nothing more than the consciousness on the part of the students of their own shortcomings. In the seminarium the student for the first time feels himself a man; he occupies the place of the preceptor, he makes his own independent and constructive exposition; but he is spurred on to do his best work by the fear of pitiless criticism and good-natured ridicule. Each successive effort, we may be sure, will be better than the last; and if, after two or three years of such training, the student has not learned how to work, the fault lies not with the seminarium but with himself.

But not only does the student derive these advantages from the seminarium. The professor is apt to be equally benefited. In the first place the professor learns to unbend himself. In the lecture room he is the sole arbiter, the oracle. He lays down the law, as he comprehends it. In the seminarium he is not the preceptor but the coworker. He puts himself down to the plane of his students. He criticises them, but must in turn expect to be criticised by them; and the more open and fearless the criticism the better for both. The professor is here the friend, the equal. He leads the discussion, to be sure; but if there are keen, able, bright students present, he may often learn instead of teach. I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that every successful seminarium conductor has frequently received new ideas, novel suggestions, and helpful stimulus for his own particular work. It is this feeling of equality, of meeting on a common fighting ground that constitutes one of the most precious features of the seminarium. The professor, moreover, is brought into personal and friendly contact with the students — an utter impossibility in the lecture room. And while on the one hand the student must prize highly the opportunity of intimate converse with the professor, the professor on the other hand is enabled to gauge the merits of each, to give to each the needed word of counsel and to form a more definite opinion as a guide in passing on the candidate’s examination and in recommending him for future positions. Finally, the professor will make use of the seminarium in advancing his own particular work. His advanced students may be put on the details of the topic in which he is interested; they may be made to do the dirty work, so to speak, of original investigation. Their results can not, indeed, be implicitly relied on, but they will discover a fact here or a new idea there which, when carefully scrutinized, may be welded together into a composite whole. Every successful teacher will use his seminarium as a work shop. The handiwork of some may be defective but he will generally find something that can be turned to good use. A real seminarium will, in short, be scarcely less valuable to the professor than to the student.

While the advantages of the seminarium are thus plain, its risks and limitations are perhaps in some danger of being overlooked; and this danger is stronger in America than anywhere else.

We energetic Americans, when we get a good thing, are apt to overdo it. College athletics is a good thing; but when professionalism is introduced and educational interests are subordinated to athletic pursuits, it becomes a bad thing. A university is an honored institution; but when we dub every little second rate college or female seminary a university, we are degrading the title. Higher degrees are in themselves a mark of distinction; but when our minor institutions multiply these high degrees and grant them for absurdly inadequate work, all degrees tend to lose their value and significance. So in the same way with the seminarium. The seminarium is a strictly university method. When an attempt is made to introduce these methods into the college, the academy and the high school, not only is it an abuse which will be utterly useless or worse than useless for the student, but one which will tend to cast discredit on the idea itself. The project of extending the benefits of the seminarium to other than university students is a well meaning, but utterly mistaken notion.

The reason is obvious: the seminarium is an adjunct to specialization; but specialization, as we have already indicated, is the work of the university, not of the college or high school. The great danger with higher education in America is that university ideas may be pushed down to manifestly unfit places. Even in the college, the elective system is a good thing only if its operation be carefully restricted. An absolutely free election which would enable a young man to spend all his time in college on a single topic involves a radical confusion of ideas. It would not be a college education, because it would not be a general education, the education befitting a gentleman. It would not be a university education, because the student is not old enough to profit by the university methods. Absolutely free election in the sense indicated, would ruin the college and would also ruin the university; for when university professors are compelled to expound their ideas to immature boys, they are inevitably compelled to degrade their work to the level of their students. The real university course presupposes a certain general foundation; and if this foundation is lacking, the course loses half of its usefulness.

But if specialization is unfit work for the college and high school, to a still greater extent is the seminarium absolutely unsuitable for the college and high school. The seminarium connotes original research; college students have neither the maturity nor the training which are necessary prerequisites to independent thinking. The seminarium implies a certain equality between student and preceptor; the college boy is a manifestly absurd equal for his professor. The seminarium imports the use of the cooperative method; but how can students whose linguistic and literary equipment is necessarily of the slightest successfully employ the arts of comparison and criticism. The seminarium involves the employment of the most advanced pedagogical methods; but advanced methods can be used only with advanced students.

To attempt to employ university methods with immature youths would be even worse than to endanger the cause of university education by pushing it down into the college. The seminarium in the college would be useless and worse than useless. It would be useless because minds in a formative state can not create. That which is itself being created can not produce. Any attempt to construct something new would simply result in a parrot-like repetition of the old.

But the seminarium in the college would be worse than useless; it would be positively deleterious. It would injure the student, because it would lead him to understand that he is doing original work, when he is only rehashing the work of others. It would foster habits of superficiality and of vainglory. To use an agronomic term, it would lead to extensive, not to intensive, culture. A diet of meat is a very excellent thing; but during certain years of our existence we are fed not on meat but on milk. The attempt prematurely to substitute solids for liquids is as perilous in the intellectual, as in the physical, development. The seminarium, moreover, would react on the morale, not only of the student, but also of the teacher. No self-respecting teacher who comprehends what a seminarium means could continue to employ these methods with immature boys without becoming conscious that he is untrue to his mission. He pretends to be doing what he knows can not be done. He is dissipating his energies without accomplishing any positive result, except that of more or less conscious deception. And finally the seminarium in the college and high school is worse than useless, because it would tend to discredit the whole institution. The public would be led to believe that the high school seminarium was the genuine article; and the force of public opinion might in the long run degrade the university seminarium to the plane of its educational congener [person, organism, or thing resembling another in nature or action]. The tendency of unbridled democracy in education, as in politics, is not to pull the average up to the level of the best; but to pull the best down to the level of the average.

Let us strive, therefore, to live up to the ideal. Let us set our standard high and cling to it unflinchingly. If the seminarium is such a potent engine for good, let us develop its possibilities and give free scope to its opportunities. But let us beware of attempting to use it where it ought not to be used: let us beware of emasculating its energy and degrading its position. Let us beware of the misguided zeal which destroys what it endeavors to upbuild. Let us render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and let us recognize the danger of applying university methods to non-university conditions.

Source: Printed paper distributed at the 30^thUniversity Convocation of the State of New York, July 5-7, 1892 for discussion Wednesday, July 6.

Image Source: See “Medieval Universities“, The History of Economic Thought Website of Gonçalo L. Fonseca.

Tags Seligman

Cambridge Chicago Columbia Economists Germany Harvard History of Economics Johns Hopkins LSE Oxford Teaching Undergraduate Wisconsin Yale

Survey of Economics Education. Colleges and Universities (Seligman), Schools (Sullivan), 1911

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-05-24

In V. Orval Watt’s papers at the Hoover Institution archives (Box 8) one finds notes from his Harvard graduate economics courses (early 1920s). There I found the bibliographic reference to the article transcribed below. The first two parts of this encyclopedia entry were written by Columbia’s E.R.A. Seligman who briefly sketched the history of economics and then presented a survey of the development of economics education at colleges and universities in Europe and the United States. Appended to Seligman’s contribution was a much shorter discussion of economics education in the high schools of the United States by the high-school principal, James Sullivan, Ph.D.

_________________________

ECONOMICS
— History —

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

The science now known as Economics was for a long time called Political Economy. This term is due to a Frenchman — Montchrétien, Sieur de Watteville — who wrote in 1615 a book with that title, employing a term which had been used in a slightly different sense by Aristotle. During the Middle Ages economic questions were regarded very largely from the moral and theological point of view, so that the discussions of the day were directed rather to a consideration of what ought to be, than of what is.

The revolution of prices in the sixteenth century and the growth of capital led to great economic changes, which brought into the foreground, as of fundamental importance, questions of commerce and industry. Above all, the breakdown of the feudal system and the formation of national states emphasized the considerations of national wealth and laid stress on the possibility of governmental action in furthering national interests. This led to a discussion of economic problems on a somewhat broader scale, — a discussion now carried on, not by theologians and canonists, but by practical business men and by philosophers interested in the newer political and social questions. The emphasis laid upon the action of the State also explains the name Political Economy. Most of the discussions, however, turned on the analysis of particular problems, and what was slowly built up was a body of practical precepts rather than of theoretic principles, although, of course, both the rules of action and the legislation which embodied them rested at bottom on theories which were not yet adequately formulated.

The origin of the modern science of economics, which may be traced back to the third quarter of the eighteenth century, is due to three fundamental causes. In the first place, the development of capitalistic enterprise and the differentiation between the laborer and the capitalist brought into prominence the various shares in distribution, notably the wages of the laborer, the profits of the capitalist, and the rent of the landowner. The attempt to analyze the meaning of these different shares and their relation to national wealth was the chief concern of the body of thinkers in France known as Physiocrats, who also called themselves Philosophes-Économistes, or simply Économistes, of whom the court physician of Louis XVI, Quesnay, was the head, and who published their books in 1757-1780.

