Categories
Chicago Courses Economists Undergraduate

Chicago. Monopoly course proposal by Abram Harris with George Stigler’s (Dis)approval, 1961

 

 

The brutal honesty of George Stigler’s memo in response to the new undergraduate course proposal submitted by Abram Lincoln Harris at the University of Chicago is somewhat tempered by Stigler’s display of collegial tolerance for a colleague approaching retirement age. But the absolutely gratuitous zinger at the end to “advise our majors to forget it” leaves a dubious taste in this reader’s mouth.

I have included a copy of the biography of Abram Lincoln Harris from the BlackPast.org website.
Definitely worth consulting:  “Introduction: The Odyssey of Abram Harris From Howard to Chicago” by William Darity, Jr. in Race, Radicalism, and Reform: Selected Papers of Abram L. Harris (1989).

______________________

Harris, Abram Lincoln, Jr. (1899-1963)
Source: Abram Lincoln Harris from BlackPast.org.

Abram Lincoln Harris, Jr., the grandson of slaves, was the first nationally recognized black economist. Harris was highly respected for his work that focused primarily on class analysis, black economic life, and labor to illustrate the structural inadequacies of race and racial ideologies.  Harris’s major published works include The Negro Population in Minneapolis: A Study of Race Relations (1926), The Black Worker: the Negro and the Labor Movement (1931), and a book co-authored with Sterling D. Spero, The Negro as Capitalist (1936).  His final book, Economics and Social Reform, appeared in 1958.

Harris was a Marxist scholar and its theories influenced his work.  His The Black Worker was recognized as the foundation for future economic histories and assessments of the black condition.  The Negro as Capitalist argued that non-racial economic reforms were the key to solving black fiscal woes.  He also argued that capitalism was morally bankrupt and that employing race consciousness as a strategic way to enlighten a public was self-defeating.  W.E.B. DuBois described Harris as one of the “Young Turks” who challenged the then existing historical theories about blacks in a capitalist society while insisting upon using modern social scientific methods to further his analyses of African American life.

Born in 1899 in Richmond, Virginia to parents Abram Lincoln Harris, Sr., a butcher, and Mary Lee, a teacher, Harris grew up as part of the black middle class community in Richmond. After high school Harris earned a bachelor of sciences degree from Virginia Union University in 1922.

After graduation from Virginia Union, Harris enrolled at the New York School of Social Work and worked briefly for the National Urban League (NUL) and the Messenger, the leading black Socialist newspaper.  Harris taught for one year at the West Virginia Collegiate Institute (now West Virginia State University) and then earned an M.A. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1924. Harris was appointed head of the Department of Economics at Howard University in 1928 and later completed his doctorate in economics from Columbia University in 1930. Harris married his first wife, Callie McGuinn, in 1925 and later divorced in 1955.  Harris married his second wife Phedorah Prescott in 1962.

In the 1940s Abram Harris, along with E. Franklin Frazier, Allison Davis, and Ralph Bunche, was selected by the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal as “insiders” to work on his groundbreaking study An American Dilemma which was published in 1944.  Toward the end of the 1940s Harris began to retreat from his earlier work, progressive and race politics, and began to concentrate on economic philosophy.

Abram Harris died in Chicago, Illinois on November 16, 1963.  He was 64.

Sources:
Jonathon Scott Holloway, Confronting the Veil, Abram Harris Jr., E. Franklin Frazier, and Ralph Bunche, 1919-1941 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002); William Banks, Black Intellectuals: Race and Responsibility in American Life (W.W. Norton: New York, 1996); Cook County, Illinois Death Index.

Contributor:

Los Angeles City College

______________________

[Memo: Abram Harris to Al Rees]

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

Faculty Exchange
Box 84
Oct 26th, 1961

Dear Al,

I am enclosing a preliminary statement of a course approved by the Policy Committee of the College Social Science Section. It is to be given in the Spring Quarter 1961-62. I wonder if the Department of Economics would want to include this course in its undergraduate offerings?

Sincerely,

[signed]
Abe Harris

Professor Al Reese[sic]
Chairman
Dept of Ec.
Univ. of Chicago

______________________

 

Countervailing Power, Monopoly, and Public Policy

A proposed 200 course in the College
Submitted by Abram L. Harris

The course will attempt to combine theoretical analysis in a survey of the ideas of some leading economists who have dealt with the problem of market imperfections and monopoly along with discussions of the early trust movement, federal anti-monopoly legislation, and some of the problems connected with the current administration of this legislation. Galbraith’s “Countervailing Power” has been selected as a stimulating point of departure.

A technical mastery of theoretical economics is not a prerequisite. One main purpose of the course is to stimulate undergraduate interest in theoretical economics, the history of economic ideas, and the relation of these ideas to current economic policy issues. The course should be open to beginning majors in economics, students who are undecided about a major in the social sciences, and to those who are just curious.

Class discussions are to be organized around the following topics: The Concept of “Countervailing Power”: Old wine in new bottles? Chamberlain on the use and derivation of the concept. Market imperfections and monopoly in some classical and neo-classical writings: Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Alfred Marshall. The trust movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century in the United States (John Bates Clarke and his student, Thorstein Veblen, on monopoly and “absentee ownership”). The Standard Oil and U. S. Steel cases and federal anti-trust legislation. Recent anti-trust cases: administrative interpretation and application of federal legislation. Marx’s thesis concerning industrial concentration and confirmation of it by the new liberalism of the 20th century. The extent and measurement of industrial concentration (Stigler, Nutter, Adelman, Adams, Wilcox, etc.). The ideal or goal of government (federal) policy and practice: monopoly or competition?

A term essay will be required of all students who take the course for credit. The essay may take the form of a review, e.g., Berle’s Twentieth Century Capitalist Revolution, Mason’s The Corporation in Modern Society, Chamberlain’s Labor Union Monopoly or may deal with some topic, relevant to the course, selected by the student in consultation with the instructor.

P.S. The content of the course may appear be heavy and, probably, cannot be entirely covered in a single quarter. The layout will have, no doubt, to be tailored as we proceed to give the course for the first time.

October 1961.

______________________

[Memo Al Reese to George Stigler]

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DATE: Oct. 31 [1961]

TO: George Stigler

FROM: Al Rees

IN RE: Proposed Course by Abe Harris

What is your reaction? Please return his note and proposal when you have finished with them.

[signed]
Al

______________________

 

[Carbon copy of Stigler response]

[DATE:] 11/1/61

[TO:] Al Rees, Chairman                 [DEPARTMENT:] Economics

[FROM:] George J. Stigler

[IN RE:] propose 200 level course in the College by Abram L. Harris

Dear Al:

            This new course of Abe Harris arouses no enthusiasm on my part. It sounds like a protracted bull session, in which large ideas are neither carefully analysed nor empirically tested.

            Even if this is a correct prediction, it leaves open the question of our listing it. Abe is a nice guy, only about 3 years from retirement, and it serves no good purpose to hurt his feelings. My own inclination would be (1) to list it, with explicit proviso that it is only for as long as he teaches it, and (2) advise our majors to forget it.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Box 3, Folder “U of C, Miscellaneous [red folder]”

Image Source: Abram Lincoln Harris from BlackPast.org.

Categories
Bibliography Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Books on reserve in economics tutorial department, ca. 1927

 

In one of the folders containing economics course reading lists in the Harvard University Archives, I found a single sheet of paper with a typed list of books in the Harvard College economics tutorial office (a hand-written note above the list: “1926-27 or 1927-28”). Beginning with the Class of 1917, a general examination of candidates for the A.B. degree with a concentration in the Division of History, Government, and Economics was required. Following the English model, special tutors were appointed to supervise and provide supplementary non-course instruction in preparation for the general examination. This posting begins with some background material regarding both the general final examination and the tutorial system. Division exams for 1939 have already been transcribed and posted in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror–see the Economics General Exam for 1939 where links to the five specific (i.e. field) exams and six so-called correlation exams for honors candidates are provided. 

Today’s posting ends with the list of 45 economics titles (multiple copies, from 2-12) available in the economics tutorial office in the late 1920s.

______________________________

Introduction of the general final examination and tutorial system

…Beginning with the Class of 1917, students concentrating in the Division of History, Government, and Economics will be given a general final examination upon the field of their concentration. This examination will be so arranged as to test the general attainments of each candidate in the field covered by this Division and also in a specific field of study pursued by the student within the Division. The specific field will be selected by the student himself upon the basis of his courses and his reading. The following list gives examples of such fields of study, but is in no sense exhaustive, and any other field of work within the Division may be presented by the candidate for approval:

Ancient History
American History and Government
Modern European History
Municipal and State Government
International Law and Diplomacy
Economic Theory
Economic History
Applied Economics

The general final examination has been established, not in order to place an additional burden upon candidates for the A.B., but for the purpose of securing better correlation of the student’s work, encouraging better methods of study, and furnishing a more adequate test of real power and attainment. To this end students concentrating in the Division will from the beginning of their Sophomore year have the guidance and assistance of special Tutors. The work of these Tutors will be to guide students in their respective fields of study, to assist them in coördinating the knowledge derived from different courses, and to stimulate in them the reading habit. Students will meet the Tutors in small groups and for individual conferences at intervals depending upon the nature of the student’s work, the rate of his progress, and the number of courses which he may be taking in this Division in any particular year. The work of Tutors will be entirely independent of the conduct of courses, and the Tutors as such will have no control over the work or the grades of any student in any college course. Their guidance and assistance will naturally be of indirect benefit to the student in his work in individual courses, but their main function will be to help the student and guide him in the kind of reading and study which will be most useful toward his general progress in this Division. The attitude of the Tutor will be that of a friend rather than of a task-master, and students may consult him freely and informally concerning any phase of their work.