The second step in the evolution of economic science was taken by Adam Smith (q.v.). In the chair of philosophy at the University of Glasgow, to which Adam Smith was appointed in 1754, and in which he succeeded Hutcheson, it was customary to lecture on natural law in some of its applications to politics. Gradually, with the emergence of the more important economic problems, the same attempt to find an underlying natural explanation for existing phenomena was extended to the sphere of industry and trade; and during the early sixties Adam Smith discussed these problems before his classes under the head of “police.” Finally, after a sojourn in France and an acquaintance with the French ideas, Adam Smith developed his general doctrines in his immortal work. The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. When the industrial revolution, which was just beginning as Adam Smith wrote, had made its influence felt in the early decades of the nineteenth century, Ricardo attempted to give the first thorough analysis of our modern factory system of industrial life, and this completed the framework of the structure of economic science which is now being gradually filled out.

The third element in the formation of modern economics was the need of elaborating an administrative system in managing the government property of the smaller German and Italian rulers, toward the end of the eighteenth century. This was the period of the so-called police state when the government conducted many enterprises which are now left in private hands. In some of the German principalities, for instance, the management of the government lands, mines, industries, etc., was assigned to groups of officials known as chambers. In their endeavor to elaborate proper methods of administration these chamber officials and their advisors gradually worked out a system of principles to explain the administrative rules. The books written, as well as the teaching chairs founded, to expound these principles came under the designation of the Chamber sciences (Camiralia or Cameral-Wissenschaften) — a term still employed to-day at the University of Heidelberg. As Adam Smith’s work became known in Germany and Italy by translations, the chamber sciences gradually merged into the science of political economy.

Finally, with the development of the last few decades, which has relegated to the background the administrative and political side of the discipline, and has brought forward the purely scientific character of the subject, the term Political Economy has gradually given way to Economics.

Development of Economic Teaching

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

— Europe —

As has been intimated in the preceding section, the first attempts to teach what we to-day would call economics were found in the European universities which taught natural law, and in some of the Continental countries where the chamber sciences were pursued. The first independent chairs of political economy were those of Naples in 1753, of which the first incumbent was (Genovesi, and the professorship of cameral science at Vienna in 1763, of which the first incumbent was Sonnenfels. It was not, however, until the nineteenth century that political economy was generally introduced as a university discipline. When the new University of Berlin was created in 1810, provision was made for teaching in economics, and this gradually spread to the other German universities. In France a chair of economics was established in 1830 in the Collège de France, and later on in some of the technical schools; but economics did not become a part of the regular university curriculum until the close of the seventies, when chairs of political economy were created in the faculties of law, and not, as was customary in the other Continental countries, in the faculties of philosophy. In England the first professorship of political economy was that instituted in 1805 at Haileybury College, which trained the students for the East India service. The first incumbent of this chair was Malthus. At University College, London, a chair of economics was established in 1828, with McCulloch as the first incumbent; and at Dublin a chair was founded in Trinity College in 1832 by Archbishop Whately; at Oxford a professorship was established in 1825, with Nassau W. Senior as the first incumbent. His successors were Richard Whately (1830), W. F. Lloyd (1836), H. Merivale (1838), Travers Twiss (1842), Senior (1847), G. K. Richards (1852), Charles Neate (1857), Thorold Rogers (1862), Bonamy Price (1868), Thorold Rogers (1888). and F. Y. Edgeworth (1891). At Cambridge the professorship dates from 1863, the first incumbent being Henry Fawcett, who was followed by Alfred Marshall in 1884 and by A. C. Pigou in 1908. In all these places, however, comparatively little attention was paid at first to the teaching of economics, and it was not until the close of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth that any marked progress was made, although the professorship at King’s College, London, dates back to 1859, and that at the University of Edinburgh to 1871. Toward the close of the nineteenth century, chairs in economics were created in the provincial universities, especially at Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol, Durham, and the like, as well as in Scotland and Wales; and a great impetus to the teaching of economics was given by the foundation, in 1895, of the London School of Economics, which has recently been made a part of the University of London.

— United States —

Economics was taught at first in the United States, as in England, by incumbents of the chair of philosophy; but no especial attention was paid to the study, and no differentiation of the subject matter was made. The first professorship in the title of which the subject is distinctively mentioned was that instituted at Columbia College, New York, where John McVickar, who had previously lectured on the subject under the head of philosophy, was made professor of moral philosophy and political economy in 1819. In order to commemorate this fact, Columbia University established some years ago the McVickar professorship of political economy. The second professorship in the United States was instituted at South Carolina College, Columbia, S. C, where Thomas Cooper, professor of chemistry, had the subject of political economy added to the title of his chair in 1826. A professorship of similar sectional influence was that in political economy, history, and metaphysics filled in the College of William and Mary in 1827, by Thomas Roderick Dew (1802-1846). The separate professorships of political economy, however, did not come until after the Civil War. Harvard established a professorship of political economy in 1871; Yale in 1872; and Johns Hopkins in 1876.

The real development of economic teaching on a large scale began at the close of the seventies and during the early eighties. The newer problems bequeathed to the country by the Civil War were primarily economic in character. The rapid growth of industrial capitalism brought to the front a multitude of questions, whereas before the war well-nigh the only economic problems had been those of free trade and of banking, which were treated primarily from the point of view of partisan politics. The newer problems that confronted the country led to the exodus of a number of young men to Germany, and with their return at the end of the seventies and beginning of the eighties, chairs were rapidly multiplied in all the larger universities. Among these younger men were Patten and James, who went to the University of Pennsylvania; Clark, of Amherst and later of Columbia; Farnam and Hadley of Yale; Taussig of Harvard; H. C. Adams of Michigan; Mayo-Smith and Seligman of Columbia; and Ely of Johns Hopkins. The teaching of economics on a university basis at Johns Hopkins under General Francis A. Walker helped to create a group of younger scholars who soon filled the chairs of economics throughout the country. In 1879 the School of Political Science at Columbia was inaugurated on a university basis, and did its share in training the future teachers of the country. Gradually the teaching force was increased in all the larger universities, and chairs were started in the colleges throughout the length and breadth of the land.

At the present time, most of the several hundred colleges in the United States offer instruction in the subject, and each of the larger institutions has a staff of instructors devoted to it. At institutions like Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, and Wisconsin there are from six to ten professors of economics and social science, together with a corps of lecturers, instructors, and tutors.

Teaching of Economics in the American Universities. — The present-day problems of the teaching of economics in higher institutions of learning are seriously affected by the transition stage through which these institutions are passing. In the old American college, when economics was introduced it was taught as a part of the curriculum designed to instill general culture. As the graduate courses were added, the more distinctly professional and technical phases of the subject were naturally emphasized. As a consequence, both the content of the course and the method employed tended to differentiate. But the unequal development of our various institutions has brought great unclearness into the whole pedagogical problem. Even the nomenclature is uncertain. In one sense graduate courses may be opposed to undergraduate courses; and if the undergraduate courses are called the college courses, then the graduate courses should be called the university courses. The term “university,” however, is coming more and more, in America at least, to be applied to the entire complex of the institutional activities, and the college proper or undergraduate department is considered a part of the university. Furthermore, if by university courses as opposed to college courses we mean advanced, professional, or technical courses, a difficulty arises from the fact that the latter year or years of the college course are tending to become advanced or professional in character. Some institutions have introduced the combined course, that is, a combination of so-called college and professional courses; other institutions permit students to secure their baccalaureate degree at the end of three or even two and a half years. In both cases, the last year of the college will then cover advanced work, although in the one case it may be called undergraduate, and in the other graduate, work.

The confusion consequent upon this unequal development has had a deleterious influence on the teaching of economics, as it has in many other subjects. In all our institutions we find a preliminary or beginners’ course in economics, and in our largest institutions we find some courses reserved expressly for advanced or graduate students. In between these, however, there is a broad field, which, in some institutions, is cultivated primarily from the point of view of graduates, in others from the point of view of undergraduates, and in most cases is declared to be open to both graduates and undergraduates. This is manifestly unfortunate. For, if the courses, are treated according to advanced or graduate methods, they do not fulfill their proper function as college studies. On the other hand, if they are treated as undergraduate courses, they are more or less unsuitable for advanced or graduate students. In almost all of the American institutions the same professors conduct both kinds of courses. In only one institution, namely, at Columbia University, is the distinction between graduate and undergraduate courses in economics at all clearly drawn, although even there not with precision. At Columbia University, of the ten professors who are conducting courses in economics and social science, one half have seats only in the graduate faculties, and do no work at all in the college or undergraduate department; but even there, these professors give a few courses, which, while frequented to an overwhelming extent by graduate students, are open to such undergraduates as may be declared to be advanced students.

It is necessary, therefore, to distinguish, in principle at least, between the undergraduate or college courses properly so-called, and the university or graduate courses. For it is everywhere conceded that at the extremes, at least, different pedagogical methods are appropriate.

The College or Undergraduate Instruction. — Almost everywhere in the American colleges there is a general or preliminary or foundation course in economics. This ordinarily occupies three hours a week for the entire year, or five hours a week for the semester, or half year, although the three-hour course in the fundamental principles occasionally continues only for a semester. The foundation of such a course is everywhere textbook work, with oral discussion, or quizzes, and frequent tests. Where the number of students is small, this method can be effectively employed; but where, as in our larger institutions, the students attending this preliminary course are numbered by the hundreds, the difficulties multiply. Various methods are employed to solve these difficulties. In some cases the class attends as a whole at a lecture which is given once a week by the professor, while at the other two weekly sessions the class is divided into small sections of from twenty to thirty, each of them in charge of an instructor who carries on the drill work. In a few instances, these sections are conducted in part by the same professor who gives the lecture, in part by other professors of equal grade. In other cases where this forms too great a drain upon the strength of the faculty, the sections are put in the hands of younger instructors or drill masters. In other cases, again, the whole class meets for lecture purposes twice a week, and the sections meet for quiz work only once a week. Finally, the instruction is sometime carried on entirely by lectures to the whole class, supplemented by numerous written tests.

While it cannot be said that any fixed method has yet been determined, there is a growing consensus of opinion that the best results can be reached by the combination of one general lecture and two quiz hours in sections. The object of the general lecture is to present a point of view from which the problems may be taken up, and to awaken a general interest in the subject among the students. The object of the section work is to drill the students thoroughly in the principles of the science; and for this purpose it is important in a subject like economics to put the sections as far as possible in the hands of skilled instructors rather than of recent graduates.

Where additional courses are offered to the Undergraduates, they deal with special subjects in the domain of economic history, statistics, and practical economics. In many such courses good textbooks are now available, and especially in the last class of subject is an attempt is being made here and there to introduce the case system as utilized in the law schools. This method is, however, attended by some difficulties, arising from the fact that the materials used so quickly become antiquated and do not have the compelling force of precedent, as is the case in law. In the ordinary college course, therefore, chief reliance must still be put upon the independent work and the fresh illustrations that are brought to the classroom by the instructor.

In some American colleges the mistake has been made of introducing into the college curriculum methods that are suitable only to the university. Prominent among these are the exclusive use of the lecture system, and the employment of the so-called seminar. This, however, only tends to confusion. On the other hand, in some of the larger colleges the classroom work is advantageously supplemented by discussions and debates in the economics club, and by practical exercises in dealing with the current economic problems as they are presented in the daily press.

In most institutions the study of economics is not begun until the sophomore or the junior year, it being deemed desirable to have a certain maturity of judgment and a certain preparation in history and logic. In some instances, however, the study of economics is undertaken at the very beginning of the college course, with the resulting difficulty of inadequately distinguishing between graduate and undergraduate work.

Another pedagogical question which has given rise to some difficulty is the sequence of courses. Since the historical method in economics became prominent, it is everywhere recognized that some training in the historical development of economic institutions is necessary to a comprehension of existing facts. We can know what is very much better by grasping what has been and how it has come to be. The point of difference, however, is as to whether the elementary course in the principles should come first and be supplemented by a course in economic history, or whether, on the contrary, the course in economic history should precede that in the principles. Some institutions follow one method, others the second; and there are good arguments on both sides. It is the belief of the writer, founded on a long experience, that on the whole the best results can be reached by giving as introductory to the study of economic principles a short survey of the leading points of economic history. In a few of the modem textbooks this plan is intentionally followed. Taking it all in all, it may be said that college instruction in economics is now not only exceedingly widespread in the United States, but continually improving in character and methods.

University or Graduate Instruction. — The university courses in economics are designed primarily for those who either wish to prepare themselves for the teaching of economics or who desire such technical training in methods or such an intimate acquaintance with the more developed matter as is usually required by advanced or professional students in any discipline. The university courses in the larger American institutions which now take up every important subject in the discipline, and which are conducted by a corps of professors, comprise three elements: first, the lectures of the professor; second, the seminar or periodical meeting between the professor and a group of advanced students; third, the economics club, or meeting of the students without the professor.

(1) The Lectures: In the university lectures the method is different from that in the college courses. The object is not to discipline the student, but to give him an opportunity of coming into contact with the leaders of thought and with the latest results of scientific advance on the subject. Thus no roll of attendance is called, and no quizzes are enforced and no periodical tests of scholarship are expected. In the case of candidates for the Ph.D. degree, for instance, there is usually no examination until the final oral examination, when the student is expected to display a proper acquaintance with the whole subject. The lectures, moreover, do not attempt to present the subject in a dogmatic way, as is more or less necessary in the college courses, but, on the contrary, are designed to present primarily the unsettled problems and to stimulate the students to independent thinking. The university lecture, in short, is expected to give to the student what cannot be found in the books on the subject.

(2) The Seminar: Even with the best of will, however, the necessary limitations prevent the lecturer from going into the minute details of the subject. In order to provide opportunity for this, as well as for a systematic training of the advanced students in the method of attacking this problem, periodical meetings between the professor and the students have now become customary under the name of the seminar, introduced from Germany. In most of our advanced universities the seminar is restricted to those students who are candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, although in some cases a preliminary seminar is arranged for graduate students who are candidates for the degree of Master of Arts. Almost everywhere a reading knowledge of French and German is required. In the United States, as on the European continent generally, there are minor variations in the conduct of the seminar. Some professors restrict the attendance to a small group of most advanced students, of from fifteen to twenty-five; others virtually take in all those who apply. Manifestly the personal contact and the “give and take,” which are so important a feature of the seminar, become more difficult as the numbers increase. Again, in some institutions each professor has a seminar of his own; but this is possible only where the number of graduate students is large. In other cases the seminar consists of the students meeting with a whole group of professors. While this has a certain advantage of its own, it labors under the serious difficulty that the individual professor is not able to impress his own ideas and his own personality so effectively on the students; and in our modern universities students are coming more and more to attend the institution for the sake of some one man with whom they wish to study. Finally, the method of conducting the seminar differs in that in some cases only one general subject is assigned to the members for the whole term, each session being taken up by discussion of a different phase of the general subject. In other cases a new subject is taken up at every meeting of the seminar. The advantage of the latter method is to permit a greater range of topics, and to enable each student to report on the topic in which he is especially interested, and which, perhaps, he may be taking up for his doctor’s dissertation. The advantage of the former method is that it enables the seminar to enter into the more minute details of the general subject, and thus to emphasize with more precision the methods of work. The best plan would seem to be to devote half the year to the former method, and half the year to the latter method.

In certain branches of the subject, as, for instance, statistics, the seminar becomes a laboratory exercise. In the largest universities the statistical laboratory is equipped with all manner of mechanical devices, and the practical exercises take up a considerable part of the time. The statistical laboratories are especially designed to train the advanced student in the methods of handling statistical material.

(3) The Economics Club: The lecture work and the seminar are now frequently supplemented by the economics club, a more informal meeting of the advanced students, where they are free from the constraint that is necessarily present in the seminar, and where they have a chance to debate, perhaps more unreservedly, some of the topics taken up in the lectures and in the seminar, and especially the points where some of the students dissent from the lecturer. Reports on the latest periodical literature are sometimes made in the seminar and sometimes in the economics club; and the club also provides an opportunity for inviting distinguished outsiders in the various subjects. In one way or another, the economics club serves as a useful supplement to the lectures and the seminar, and is now found in almost all the leading universities.

In reviewing the whole subject we may say that the teaching of economics in American institutions has never been in so satisfactory condition as at present. Both the instructors and the students are everywhere increasing in numbers; and the growing recognition of the fact that law and politics are so closely interrelated with, and so largely based on, economics, has led to a remarkable increase in the interest taken in the subject and in the facilities for instruction.

Economics
— In the Schools —

James Sullivan, Ph.D., Principal of Boys’ High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.

This subject has been defined as the study of that which pertains to the satisfaction of man’s material needs, — the production, preservation, and distribution of wealth. As such it would seem fundamental that the study of economics should find a place in those institutions which prepare children to become citizens, — the elementary and high schools. Some of the truths of economics are so simple that even the youngest of school children may be taught to understand them. As a school study, however, economics up to the present time has made far less headway than civics (q.v.). Its introduction as a study even in the colleges was so gradual and so retarded that it could scarcely be expected that educators would favor its introduction in the high schools.

Previous to the appearance, in 1894, of the Report of the Committee of Ten of the National Educational Association on Secondary Education, there had been much discussion on the educational value of the study of economics. In that year Professor Patten had written a paper on Economics in Elementary Schools, not as a plea for its study there, but as an attempt to show how the ethical value of the subject could be made use of by teachers. The Report, however, came out emphatically against formal instruction in political economy in the secondary school, and recommended “that, in connection particularly with United States history, civil government, and commercial geography instruction be given in those economic topics, a knowledge of which is essential to the understanding of our economic life and development” (pp. 181-183). This view met with the disapproval of many teachers. In 1895 President Thwing of Western Reserve University, in an address before the National Educational Association on The Teaching of Political Economy in the Secondary Schools, maintained that the subject could easily be made intelligible to the young. Articles or addresses of similar import followed by Commons (1895), James (1897), Haynes (1897), Stewart (1898), and Taussig (1899). Occasionally a voice was raised against its formal study in the high schools. In the School Review for January, 1898, Professor Dixon of Dartmouth said that its teaching in the secondary schools was “unsatisfactory and unwise.” On the other hand, Professor Stewart of the Central Manual Training School of Philadelphia, in an address in April, 1898, declared the Report of the Committee of Ten “decidedly reactionary,” and prophesied that political economy as a study would he put to the front in the high school. In 1899 Professor Clow of the Oshkosh State Normal School published an exhaustive study of the subject of Economics as a School Study, going into the questions of its educational value, its place in the schools, the forms of the study, and the methods of teaching. His researches serve to show that the subject was more commonly taught in the high schools of the Middle West than in the East. (Compare with the article on Civics.)