 

Source: Division of History, Government, and Economics, 1914-15. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XI, No. 1, Part 14 (May 19, 1914), pp. 79-80.

______________________________

From The Harvard Crimson

Tutorial System Hereafter
Rules for Concentration in History, Government and Economics Will Apply Next Year.
April 10, 1914

Beginning with the class of 1917 and applying to all subsequent classes, a new rule in regard to concentration in the Division of History, Government and Economics has been adopted.Concentration in this Division requires at least six courses which are related to each other. Under the new system all students concentrating in this division will be required to pass in their Senior year a final examination covering their special field within the Division, and consisting of a written examination early in the spring, and an oral examination toward the close of the year. In order to prepare students for these examinations the University will provide special tutors beginning with the Sophomore year.

Only Two Introductory Courses.

Every student intending to concentrate in History, Government, and Economics should state the Department in which he will take at least four courses and the Department in which he will take the remaining two. He will not be allowed to count towards his concentration more than two of the introductory courses, History 1, Government 1, and Economics A. The aim of the system is to enforce a more accurate knowledge and comprehension of studies as a whole. This aim has frequently not been achieved owing to the wide scattering of courses.

 

The Tutorial System
April 10, 1914

There are two new features in the recently announced requirements of the Division of History, Government and Economics, namely, the general examination and the tutorial system. And they are complementary. The task of the tutor is to intelligently guide the student in his preparation for the final examination, to assist him in that organization and correllation of his work which is the key-note of the plan. His work begins where the adviser’s work ends. The adviser still superintends the choice of courses made by the student although it is to be expected, probably, that a capable tutor will tend to influence this choice. It will be impossible so sharply to distinguish the task of choosing courses and correlating them as to prevent this. The sanction of the adviser may approximate formal permission, with the guiding force held by the tutor.

The general examination on the other hand, modelled after the plan in use for doctorate examinations, including a general examination for the division work and a supplementary special test for the department or field, reaches over the whole matter of choice and organization and focuses the work of the adviser, tutor and student.

One result is inevitable, that is, the effect of producing a more serious scientific attitude toward the work. The student who chooses this Division will be presumed to have made the choice with serious intent to perfect himself in that line. The student who chose that work because he had to concentrate in something may well feel he is getting more than he bargained for. This is not a criticism; the result-to make study in that division more in the way of laboratory work, to lift it out of the region of inconsequent eclectic undergraduate education may be more serious. The decline or increase in the number of men in the Division will show to what an extent the work there is taken for serious reasons, not as a line of least resistance.

The effect in minimizing course grades, cramming, and mechanical study can only be helpful. To produce capable and broad-minded students, with a wide grasp of their field and an accurate knowledge of their specialty is the very desirable end to which the system aims. And that not by more work but by better organization.

Excerpt from
Will Exchange Two Tutors [with Oxford and Cambridge] Next Year
March 19, 1923

…the work of the tutor is independent of courses, not subordinate to them; for tutorial instruction is quite separate from course instruction.

Started Here in 1912

The tutorial system was inaugurated Harvard in 1912. At that time a general examination for graduation was established experimentally for men concentrating in History, Government and Economics. It was felt that these examinations could be made effective and, at the same time, fair to the student only by the development of a system of individual guidance, so six tutors were appointed. Since then the general examination, with or without tutors, has been put into effect as a requirement for men concentrating in a number of other subjects, all in fact, except Mathematics and the natural sciences,–and the number of tutors having been accordingly increased from six to over 30.

Of the conditions here, Professor H. H. Burbank, G. ’15 says in his recent annual report as chairman of the board of tutors in History, Government and Economics. “Attendance at the conferences is not compulsory. There is no system of monitoring or reports of absences to the college office. The fear of disciplinary action cannot serve as a stimulus to meet appointments or to prepare assignments. It is true that the authority to employ disciplinary measures can be invoked if the occasion arises, but in eight years no resort to such measures has been necessary. Yet the cutting of tutorial appointments is comparatively rare, far less than the cutting of courses. The majority of concentrators, well over 60 per cent, seldom fail to meet their engagements. The tradition of tutorial work has become firmly established”….