Since the publication of his work the subject of economics has gradually made its appearance in the curricula of many Eastern high schools. It has been made an elective subject of examination for graduation from high schools by the Regents of New York State, and for admission to college by Harvard University. Its position as an elective study, however, has not led many students to take it except in commercial high schools, because in general it may not be used for admission to the colleges.

Its great educational value, its close touch with the pupils’ everyday life, and the possibility of teaching it to pupils of high school age are now generally recognized. A series of articles in the National Educational Association’s Proceedings for 1901, by Spiers, Gunton, Halleck, and Vincent bear witness to this. The October, 1910, meeting of the New England History Teachers’ Association was entirely devoted to a discussion of the Teaching of Economics in Secondary Schools, and Professors Taussig and Haynes reiterated views already expressed. Representatives of the recently developed commercial and trade schools expressed themselves in its favor.

Suitable textbooks in the subject for secondary schools have not kept pace with its spread in the schools. Laughlin, Macvane, and Walker published books somewhat simply expressed; but later texts have been too collegiate in character. There is still needed a text written with the secondary school student constantly in mind, and preferably by an author who has been dealing with students of secondary school age. The methods of teaching, mutatis mutandis, have been much the same as those pursued in civics (q.v.). The mere cramming of the text found in the poorest schools gives way in the best schools to a study and observation of actual conditions in the world of to-day. In the latter schools the teacher has been well trained in the subject, whereas in the former it is given over only too frequently to teachers who know little more about it than that which is in the text.

References: —

In Colleges and Universities: —

A Symposium on the Teaching of Elementary Economics. Jour. of Pol. Econ., Vol. XVIIl, June, 1910.

Cossa, L. Introduction to the Study of Political Economy: tr. by L. Dyer. (London, 1893.)

Mussey, H. R. Economies in the College Course. Educ. Rev. Vol. XL, 1910, pp. 239-249.

Second Conference on the Teaching of Economics, Proceedings. (Chicago, 1911.)

Seligman, E. R. A. The Seminarium — Its Advantages and Limitations. Convocation of the University of the State of New York, Proceedings. (1892.)

In Schools: —

Clow, F. R. Economics as a School Study, in the Economic Studies of the American Economic Association for 1899. An excellent bibliography is given. It may be supplemented by articles or addresses since 1899 which have been mentioned above. (New York, 1899.)

Haynes, John. Economics in Secondary Schools. Education, February, 1897.

Source: Paul Monroe (ed.), A Cyclopedia of Education, Vol. II. New York: Macmillan, pp. 387-392.

Source: E.R.A. Seligman in Universities and their Sons, Vol. 2 (1899), pp. 484-6.

Tags AdamsHC, ClarkJB, CooperT, Dew, Ely, Farnam, Hadley, JameEJ, Mayo-Smith, McVickar, Patten, Seligman, Taussig, WalkerFrancis

M.I.T. Teaching

M.I.T. Student survey regarding Domar’s core macro theory course, 1960

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-05-17

The previous post provided the course syllabus and reading list for the core graduate macroeconomics course taught at M.I.T. by Evsey Domar during the first term of the 1960-61 academic year. He took the job seriously enough to try surveying his students to gauge his pedagogic success. I post a transcription of the mimeographed survey questions that were distributed to the students and have inserted totals from a handwritten summary of results. The strongest signals to come out of this exercise were (i) that mixing graduate economics with graduate business students is probably unwise and (ii) that a heavy dose of national income and product accounting is bitter medicine to new graduate students.

An earlier post presents the results of a survey of Domar’s course for several later cohorts (1967-69).

______________________

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE THEORY OF NATIONAL INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT (14.451)
E. D. Domar
Fall term 1960-61

Because the course is given to students of widely different backgrounds I am not sure whether it is taught on the proper level and in the proper manner. The size of the class precludes personal interviews on the subject. You can do a great service to future students and to myself by filling out this questionnaire in the most thoughtful and honest manner.

Do not write your name, but give the following information:
1. Your major (such as Course XIV, XV, etc.)
2. Concentration within your major, if you know it.
3. Year of graduate work
4. Was your undergraduate training in the U.S. or Canada? (Yes or No)
The general level of the course was (check one):

	too elementary	about right	too advanced
The course	XIV: 1 XV: 0	XIV: 17 XV: 7	XIV: 0 XV: 1
I. National Income and Related Items	XIV: 4 XV: 1	XIV: 19 XV: 12	XIV: 1 XV: 1
II. General Aggregative System	XIV: 4 XV: 0	XIV: 17 XV: 9	XIV: 1 XV: 5
III. Theory of Interest	XIV: 4 XV: 0	XIV: 17 XV: 9	XIV: 1 XV: 4
IV. Consumption Function	XIV: 2 XV: 0	XIV: 20 XV: 10	XIV: 0 XV: 4
V. Multiplier and Accelerator	XIV: 3 XV: 0	XIV: 16 XV: 8	XIV: 3 XV: 6
VI. Investment Decisions	XIV: 3 XV: 0	XIV: 17 XV: 12	XIV: 2 XV: 2
VII. Price Flexibility	XIV: 1 XV: 0	XIV: 16 XV: 8	XIV: 0 XV: 2
[column totals]	XIV: 22 XV: 1	XIV: 139 XV: 75	XIV: 8 XV: 25

Mathematics was used in the course (encircle one) not enough [XIV, 6; XV, 3], about right [XIV, 15; XV, 8], too much [XIV, 3; XV, 3].Specific examples, if any.[For course XIV the course is a bit too elementary (totals, 22:8). For course XV the course is too advanced (totals, 1:25). For all students, it is about right.
Math should be used somewhat more.
The scope is a bit too broad.
So, the course should be made tighter, more advanced, and a bit more mathematical, particularly without course XV students.]
The scope of the course was (encircle one) too narrow [XIV, 0; XV, 0], about right [XIV, 13; XV, 10], too broad [XIV, 3; XV, 3].Topics to be added are:
Topics to be given greater attention are:
Topics to be condensed are:
Topics to be eliminated are:
Other suggestions regarding the scope of the course

	Expand	Condense	Eliminate
I. National Income and Related Items	XIV: 1 XV: 1	XIV: 13 XV: 3	XIV: 1 XV: 0
II. General Aggregative System	XIV: 8 XV: 5	XIV: 0 XV: 0	XIV: 0 XV: 0
III. Theory of Interest	XIV: 10 XV: 1	XIV: 3 XV: 0	XIV: 0 XV: 0
IV. Consumption Function	XIV: 2 XV: 0	XIV: 1 XV: 1	XIV: 0 XV: 0
V. Multiplier and Accelerator	XIV: 2 XV: 1	XIV: 4 XV: 2	XIV: 0 XV: 0
VI. Investment Decisions	XIV: 5 XV:2	XIV: 2 XV: 1	XIV: 0 XV: 0
VII. Price Flexibility	XIV: 6 XV: 3	XIV: 2 XV: 0	XIV: 0 XV: 0

Required reading material was (encircle one) too broad [XIV, 9; XV, 9], about right [XIV, 12; XV, 2], too concentrated [XIV, 0; XV, 1].
Would you prefer a smaller number of required readings but with a more intensive study of each? [Yes: XIV, 13; XV, 10], [No: XIV, 5; XV, 1] Comment.Should the readings be discussed in class more thoroughly and often?
[Yes: XIV, 7; XV, 6], [No: XIV, 7; XV, 5]How adequately did the Reserve shelf serve your needs? [Enough: XIV, 1; XV, 0], [Not enough: XIV, 3; XV, 2] Did you have difficulties in obtaining the readings?Suggestions for improvement[Course XIV would keep the breadth of the reading as now, possibly somewhat narrower. But XV definitely wants more narrow.
Both would prefer a smaller number of readings, particularly XV
Evenly divided on discussing readings in class.]
Because of the size of the class, lectures usually took the place of discussions. Would you prefer more discussions? [Yes: XIV, 5; XV, 5], [No: XIV, 13; XV, 7]Would a smaller class materially improve the course? [Yes: XIV, 11; XV, 9], [No: XIV, 5; XV, 3]Any other suggestions?[No great demand for more discussion in the large class, but a clear demand for a smaller class.]
Grade the instruction in the course (A, B, C and F) for the following qualities (as compared with other courses at M.I.T. and elsewhere).Clarity of exposition
Intellectual stimulation
Usefulness of information
Enjoyment of the course
General performance

Grades	A+	A	A/B	B	B/C	C	Below C
Clarity		XIV: 18 XV: 8	XIV: 0 XV: 1	XIV: 4 XV: 3		XIV: 0 XV: 1	XIV: 0 XV: 1
Stimulation		XIV: 15 XV: 7	XIV: 0 XV: 2	XIV: 4 XV: 4		XIV: 2 XV: 0	XIV: 0 XV: 1
Usefulness		XIV: 9 XV: 4	XIV: 1 XV: 1	XIV: 7 XV: 6		XIV: 1 XV: 2	XIV: 0 XV: 1
Enjoyment	XIV: 1 XV: 0	XIV: 16 XV: 5	XIV: 0 XV: 1	XIV: 3 XV: 6		XIV: 2 XV: 1	XIV: 0 XV: 1
General		XIV: 12 XV: 7	XIV: 3 XV: 2	XIV: 5 XV: 2	XIV: 0 XV: 2		XIV: 0 XV: 1

[Course XIV feels much better about the course than does XV. Clarity, stimulation and enjoyment get high marks. Usefulness—much less.]

As you know, a third of the final examination is devoted to a substitute for a term paper. Would you prefer a usual term paper instead? [Yes: XIV, 11; XV, 2], [No: XIV, 10; XV, 7] Neither?
[Existing exam—Yes: XIV, 5; XV, 7], [No: XIV, 4; XV, 2]
[More exams—Yes: XIV, 5; XV, 1], [No: XIV, 0; XV, 0]

Comment on this.

[Course XIV prefer (slightly) a term paper and a midterm exam. Course XV don’t want a term paper.]

Any other comments, suggestions, complaints, wishes, etc.[Useful comments
Require Patinkin. Course XV find it too hard.
Suggest the more important readings.
People in the back couldn’t hear well.
No seating assignment
A midterm exam is frequently asked, otherwise, they don’t work on this course hard enough.
A time schedule of the course.
Better reading list.]

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Evsey D. Domar, Box 17, Folder “Macroeconomics. Questionnaire on the Theory of national Income & Employment (14.451)”.

Image Source: The M.I.T. mascot beaver on the cover of its yearbook, Technique 1949.

Tags Domar

Economists Michigan Research Tip Teaching

Michigan. Henry Carter Adams and School of Applied Ethics, 1891. With Biography.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-03-17

Scavenging in digitized archives is certainly no less important an activity than risking the dust in conventional archival folders found in boxes to seek paper receipts of history. Last night I stumbled into the wonderful digitized archives of the University of Michigan’s daily newspaper (see link below). Like a kid in the proverbial candy store, I was riding a sugar high for most of the evening. This morning after a couple of cups of coffee, I put together the following material: biographical/career information about Professor Henry Carter Adams and a report of an interdisciplinary summer school he helped to establish in applied ethics (in 1891!).

I was well aware of Adams’ reputation as an expert in public finance, but I hadn’t noticed that he had been fired from Cornell for a lecture he gave on the Great Southwest railroad strike of 1886. “This man must go, he is  sapping the foundations of our society.” We shouldn’t ever take our academic freedom for granted!

Other posts at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror dealing with the economist Henry Carter Adams:

Research Tips:

The online searchable archives of the University of Michigan newspaper, The U. of M. Daily.
The University of Michigan Faculty History Project

______________________

 HENRY CARTER ADAMS
(31st December, 1851—11th August, 1921)

The following memorial to the late  Professor Henry C. Adams was present ed to the University Senate at a recent  meeting. It was prepared by a commit tee of which R. M. Wenley; Professor of  Philosophy was the chairman. The other  members were S. Lawrence Bigelow,   Professor of Chemistry and I. Leo  Sharfman, Professor of Economics.

An obvious drawback of academic life is  that titles tend to obscure persons: and when,  as with our colleague Henry Carter Adams,   the man dwarfs the title, liability to misjudge  or overlook becomes serious. Not till too  late, death prompting inquiry or reflection, do  we grow aware of the true reasons for the  magnitude of our gain and loss. Even so,   when we attempt a fit Memorial, the Odyssey  of the spirit is all too apt to evade our tardy  heed. The career of Professor Adams furn ishes a typical case in point.

Henry Carter Adams was born at Daven port, Iowa, December 31, 1851. He came of  old New England stock; his forebears had  made the great adventure oversea in 1623. His  mother, Elizabeth Douglass, and his father,   Ephraim Adams, were a like-minded pair,   representative of the soundest traditions of  New England character and nurture. Ephraim  Adams, one of a small band of missionaries  from Andover Theological Seminary who for sook everything for Christ’s sake, arrived on  the open prairies of Iowa in 1842—the goal  of three weeks’ hard journey from Albany, New York. Their mission it was to kindle  and tend the torch, not merely of religion, but  also of education, among the far-flung pioneers.   Consequently, it is impossible to understand  why Henry Adams was what he was, became  what he became, unless one can evoke sympa thetic appreciation of the temper, which de termined his upbringing. For example, it may  well astonish us to learn that his nineteenth  birthday was but a few months off ere he  received his first formal instruction. The  reasons thereof may astonish us even more.   The child had been sickly always, physicians  informing the parents that he could not survive the age of fourteen. The “open prairies”  proved his physical salvation. Given a cause  and a gun, the boy roamed free, passing from  missionary home to missionary home, some- times bearing parental messages to the scat tered preachers. In this way he outgrew  debility and, better still, acquired a love for  nature, and an intimacy with our average  citizenry, never lost. Meanwhile, the elder  Adams taught him Greek, Latin, and He brew  as occasion permitted. At length, in 1869, he   entered Denmark Academy whence, after a  single year, he was able to proceed to Iowa  College, Grinnell, where he graduated in 1874. During these five years, the man whom we  knew started to shape himself.

In the home and the wider circle of friends, the impressionable days of childhood had been  moulded by Puritanism. God’s providence,  the responsibility of man, the absolute distinc tion between right and wrong, with all result- ant duties and prohibitions, set the perspective.  Fortunately, the characteristic Yankee interest  in education—in intelligence rather than learn ing—contributed a vital element. An active  mind enlarged the atmosphere of the soul. De- spite its straight limitations as some reckon  them; here was a real culture, giving men in ner harmony with self-secure from disturbance  by the baser passions. As we are aware  now, disturbance came otherwise. To quote  Adams’ own words, he was “plagued by doc trines” from the time he went to the Academy.   The spiritual impress of the New England  home never left him; it had been etched upon  his very being. But, thus early, Calvinistic  dogma aroused misgivings, because its sheer  profundity bred high doubt. As a matter of  course, Ephraim Adams expected his son to  follow the Christian ministry, and Henry him self foresaw no other calling meantime. Hence, when scepticism assailed him, he was destined  to a terrible, heart-searching experience, the  worse that domestic affection drew him one  way, mental integrity another. His first years  at Grinnell were bootless; the prescribed stud ies held no attraction and, likely enough, sick ness had left certain lethargy. But, when  he came to history, philosophy, and social  questions, he felt a new appeal. His Junior  and Senior years, eager interest stimulating,  profited him much. Still dubious, he taught  for a year after graduation at Nashua, Iowa. Then, bowing to paternal prayer and maternal  hope, he entered Andover Theological Semi-nary, not to prepare for the ministry, however,   but “to try himself out”—to discover whether  preaching were possible for him. In the Spring  of 1876, he had decided irrevocably that it was  not. Adams’ “first” education—education by  the natal group—ended here. It had guaran teed him the grace which is the issue of  moral habit, had wedded him to the convic tion that justice is truth in action. For, al- though he abandoned certain theological for mulae, the footfall of spiritual things ever  echoed through hrs character. The union of  winsome gentleness with stern devotion to  humanitarian ideals, so distinctive of Professor Adams, rooted in the persistent influ ence of the New England conscience.

The Second Education

Turning to the “second” education, destined  to enroll our colleague among economic lead ers, it is necessary to recall once again conditions almost forgotten now. When, forty-five  years ago, an academy and college-bred lad,   destined for the ministry, found it necessary  to desist, he was indeed “all at sea.” For  facilities, offered on every hand today by the  Graduate Schools of the great universities,   did not exist. The youth might drift—into  journalism, teaching, or what not. But drift ing was not on Adams’ programme. He wrote  to his parents who, tragically enough, could  not understand him, “I must obtain another  cultural training.” His mind had dwelt already upon social, political, and economic prob lems: therefore, the “second” education must  be non-theological. Whither could he look? At this crisis his course was set by one of  those small accidents, which, strange to tell,   play a decisive part in many lives. By mere  chance, he came upon a catalogue of Johns  Hopkins University, so late in the day, more- over, that his application for a fellowship,   with an essay enclosed as evidence of fitness,  arrived just within time limits. Adams was  chosen one of ten Fellows from a list of more  than three hundred candidates, and to Balti more he went in the fall of 1876. His letters  attest that the new, ampler opportunities at tracted him strongly. He availed himself of  concerts, for music always moved him. Here  he heard the classics for the first time. Hither- to he had known only sacred music. Sometimes  he played in church and, as records show, he  sang in our Choral Union while a young pro fessor. We find, too, that he served as assistant in the Johns Hopkins library, not for  the extravagant salary, as he remarks humor ously, but on account of access to books—”I  am reading myself full.” His summers were  spent in his native State, working in the fields.   In 1878 he received the doctorate, the first  conferred by the young and unique university.