____________________________

READINGS IN ECONOMIC TUTORIAL DEPARTMENT
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
[1926-27 or 1927-28]

6 Dunbar Theory and History of Banking Putnam, New York
6 Cannan Money King, London
12 Bagehot Lombard St. Murray, London
12 Robertson Money Harcourt Brace Co., N.Y.
5 Cassell Money and Foreign Exchange MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Carver Essays in Social Justice Harvard University Press
6 White Money and Banking Ginn and Co., Boston
6 Hawtrey Monetary Reconstruction Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
6 Hawtrey Currency and Credit Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
3 Hawtrey Economic Problem Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
6 George Progress and Poverty Garden City Pub. Co., N.Y.
3 Andreades History of Bank of England King, London
5 Withers Meaning of Money E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
3 Toynbee Industrial Revolution Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
4 Morley Life of Cobden, Vol. I; Vol. II. MacMillan, N.Y.
4 Trevelyan John Bright Houghton Mifflin Co., N.Y.
5 Fisher Purchasing Power of Money MacMillan, N.Y.
2 Chamberlain Bond Investment Henry Holt & Co., N.Y.
3 Lough Corporation Finance Alex. Hamilton Institute, N.Y.
2 Henderson Federal Trade Commission Yale University Press, New Haven
12 Smith Wealth of Nations (Everyman’s Lib.)  Vol. I; Vol. II. E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
6 Ricardo Political Economy (Everyman’s Lib.) E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
3 Ricardo First Six Chapters of Political Economy MacMillan, N.Y.
12 Ricardo Political Economy (Gonner Editor) George Bell, London
3 Malthus Essay on Population MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Mill Political Economy (Ashley Edition) Longmans Green & Co., N.Y.
2 Mill Political Economy (2 vols) Vol. I; Vol. II. Appleton & Co., N.Y.
6 Marshall Principles of Economics MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Marshall Industry and Trade MacMillan, N.Y.
3 Hobson Work and Wealth MacMillan, N.Y.
3 Pigou Economics of Welfare MacMillan, N.Y.
12 Henderson Supply and Demand Harcourt Brace Co., N.Y.
6 Cannan Wealth King, London
3 Davenport Economics of Enterprise MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Carver Distribution of Wealth MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Ely Outlines of Economics MacMillan, N.Y.
6 Clark Economics of Overhead Costs University of Chicago Press
6 Gide & Rist History of Economic Thought D.C. Heath & Co., Boston
3 Fairchild, Furniss & Buck Principles of Economics MacMillan, N.Y.
2 Flux Economic Principles E.P. Dutton Co., N.Y.
6 Veblen Theory of the Leisure Class Vanguard Press, N.Y.
3 Cassell The Theory of Social Economy Harcourt Brace Co., N.Y.
4 Böhm-Bawerk Positive Theory of Capital G.E. Stecher Co., N.Y.
3 National Indust. Conference Public Regulation of Competitive Practices
3 National Indust. Conference Trade Associations

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC8522.2.1), Folder “1927-28”.

Image Source:  Harold Hitchings Burbank in Harvard Class Album 1925.

Categories
Berkeley Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Colorado Columbia Cornell Duke Economics Programs Economist Market Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Stanford Texas Undergraduate Vanderbilt Wisconsin Yale

Size distribution of graduate and undergraduate programs in economics. U.S., 1963-65

 

 

These are the last two statistical tables from the so-called “Cartel” summary report from December 1965 of leading economics departments in the U.S. intended to provide orientation for departmental chairpersons in salary negotiations. Today’s posting gives the numbers of undergraduate and graduate majors reported by 29 departments. 

Earlier postings gave the distribution for full-professors, the distribution for associate professors, and the distribution for assistant professors across departments. Two previous postings have the actual distributions for entering salaries for new Ph.D.’s for 1964-65 and 1965-66 and the anticipated range of salary offers for new Ph.D.’s for 1966-67. Those first five reports from The Cartel provide distributions of median or average incomes or ranges of salary offers by ranks across departments. Table 6c from the summary report that gives the salary distributions by rank for 335 professors, 143 associate professors and 185 assistant professors from all 27 departments.

Refer to the first posting in this series of tables for information about the compiler Professor Francis Boddy of the University of Minnesota and a list of the 30 departments belonging to the Chairmen’s Group.

____________________

 

TABLE 7c
Graduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions:

 

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66
(Estimate)
300 and over 2 2

1

200-299

0 0 2
150-199 3 4

5

100-149

6 5 6
80-99 4 4

3

60-79

5 7 5
40-59 6 4

4

20-39

2 1 0
1-19 1 1

1

Number of departments reporting:

29

28

27

Total number of students:

2,963

3,057

3,118

____________________

 

TABLE 8C
Undergraduate majors in Economics – 29 institutions

 

1963-64 1964-65
300 and over 4

4

250-299

1 1
200-249 3

2

150-199

4 6
100-149 8

5

80-99

1 1
60-79 2

1

40-59

2 3
20-39 1

1

1-19

1

1

Number of departments reporting:

27

25

Total number of students:

4,550

4,312

 

Source: Johns Hopkins University. The Ferdinand Hamburger, Jr. Archives. Department of Political Economy, Series 5, Box 6, Folder 2 “Statistical Information”.

Image Source: quick meme website.

Categories
Curriculum Exam Questions Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Francis Bowen’s Final Exam for Political Economy, 1869

 

 

While collecting old economics examination questions at the Harvard University Archives, I happened to come across a final examination for Political Economy from the pre-Dunbar years. The senior year course during the academic year 1868-69 was taught by Francis Bowen who assigned his own textbook, The Principles of Political Economy applied to the Condition, the Resources, and the Institutions of the American People (2nd edition, 1859). In the following year (1870) Bowen published American Political Economy; including Strictures of the Currency and the Finances since 1861. One probably can presume his lectures were closer to the latter of the two books. 

For this post I have included Bowen’s obituary published by the Harvard Crimson as well as a summary of the Harvard College curriculum in 1868-69 as published in the annual report of the President of Harvard College.

 

__________________________

Bowen’s Examination Questions

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

  1. Explain the difference between the laws of England, France, and the United States in respect to the rights of inheritance and bequest of real estate and personal property, showing the economical results of each of the three systems.
  2. What are the Metayer system, the Allotment system, Tenant Right, the Cottier Tenure, Peasant Proprietors, and the advantages and disadvantages of each?
  3. Show the difference between Exchange Value, Market Price, and Cost of Production. What is the law of the Equation of Demand and Supply?
  4. Wherein does Monopoly or a Scarcity Value differ from ordinary Cost of Production? According to Ricardo, is Rent an element in the Cost of Production;–and why.
  5. How is the interchange of commodities between distant countries regulated not by their absolute, but their comparative, Cost of Production? Explain the Equation of International Demand, and show the influence of cost of carriage on International Values.
  6. By what is the Rate of Interest regulated? Does this Rate depend on the Value of Money? How does it affect the price of land?
  7. What are the fundamental rules of Taxation? Distinguish between Direct and Indirect taxation:–what provision in the Constitution of the United States on this subject? How ought this provision to affect the Income Tax?
  8. What effect has the Rate of Taxation on the amount of revenue collected? Ought taxes to be at the same rate on large and small incomes?
  9. When did the National Debts begin, and wherein do they differ from private debts? What is the Funding of a National Debt?
  10. How came both England and the United States to be in debt for a much larger amount than they ever received from their creditors? What are the arguments in favor of paying off a National Debt within the lifetime of the generation that contracted it?

Sen. Ann. June, 1869.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Final Examinations 1853-2001. Box 1, Folder “Final examinations, 1868-1869”.

 

__________________________

An Obituary for Francis Bowen

Francis Bowen.
Harvard Crimson, January 22, 1890

Late yesterday afternoon it was announced that Professor Francis Bowen had died at his home at one o’clock of heart failure. He was born on September 8, 1811, at Charleston, Mass., and was therefore in his seventy-ninth year. In 1833 he was graduated from the college in the same class with Professor Lovering, Professor Torrey, Dr. M. Wyman, Professor J. Wyman, and the late Dr. George E. Ellis of Boston. During the four years following his graduation he was an instructor here in intellectual philosophy and political economy. In 1843 he succeeded Dr. Palfrey as editor and proprietor of the North American Review which he conducted until 1854. He was appointed professor of history in the college in 1850, but the board of overseers refused to confirm the appointment on account of his unpopular views on politics. Three years later, however, he was unanimously confirmed as Alford professor to succeed Dr. Walker. In this capacity he continued to serve the college until December, 1889, when he resigned the professorship; so that he has been in active service over thirty-six years. He was a prompt and constant attendant at lectures and always interested in his work. Of late years he has done only half-work and is not well-known to many of the undergraduates. But his influence on the graduates has been remarkably strong, many of them remembering him with the greatest affection.

In the early days of the Lowell Institute he was one of the most popular lecturers in the country. In 1848-9 he lectured before the Institute on the application of metaphysical and ethical science to the evidences of religion; in 1850 on political economy; in 1852, on the origin and development of the English and American constitutions; and subsequently on English philosophers from Bacon to Sir William Hamilton. The most of these lectures were subsequently published. He also published an annotated edition of Virgil, Critical Essays on the History and Present Condition of Speculative Philosophy, Principles of Political Economy, a text book on Logic, Sir William Hamilton’s essays on metaphysics, condensed and edited, and not more than five years ago he prepared the report of the U. S. Silver Commission. In 1879 the degree of L. L. D. was conferred upon him by the University, an honor fifty crowning his years of usefulness. The last years of his life have been quiet and uneventful.

 

__________________________

 

Overview of Harvard College Courses of Instruction, 1868-69

APPENDIX.
I.

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE COURSE OF INSTRUCTION PURSUED IN THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1868-69.

I. ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT.

 

  1. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

INSTRUCTION in Ethics and in Christian Evidences was given by the Acting President. During the First Term he heard recitations from the Freshman Class, twice a week, in Champlin’s First Principles of Ethics, and Bulfinch’s Evidences of Christianity.

During the Second Term he met the Senior Class twice a week, hearing them recite in Peabody’s Christianity the Religion of Nature, and delivering Lectures on the Christian Scriptures and the Evidences of Christianity. During the entire year the service of Daily Prayers was attended by him; and he supplied the Chapel pulpit on Sunday.