 Study in Europe

The day after graduation President Oilman  sent for him, and told him, “You must go to  Europe.” The reply was typical—”I can’t, I  haven’t a cent.” Oilman continued, ”I shall  see what can be done,” with the result that the benefactor to whom Adams dedicated his  first book found the requisite funds. Brief  stays at Oxford and Paris, lengthier at Berlin  and Heidelberg, filled the next fourteen  months. The journalistic bee still buzzing in  his head, Adams had visited Godkin before  leaving for Europe, to discuss the constructive  political journalism he had in mind. Godkin  received him kindly, but as Adams dryly re- marks, had a long way to travel ere he could  understand. In the summer of 1878, President  Andrew D. White, of Cornell, traveling in  Germany, summoned Adams, to discuss a  vacancy in this university. To Adams’ huge  diappointment, as the interview developed, it  became apparent that White, with a nonchalance some of us remember well, had mistaken H. C. Adams, the budding economist,   for H. B. Adams, the budding historian. The  vacancy was in history, not in political science  or economics. Expectation vanished in thin  air. But Adams was not done with. Return ing to his pension, he sat up all night to draft  the outline of a course of lectures which, as  he bluntly put it, “Cornell needed.” Next day  he sought President White again who, being  half persuaded by Adams’ verbal exposition,   kept the document, saying he would communicate with Cornell, requesting that a place be  made for the course if possible. Writing from  Saratoga, in September 1879, Adams tells his  mother that all is off at Cornell, that he must  abandon his career and buckle down to earn ing a livelihood. A lapse of ten days trans formed the scene. The Cornell appointment  had been arranged, and he went to Ithaca  forthwith. So meagre were the facilities then  offered in the general field of the social sci ences that Adams gave one semester, at Cornell and Johns Hopkins respectively, to these  subjects in the year 1879-80. The same ar rangement continued till 1886, Michigan be ing substituted for Johns Hopkins in 1881. As  older men recall, Dr. Angell taught economics,   in addition to international law, till the time  of his transfer to Pekin as Minister to China.   At this juncture, Adams joined us, forming a  life-long association. He himself says that he  “gave up three careers, —preaching, journalism,   and reform—to devote himself to teaching”  where he believed his mission lay.

Dismissal from Cornell

There is no better index to the enormous  change that has overtaken the usual approach  to social questions than the circumstances , which caused Adams’ expulsion from Cornell  University. The Scientific American Supple ment (p. 8861) of date August 21st, 1886, con tains the substance of an address, “The Labor  Problem.” We quote Adams’ comments, inscribed beside the clipping in his personal  scrapbook.

“This is the article that caused my dismissal  from Cornell. This article was given on the  spur of the moment. Professor Thurston had  invited a man from New York to address the  engineering students, but the lecturer failed  to come. I was asked to come in and say a  few words on the Gould Strike. It was said  to me that other members of the Faculty  would speak, and that I might present my  views as an advocate.

“The room was crowded for, besides the  engineering society, my own students, getting  word of it, came over to the Physical Laboratory room where the addresses of the society  were given. A more inspiring audience no  man could have, and I spoke with ease, with  pleasure and, from the way my words were  received, with effect. The New York papers  reported what I said and, three days after, Mr.  Henry Sage, than whom I know no more  honest hypocrite or unchristian a Christian,   came into the President’s office and, taking  the clipping from The New York Times out  of his pocket said, “This man must go, he is  sapping the foundations of our society.” It  was not until then that I thought of putting  what I said into print, but I then did it, fol lowing as nearly as possible what I said and  the way I said it.

“The effect of this episode upon myself was  to learn that what I said might possibly be of  some importance.

“Of course, there is a good deal of secret  history connected with the matter, but I am  not likely to forget that.”

This echo of old, far-off, unhappy things is  most suggestive, because more than any other  man, perhaps, Adams mediated the vast, silent  change marking these last thirty-five years.   As has been aptly said, “he had a most roman tic intellectual career.”

Appointment at Michigan

In 1887, he was appointed to the Michigan  chair, which he greatly graced till death. At  this time, too, on the urgent request of his  close friend, Judge Thomas M. Cooley, then  Chairman, he joined the Interstate Commerce  Commission, much against his own inclination.   When he founded the Statistical Department,   he had the assistance of a single clerk; when  he resigned, in 1911, the personnel numbered  two hundred and fifty. Mutatis mutandis, a  parallel expansion overtook our Department  of Economics under his leadership.

It must suffice merely to mention his services with the Eleventh Census, the Michigan  Tax Commission, and the Chinese Republic,   pointing out that such positions come only to  men of high distinction and proven authority.   More than a quarter of a century has elapsed  since his election to the Presidency of the  American Economic Association, which he  helped to found; nearly as long since he was  presiding officer of the American Statistical  Association. In short, he ranked among the  most important and influential leaders in his  chosen field. His Alma Mater honored her- self in honoring him with the degree of LL.D  twenty-three years ago; Wisconsin followed suit in 1903; Johns Hopkins in 1915. Needless  to say, he had many offers, some most tempt ing, to leave Michigan. But, entertaining pro found confidence in the State University, be lieving that it was destined to be instrumental  in the diffusion of those opportunities in high er education indispensable to a free democracy,  he refused to move. In attachment to this  University, like not a few men whom she has  imported, he outdid many alumni.

His Original Work

Naturally, Adams produced a mass of orig inal work. Upon two fields of economic investigation, particularly—public finance and  public control—he imposed a durable imprint.  His interest in public finance dated from his  doctoral dissertation, Taxation in the United  States, 1789-1816. In Public Debts, an Essay  in the Science of Finance, later translated into  Japanese, and in The Science of Finance, an  Investigation of Public Expenditures and Pub lic Revenues, he not only manifested wide  economic grasp and remarkable power of an alysis, but exhibited the principles of public  finance as a scientific unity, in their manifold  relations to social, political, and economic progress. His memorable essay, The Relation of the State to Industrial Action, marked his initial, and most significant, contribution in the  field of public control. He subjected the preva lent doctrine of laissez-faire to searching analysis, and, with profound appreciation of the  demands of a dynamic world, formulated basic  principles for the guidance of industrial leg islation. His emphasis on the function of the  State in moulding the plans of competitive ac tion, in realizing for society the benefits of  monopolistic control, and in restoring condi tions of social harmony to the economic order,   foreshadowed much of the theoretical dis cussion and practical reorganization of a later  day. His subsequent achievements in the de velopment of public control, especially over  railroad transportation, are incorporated in the  accounts and classifications which he slowly  evolved as statistician of the Interstate Com merce Commission. The universal acceptance  today of statuted accounting and statistical  practice as an indispensable instrument for the  effective regulation of railroads and public  utilities remains a lasting monument to the  intelligence and validity of his pioneering ef forts. It is a distinct loss to economic scholarship and to historical tradition that his Ameri can Railway Accounting published seven years  after his resignation from the Interstate Com merce Commission, was but a commentary on  these accounts and classifications rather than  that graphic picture of their origin and de velopment such as he alone was competent to  produce.

The Social Philosopher

Throughout life, Adams’ intellectual ap proach was that of a social philosopher rather  than of a technical economist. This is plain  throughout his published work. Intuitive yearn ing for social justice, prompted by a Puritan  conscience, stimulated by an analytical intel lect, colored all his writings. Human rela tions uniformly served as his point of depar ture, and humane amelioration was ever the  horizon toward which he moved. Such was  the spirit of his Relation of the State to In dustrial Action, and of his fundamental stud ies in public finance. His papers on the social  movements of our time, and on the social  ministry of wealth, contributed to The Inter national Journal of Ethics; his discussions, in  the economic journals, of economics and jur isprudence, publicity and corporate abuses, and  of many of the more technical aspects of rail- road taxation; of the developments of the  Trust movement, budget reform, and foreign  investments as a crucial element in international maladjustments, were moulded by a similar  insight into primary human relations, and by  a like desire to contribute to the realization of  human betterment.

Accordingly, it was the more remarkable  that Professor Adams proved himself so ef fective a public servant in the formulation of  practical and concrete machinery for the regulation of transportation agencies, in this  country and in China. The reason for this  success is to be found in his consistent adher ence to the conception of accounts and sta tistics as mere instruments of social control  rather than as fields of inquiry for their own  sake. From first to last, then, he remained the  social philosopher. His plans for the future  promised a return to the synthetic intellectual  activity of his early career. Death overtook  him with his labors unfinished, but the direc tion of his interests was clear and unmistak able.

In sum, then, remarkable as was the career,   formative as were its results, the personality  overtopped all else, mainly because Adams’  austere judgment of self, his nigh innocent  attitude toward his great attainments, won  upon others. Indeed, no one would have been  more surprised than he at the words we have  addressed to you this evening, —partly on ac- count of his innate modesty, partly thanks to  his very reticence, which prevented us from making known to him how we esteemed his  deep, pervasive glow.

S. LAWRENCE BIGELOW
 I. LEO SHARFMAN 
R. M. WENLEY, Chairman

Source: The Michigan Alumnus 520-524. Transcribed at the Henry Carter Adams page at the University of Michigan Faculty History Project.