Two hundred and seventy-five students had leave of absence from Cambridge to pass Sunday at home; one hundred and forty-five attended worship in the College Chapel; and one hundred and sixteen attended other churches in Cambridge.

 

  1. PHILOSOPHY.

The means of instruction in this Department are recitations familiarly illustrated at the time by the Professor, lectures occasionally substituted for recitations, and written forensic exercises.

The Department was under the charge of Francis Bowen, A. M., Alford Professor, assisted by William W. Newell, A.B., Instructor in Philosophy. During the First Academic Term the Senior Class recited three times a week in Bowen’s Ethics and Metaphysics, and Bowen’s Political Economy. During a portion of the Second Term the same Class recited twice a week in Bowen’s Ethics and Metaphysics. An elective section of the same class also recited three times a week in Mill’s Examination of Sir W. Hamilton’s Philosophy, Schwegler’s History of Philosophy, Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought, and Bowen’s Essays. The Junior Class recited twice a week to Mr. Newell in Bowen’s Logic, Reid’s Essays, and Hamilton’s Metaphysics. The Sophomores recited to Mr. Newell twice a week during one term in Stewart’s Philosophy of the Mind.

Forensics were read, in the First Term, once a month by the Seniors, half of the Class attending each fortnight. The Juniors also read Forensics once a month during one term.

 

  1. RHETORIC AND ORATORY.

This Department is under the superintendence of Francis J. Child, Ph. D., Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory, assisted in the teaching of Elocution by James Jennison, A. M. Instruction was given to elective sections of the three higher classes in the Early English Language and Literature.

Sophomores had two lessons a week, and studied Vernon’s Anglo-Saxon Guide and Morris’s Specimens of Early English.

Juniors had three lessons a week, and studied Vernon’s Anglo-Saxon Guide, Morris’s Specimens, and Morris’s edition of the Prologues and Knightes Tale from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.

The Senior section read Thorpe’s Analecta Anglo-Saxoniea and Mätzner’s Altenglische Sprachproben.

One fifth of the Sophomore Class wrote Themes, and attended a critical exercise upon them, each week throughout the year.

The Juniors wrote Themes, and attended a critical exercise upon them, once every three weeks during the First Term.

The Senior Class had four Themes during the Second Term.

The inspection of performances for Commencement and for the other public Exhibitions is committed to this Department.

The foregoing statement relates to the duties of the Professor.

There are separate courses of instruction in Elocution, and in Reading, which are wholly under the care of the Tutor in Elocution.

The Sophomores and Freshmen attended him once every week during the year as required, and he gave instruction to extra sections from all the classes.

He superintended rehearsals of performances for the Public Exhibitions of the year; the final rehearsal for each of which is regularly attended by the Professor.

 

  1. HISTORY.

In this Department instruction was given to the whole Senior Class by Professor Torrey and Professor Gurney; the textbooks used being the Abridgment of Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Guizot’s Civilization in Europe, Arnold’s Lectures, and Hallam’s Middle Ages. An elective class read with Professor Torrey May’s Constitutional History and Mill on Representative Government. A special examination was held of students who had offered themselves as candidates for Honors after having pursued an additional course of study.

The Sophomore Class recited to Professor Gurney in “ The Student’s Gibbon ” during the First Term.

The Freshman Class recited to Mr. Lewis, in the Second Term, in Duruy’s “Histoire Grecque.”

 

  1. MODERN LANGUAGES.

This Department is under the superintendence of James R. Lowell, A. M., Smith Professor of the French and Spanish Languages, and Professor of Belles-Lettres. Elbridge J. Cutler, A. B., Assistant Professor, has special charge of the instruction in French and German. Bennett H. Nash, A. M., is instructor in Italian and Spanish. Thomas S. Perry, A. M., is Tutor of Modern Languages. Louis C. Lewis, A. M., was Tutor of Modern Languages during the last year.

French is a required study during the First Term of the Freshman year; and Ancient History is taught from a French textbook during the Second Term of that year. French is an elective study during the Senior year. German is a required study during the Sophomore year; and an elective during the Junior and Senior years. During the last year the Sophomores studied French instead of German, they having failed to study French during their Freshman year, for reasons given in the last Annual Report. Spanish is studied as an extra, i. e. without marks, during the Junior year, and as an elective during the Senior year. Italian is an elective in the Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years, and the students are allowed to study Italian during any one or two of these three years; but no Senior beginning Italian is allowed to receive marks for the same.

The Professor gave a course of lectures to the Seniors during the Second Term.

The Assistant Professor taught elective German to the Seniors in two sections, three times a week throughout the year. Text-books, Otto’s and Weisse’s German Grammars, “Egmont,” “Taugenichts,” “Braune Erica,” Schiller’s “Maria Stuart,” and Goethe’s “Wahrheit und Dichtung.” He also taught elective French to the Seniors in two sections, three times a week. Textbooks, Beaumarchais’s “Barbier de Seville,” La Fontaine’s Fables, Racine’s “Athalie,” “Selections from French Prose-Writers,” and Pylodet’s “ Littérature Française.”

Instruction was given in Italian as follows :—

To a section of the Senior Class, in three recitations a week. This section read portions of Tasso’s “Gerusalemme ” and of Dante’s “Divina Commedia,” upon which the Instructor gave explanatory lectures. The section also handed in written translations from English into Italian, and had exercises in writing Italian from dictation. They had one written examination beside the annual examination.

To a section of the Junior Class, in two recitations a week. The textbooks used were Cuore’s Grammar, Nota’s “La Fiera,” and Dall’ Ongaro’s “La Rosa dell’ Alpi.” They attended one private written examination, practised writing Italian from dictation, and gave in written translations from English into Italian.

To two sections of the Sophomore Class. Each section had two recitations a week in the same text-books as the Juniors. Each section was exercised in writing Italian from dictation. Beside the annual examination at the close of the Second Term, the Sophomores attended three written examinations.

Instruction was given in Spanish as follows : —

To a section of the Senior Class, which attended three recitations a week, and read Moratin’s “El sí de las niñas,” Lope de Vega’s “La Estrella de Sevilla,” and portions of “Don Quijote.” This section wrote Spanish from dictation, and also translations from English into Spanish. They had one private examination in writing, beside the Annual Examination at the close of the Second Term.

To a section of the Junior Class, which recited twice a week, studying Josse’s Grammar and Reader, and portions of Le Sage’s “Gil Blas.”

 

  1. LATIN.

During the last year this Department was under the superintendence of George M. Lane, Ph. D., University Professor of Latin, aided by Mr. James B. Greenough and Mr. Prentiss Cummings, Tutors. The instruction of the Senior and Junior Classes was conducted by Professor Lane, that of the Sophomore Class by Mr. Cummings, and that of the Freshman Class by Mr. Greenough.

Instruction was given to the Freshman Class in Lincoln’s Selections from Livy (two Books), the Odes of Horace, Cicero’s Cato Major, Roman Antiquities, and in writing Latin:

To the Sophomore Class, in Cicero’s Laelius, Cato Major, and Select Epistles; Terence’s Phormio, Eunuchus, and Adelphi; Quintus Curtius, selections from Ovid, Seneca’s Hercules Furens, and in Writing Latin:

To the Junior Class, in Horace’s Satires, Tacitus’s Annals, and Juvenal :

To the Seniors, in Juvenal, Cicero de Deorum Natura, Lucretius, and Plautus, in the regular elective division. Besides this, instruction was given to the candidates for Honors, in Tacitus and in Latin Composition.

 

  1. GREEK.

The Greek Department, in the absence of William W. Goodwin, Ph. D., Eliot Professor of Greek Literature, was under the charge of Evangelinus A. Sophocles, LL.D., University Professor of Ancient, Byzantine, and Modern Greek, and Isaac Flagg, A. M., and William H. Appleton, A.M., Tutors in Greek.

The Freshmen were instructed by Mr. Flagg and Mr. Appleton. They were divided into four sections, and attended four recitations a week during each Term, besides exercises in Greek Composition. The text-books were Xenophon’s Memorabilia, the Odyssey, and Lysias.

The Sophomores were instructed by Mr. Flagg. They recited twice a week, in four sections, and read the Prometheus of Aeschylus, the Birds of Aristophanes, and the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes. The elective section in advanced Greek read also Plato’s Apology and Crito, the Alcestis of Euripides, and half of the First Book of Herodotus. The Class was also instructed in Greek Composition.

An elective section of Juniors read the first three books of Polybius with Professor Sophocles. A section of Juniors read Aeschines, and Demosthenes on the Crown with Mr. Flagg.

An elective section of Seniors read Plato’s Apology and Crito, and the Electra of Sophocles with Mr. Flagg; and another section read the Antigone of Sophocles, the Alcestis of Euripides, and Thucydides with Professor Sophocles.

 

  1. HEBREW.

This Department, vacant the First Term, was filled the Second Term by Rev. Edward J. Young, Hancock Professor of Hebrew and other Oriental Languages, who gives instruction twice a week to such students as desire it.

 

  1. NATURAL HISTORY.

This Department, now wholly elective, was, in the absence of Professor Gray, under the care of Wm. T. Brigham, A.M.

The course was attended by sixty-four Students of the Junior Class; and the instruction was given by recitations in Structural Botany, lectures on Vegetable Physiology and Organography, and practical work in plant-analysis with the microscope, followed by oral and written examinations. Each student was occupied three hours each week in the lecture-room. From the Thanksgiving recess to the end of the First Term the Class attended recitations and lectures on Animal Physiology and Anatomy, under the care of Jeffri9es Wyman, M. D.

 

  1. ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY.