______________________

School of Applied Ethics, 1891.
First Dean, Henry C. Adams of the University of Michigan

In this article we give a brief sketch of the school of Applied Ethics and Prof. Henry C. Adams’ work in connection with it.

The following, taken from the secretary’s report, describes the origin and purposes of the institution:

“The School of Applied Ethics held its first session at Plymouth, Mass., from July 1 to August 12, 1891. This was an experimental undertaking, and the first step towards the carrying out of a large and important educational project, the founding of a fully-equipped School of Applied Ethics in connection with some large university. It is proposed, not to found another school similar to and is as a rival of any schools already existing, but to meet a real educational need by furnishing systematic instruction in a field of investigation not especially provided for in established institutions.

The experiment of last summer proved so successful that it has been decided to hold a similar session another year at the same time and place, and the managers hope that not only the summer school, but also the permanent school referred to will be successfully established, and occupy in time an important place among educational institutions.

The proposition to establish a School of Applied Ethics, either independently or in connection with some large university, has been under discussion for several years. Attention was first called to the need of such a school, in a public address in Boston, by Prof. Felix Adler, during the May anniversary week of 1879. The project was afterwards discussed in the Index and other papers; but the plans were still too indefinite and public interest was not sufficiently awakened to the importance of the undertaking.

The subject was next brought to public notice, and in a more definite shape at the third convention of the Ethical Societies, held in Philadelphia, January, 1889. It was the topic of a special public meeting, and addresses were made by Prof. Adler, Mr. Thomas Davidson, Professor Royce, Rev. Wm. J. Potter, and others. Numerous letters endorsing the proposed school were received from distinguished representatives of different professions in various parts of the country. At the next convention of the Ethical Societies, held in New York, December, 1890, the project was again brought forward and endorsed at a public meeting by President E. Benj. Andrews, Rev. Lyman Abbott, Professor Daniel G. Brinton, Rev. R. Heber Newton, Dr. A. S. Isaacs, and Professor Adler. Definite action towards the realization of the project was taken in the following resolution, passed by the convention:

Resolved, That the Executive Committee be empowered to raise $4000 to establish a Summer School of Ethics for one year, and to hand over its management to a committee of nine, three of whom shall be lecturers of the Ethical Societies.

In consequence of this resolution a committee was appointed, which met in New York, March 2, 1891. There were present Professor H. C. Adams, of the University of Michigan, Professor C. H. Toy, of Harvard University, Professor Felix Adler, of New York, President E. Benjamin Andrews, of Brown University, Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr.,of the University of Pennsylvania, and Mr. S. Burns Weston, of Philadelphia. The trust implied by the above resolution was accepted by the committee, and plans were presented and adopted for a summer session of six weeks with the three departments of Economics, History of Religions, and Ethics. Professor Henry C. Adams was made director of the department of Economics, Professor C.H. Toy, of History of Religions, and Professor Felix Adler, of Ethics proper. It was decided that the office of Dean should be filled in rotation by the heads of the departments in the order given, and Prof. Adams became Dean of the school for the first year.

The first session opened July 1, at Lyceum Hall, Plymouth, Mass., with public addresses by Professors Adams, Toy, and Adler on the work to be done in their respective branches. The regular daily lectures began Thursday, July 2, with a good attendance.

In the department of economics the main course consisted of a series of sixteen lectures by Professor Adams, on the History of Industrial Society and Economic Doctrine in England and America, in which special attention was given to the gradual rise of those practical problems in the labor world, which cause so much anxiety and discussion today. The subjects of the lectures in this course were as follows:

The Modern Social Movement, and the True Method of Study. The Manor considered as the Unit of Agricultural Industry in Feudal Times. The Town considered as the Unit of Manufacturing Industry in Feudal Times. The Black Death and Tyler’s Rebellion considered in their Industrial Consequences. The Times of Henry VIII and Elizabeth considered as foreshadowing Modern Ideas of Capital. The Spirit of Nationalism as expressed in Industrial Legislation of the 17th and 18th’s Centuries. Liberal Writers of the Eighteenth Century, considered with Especial Reference to the Industrial Liberalism of Adam Smith. Industrial and Social Results of the Development of Textile Machinery. Critical Analysis of the Effect of Machinery on Wages. Industrial and Social Results of the Development of Steam Navigation. Mill’s Political Economy, considered as the most Perfect Expression of the Industrial Ideas of the Middle Classes. Changes in Economic Ideas since Mill; (a) Fundamental Economic Conceptions, (b) Relation of Government to Industries. Trades-Unions considered as the Workingman’s Solution of the Labor Question. Public Commissions considered as a Conservative Solution of the Monopoly Question. An Interpretation of the Social Movement of Our Time.”

The following, clipped from the article by Rev. W. H. Johnson in the Christian Register, shows that Prof. Adams sustained his well-merited reputation as a political economist of the first rank:

“The chief interest of the school seems to have centered in the Department of Economics, testifying to the growing appreciation of the profoundly vital manner in which the great social topics of the times touch us all. Here were numbers of people gathered together who had become tired of the cure-alls offered by narrow-minded enthusiasts, not less than heartsick of the social wrongs and miseries which bring this class into existence, and intensely anxious for some teaching which would point out clear landmarks. Only the existence of this feeling of earnest longing for some measure of authoritative exposition can account for the enthusiasm which has attended the economic course. In Prof. Adams, this department has had for its director and chief expositor a mastermind. Apart from the interest of the subject, it would be impossible to listen without keen satisfaction to his rigid analysis and lucid explanations of a subject which is, for the most of us, wrapped in “chaos and perpetual night.” Prof. Adams’ final lecture, summing up the economic teaching of the school during the six weeks’ course, was one of rare merit. He was at once overwhelmed with requests for its publication, to which he has consented.”

Source: The U. of M. Daily.Vol. II, No. 51 (December 3, 1891), p. 1.

Image Source: From the Henry Carter Adams page at the University of Michigan Faculty History Project.

Tags AdamsHenryC, Sharfman

Columbia Economist Market Salaries Teaching

Columbia. Due to exploding graduate economics enrollments, Stigler hired as visiting professor, 1946

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-03-15

The graduate economics courses at Columbia University were swamped by registrations one year after the end of the Second World War. Over 160 students were registered for the two graduate economic theory courses offered by A.G. Hart and William S. Vickrey. The executive officer of the economics department, Carter Goodrich, requested the central university allow the department to hire a visitor to ease the burden on Hart and Vickrey. That victory won with the visiting appointment for George Stigler (then a professor at Brown), Goodrich next pushed for an increase in the general budget for teaching assistants as well as for hiring Dorothy Fox assist him in his U.S. economic history class.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

September 30, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal
Acting President, Columbia University
Low Memorial Library

Dear Mr. President:

The extremely heavy enrollment for the graduate work in economics raises serious questions for the future staffing of the Economics Department. I should very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these with you when the final figures are in, and when we can assess the situation more fully.

Meanwhile, however, there is one question on which emergency action at once seems essential. We advise the great majority of our students to take a general, systematic course in economic theory or economic analysis. We offer this year two such courses: Economics 153-4, given by Prof. A.G. Hart; and Economics 159-60, given by Mr. William S. Vickrey. Prof. Hart and Mr. Vickrey have between them over one hundred and sixty students registered. The work in these courses cannot be given on a mass lecture basis in a way that would meet the standards of any first-rate institution. It would not serve the purpose for which the Department intends it if there were not at least some degree of individual instruction.

I wish, therefore, to request an additional man to take one section of this basic course. I should like authority to approach Prof. Arthur Smithies, who taught Economic Theory at the University of Michigan, but who is at present in the Bureau of the Budget, at Washington. The proposal would be that the class should meet for two hours one day a week. I suggest $2500 for the year as the appropriate compensation. If preferred, $500 of this might properly be described as traveling expenses.

The money is available in the present budget, partly from the salary allotted for the professor of international economics on which only a half-time appointment was made for the present year, and from the money available for the unfilled position on economic history. Both these salaries, I should add, will be needed next year.

I should be most grateful if you would give me a decision on this at once, since the step must be taken immediately if it is to bring effective relief.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich

CG:jg

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 14, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

This time the report is not wholly negative. Following our conversation of Thursday afternoon, I invited Prof. George J. Stigler, of Brown University, to come to help us in the emergency situation in Economic Theory. Prof. Stigler has agreed to come for the first semester, but is not as yet prepared to commit himself for the entire year. I am therefore enclosing a form for his appointment for the Winter Session on the terms agreed. The salary for the first semester is available from the unused portion of the salary of Professor A.F. Burns.

I hope that we may be able to persuade Prof. Stigler to continue the work throughout the year. If not, there is a possibility that Prof. Smithies may be able to come for the second semester.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich

______________________

[Carbon Copy]

October 18, 1946

Professor Carter Goodrich
Fayerweather

Dear Professor Goodrich

I have your letter of October 14 in regard to the appointment of Stigler as Visiting Professor and will see that the appointment goes through the next meeting of the Trustees.

Maybe I had better point out that there is no money available in Prof. Burns’ position. In addition to his own half pay, the salaries of Vickrey ($2000) and Alexander ($1700) have already charged against that. However, we will make the appointment against the balance remaining in the vacant professorship.

Very truly yours

Frank D. Fackenthal
Acting President

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 22, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

I very much appreciate your action on the Stigler appointment.

The second paragraph of your letter of October 18 puzzled me, since I had never heard of Alexander. We have tracked the matter down and it appears to be an appointment in Contemporary Civilization, chargeable to a budget of Dean Carman’s. It should not be a charge on the Department of Economics.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer, Department of Economics.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 24, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library,
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

In my letter of September 30th I spoke of the problems raised for the Economics Department by the extremely heavy enrollment in the graduate school. Now that the final enrollment is in, I wish to recommend two further measures, in addition to the emergency adjustment in Theory which you have been good enough to authorize. The total registration in the graduate courses borne on the budget of the Department of Economics for this session is double that for the Spring Session of 1946, which in turn was very much larger than that for the Winter Session of 1945. In 22 courses last spring there were 788 registrations; in 24 courses this session there are 1578. 7 of these courses have enrollments of more than 100 students (Angell, 112; A. R. Burns, 127, 153; Bergson, 142; Goodrich, 141; Nurkse, 130; Wolman, 140.)

To meet this situation I request, first, that the appropriation for Assistance be raised from $1,000-$1,500. Prof. Taylor estimates the needs of the College department, which has in the past used the greater part of the Assistance fund, as $500. Professors Angell, Bergson, A.R. Burns, Nurkse, and Wolman have all asked this year for reading assistance and will certainly need it in these courses.

Second, I request the appointment of Mrs. Dorothy G. Fox as an assistant in Economics to aid in my own course Economic history of the United States, so that a part of the time may be given to discussion in sections of a reasonable size. Mrs. Fox is at present an instructor in Economic principles in University Extension. I propose a salary of $700 for the academic year.

Money for these adjustments may be taken, if necessary, from what remains in the salary allotted to the vacant professorship. I should add, however, that these adjustments are made necessary solely by the extraordinary enrollment and that making them would not in any way diminish the long-run needs of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer of the Department of Economics.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

January 15, 1947

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

I beg to request the appointment of Dr. Moses Abramovitz as Visiting Lecturer in Economics for the Spring Session, at a compensation of $1,000. This is a further adjustment to meet the emergency situation in economic theory. As indicated in my letter of October 14^th, 1946, Professor Stigler, of Brown University, agreed to come for the first semester, but was not prepared to commit himself for the entire year. He has informed us, much to our regret, that he cannot continue and I am therefore proposing a substitute. Dr. Abramovitz is one of the very best of the recent Ph.D.’s in this Department and holds a responsible research position with the National Bureau of Economic Research. He taught the same course in this Department during 1940-1941 and 1941-1942.

The total compensation for Professor Stigler, as you recall, was $1,250, of which $250 was counted as traveling expenses. The $1,000 requested for Dr. Abramovitz is available, $500 from the unused portion of the salary of Professor Arthur F. Burns and $500 from the funds for the vacant professorship.

I am enclosing the form for Dr. Abramovitz’ appointment and I very much hope you will be able to make it.

Respectfully yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer, Department of Economics.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-. Box 406, Folder “Goodrich, Carter. 1/1”.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Tags Abramovitz, Angell, Bergson, BurnsAR, Fox, Goodrich, Nurkse, Smithies, Stigler, Wolman

Curriculum Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics teaching responsibilities according to David Landes, 1955

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2018-12-04

Landes_David.jpg Prof. David Landes 7437 #36 11/1193 Photographer: Jane Reed

In the archived Columbia University graduate economics department papers one finds an extended discussion about a university administration initiative in 1955-56 to adjust teaching loads to meet a fiscal crisis. The economics chairman, Carl S. Shoup, asked the young economic historian on the faculty, David Landes, to brief him on the teaching situation at Harvard. The following “note to self” by Shoup offers an obiter dictum or two that one would not be able to glean from published Harvard catalogues alone, e.g., “This system is also well suited to a coeducational program.”

_________________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Interdepartment Memorandum

Date: February 18, 1955
Carl S. Shoup

Memorandum for Files
Record of Conversation with David Landes on Harvard
Technique of Handling Graduate and Undergraduate Classes

Landes tells me that at Harvard in economics, there are three kinds of courses. First is an elementary course for undergraduates in which there is one lecture a week before a class that may range from 50 to 300 students or perhaps even more. Another two hours a week is taken up with section work handled by graduate students who are somewhat below our instructors in terms of the amount of their responsibilities (I understand from Hart that in some of these elementary courses one lecture will be given by one professor, another professor will come along the following week and so on). This professor is a senior man whose chief interest is in the graduate field. Nevertheless, there seems to be considerable competition among the senior professors for the privilege of giving these big lectures. Not all senior professors give such lectures and not all are competitors for the task.

Then there are mixed courses containing 20 or 30 students or so, some of the students being undergraduate and some graduate.

Finally, there are the graduate seminars attended only by graduate students.

In no case does the graduate professor have to take care of the mechanics of grading undergraduate examination papers, taking attendance, etc. All these chores are handled by the young assistant.

As a result, there is no well-defined undergraduate faculty in economics as there is in Columbia. Landes thinks this system is undoubtedly the most economical, but it has the drawback that the undergraduate student who reads the catalogue and thinks he is going to get some big name to teach him in his beginning course finds that he does so only to the extent of sitting in a large group and listening to the professor without ever getting any personal contact with him.

This system is also well suited to a coeducational program.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economic Collection, Box 5, Folder “Budget Meeting—1955-1956”.

Image Source: The Harvard Gazette August 30, 2013 photo of David S. Landes.

Tags HartAG, Landes, Shoup

RANKS AND MARKS AT HARVARD.

AN IMPORTANT REFORM PROPOSED IN THE PERCENTAGE SYSTEM.

New Regulations by the Faculty.

November 24, 1886

Perry, Arthur Latham (1830-1905) By Patrick J. McCurdy (Class of 2002)

Arthur Latham Perry Links to Editions of his Three Text-books in Political Economy

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D. Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE 14th edition (1877) of Elements of Political Economy

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D. Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE. Principles of Political Economy (1891)

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to President Ernest D. Burton

The University of Chicago Department of Political Economy

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to Nathan C. Plimpton, comptroller

The University of Chicago Department of Political Economy

Letter from Chairman L. C. Marshall to President Ernest D. Burton

The University of Chicago Department of Political Economy

Carbon copy of letter from President Ernest D. Burton to L. C. Marshall

Memorandum of Conversation with Professor Laughlin —November 19, 1924

SOCIOLOGY.

Alvan A. Tenney, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Sociology, Columbia University.

Franklin H. Giddings, Ph.D., LL.D. Professor of Sociology and the History of Civilization, Columbia University.

Scope of the Subject. —

History of the Subject. —

The Teaching of Sociology.—

Methods of Teaching Sociology. —

References: —

THE SEMINARIUM: ITS ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS 1892

By Edwin R. A. Seligman Professor of Political Economy and Finance, Columbia College, New York

ECONOMICS — History —

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D. Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

Development of Economic Teaching

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D. Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

— Europe —

— United States —

Economics — In the Schools —

James Sullivan, Ph.D., Principal of Boys’ High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.

References: —

In Colleges and Universities: —

In Schools: —

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE THEORY OF NATIONAL INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT (14.451) E. D. Domar Fall term 1960-61

HENRY CARTER ADAMS (31st December, 1851—11th August, 1921)

The Second Education

Study in Europe

Dismissal from Cornell

Appointment at Michigan

His Original Work

The Social Philosopher

School of Applied Ethics, 1891. First Dean, Henry C. Adams of the University of Michigan

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

[Carbon Copy]

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

Columbia University in the City of New York (New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Interdepartment Memorandum

Memorandum for Files Record of Conversation with David Landes on Harvard Technique of Handling Graduate and Undergraduate Classes

Perry, Arthur Latham (1830-1905)
By Patrick J. McCurdy (Class of 2002)

Arthur Latham Perry
Links to Editions of his Three Text-books in Political Economy

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D.
Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE
14^th edition (1877) of Elements of Political Economy

Arthur Latham Perry, LL.D.
Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy in Williams College

PREFACE.
Principles of Political Economy (1891)

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

Carbon copy of letter
from President Ernest D. Burton to L. C. Marshall

Memorandum of Conversation with
Professor Laughlin
—November 19, 1924

Alvan A. Tenney, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Columbia University.

Franklin H. Giddings, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Sociology and the History of Civilization, Columbia University.

THE SEMINARIUM:
ITS ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS
1892

By Edwin R. A. Seligman
Professor of Political Economy and Finance, Columbia College, New York

ECONOMICS
— History —

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Ph.D., LL.D.
Professor of Political Economy, Columbia University

Economics
— In the Schools —

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE THEORY OF NATIONAL INCOME AND EMPLOYMENT (14.451)
E. D. Domar
Fall term 1960-61

 HENRY CARTER ADAMS
(31st December, 1851—11th August, 1921)

 Study in Europe

School of Applied Ethics, 1891.
First Dean, Henry C. Adams of the University of Michigan

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Interdepartment Memorandum

Memorandum for Files
Record of Conversation with David Landes on Harvard
Technique of Handling Graduate and Undergraduate Classes