A course of twenty Lectures on the Anatomy and Physiology of Vertebrated Animals was delivered during the First Term, to members of the Senior Class, and to members of the Professional Schools, by Jeffries Wyman, M.D., Hersey Professor of Anatomy. The Lectures were given on Tuesdays and Thursdays, at 12 M. During the second half of the First Term, fifty members of the Junior Glass attended recitations from a text-book on Physiology, on Wednesdays and Fridays, from 10 to 12 A.M.

 

  1. CHEMISTRY AND MINERALOGY.

The instruction in this Department was given by Josiah P. Cooke, A.M., Erving Professor, and George A. Hill, A.B., Tutor in Physics and Chemistry. During the First Term the Sophomore Class studied Cooke’s Chemical Physics, reciting in three divisions twice each week, and passing two private examinations during the Term. In the Second Term the same Class studied “The First Principles of Chemical Philosophy,” passing one private examination, and the usual public examination at the end of the year. They also attended a course of Lectures, one each week, on General Chemistry.

Those of the Junior Class who elected this department attended during the whole year a course of instruction in Practical Chemistry, giving their attendance in the Laboratory six hours each week, in addition to the three regular hours of recitation. The text-books used were Galloway’s Qualitative Chemical Analysis and Cooke’s Chemical Philosophy; but the course is specially designed to train the faculties of observation and to teach the methods of scientific study, and hence the greater part of the instruction is necessarily oral. The course of Lectures on General Chemistry begun in the Second Term of the Sophomore was continued during the First Term of the Junior Year, two each week until the end of the Term.

Those of the Senior Class who elected Chemical Physics received instruction in Crystallography during the First Term (the text-book used being Cooke’s Chemical Physics), and during the Second Term in Blowpipe Analysis and in Mineralogy, the course consisting of Lectures and practical instruction in the laboratory and cabinet. Elderhorst’s Blowpipe Analysis and Dana’s Manual of Mineralogy were used as books of reference.

 

  1. PHYSICS.

During the last academic year instruction in this Department was conducted by George A. Hill, A.B., Tutor in Chemistry and Physics. Joseph Lovering, A.M., Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, was absent in Europe through the year, so that the usual courses of Lectures on Physics to the Senior and Junior Classes were not given.

The whole Junior Class recited to Mr. Hill three times a week during the First and Second Terms; and read Herschel’s Outlines of Astronomy and Lardner’s Course of Natural Philosophy [Optics]. This Class was examined at the end of the Second Term in both books.

The Class recited in three Divisions; each Division remaining with the instructor one hour at every exercise; in all nine hours a week.

 

  1. MATHEMATICS.

The instruction in this Department was given by Benjamin Peirce, LL.D., Perkins Professor of Astronomy and Mathematics; James Mills Peirce, A.M., Assistant Professor of Mathematics; Edwin P. Seaver, A.M., Tutor; and George V. Leverett, A.B., Instructor.
The Freshman Class recited, throughout the year, in four sections three times in the week, and in two sections, once in the week, from the following text-books: Peirce’s Plane and Solid Geometry, and Peirce’s Algebra. The Freshmen were also instructed in Plane Trigonometry.
The study of Mathematics was elective during the Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years.
In the Sophomore year the instruction in Pure and Applied Mathematics was arranged in four courses of two lessons a week each, and Students were allowed to elect one or more of these courses. The subjects taught were Analytic Geometry (Puckle’s Conic Sections, and lectures on the Elements of Analytic Geometry of Three Dimensions), the Differential Calculus (lectures and examples), Spherical Trigonometry
(lectures and examples), Elementary Mechanics (Goodwin and Kerr), and the Theory of Sound (Peirce).
Instruction was given to those who elected Mathematics in the Junior and Senior years, by lectures and recitations, on three days in the week, throughout the year, in Differential, Imaginary, Integral, and Residual Calculus, in the Calculus of Quaternions, and in the Mathematical Theory of Mechanics and Astronomy.
Applied Mathematics (Kerr’s Elementary Mechanics) was also an elective study in the Junior year.

[…]

 

COURSE OF INSTRUCTION FOR THE ACADEMICAL YEAR, 1868-69.

[…]

SENIOR CLASS.
FIRST TERM.

  1. Philosophy. Bowen’s Ethics and Metaphysics.—Bowen’s Political Economy.—Forensics.
  2. Modern History. Guizot’s and Arnold’s Lectures.—Story’s Abridged Commentaries on the Constitution.

ELECTIVE AND EXTRA STUDIES.

  1. Philosophy. Mill’s Examination of Hamilton’s Philosophy.—Last 140 pages of Bowen’s Logic.
  2. Mathematics. Peirce’s Analytic Mechanics.
  3. History. May’s Constitutional History.—Mill on Representative Government.
  4. Chemistry. Crystallography and Physics of Crystals.
  5. Greek. The Antigone of Sophocles.—The Alcestis of Euripides.
  6. Latin. Juvenal.—Cicero de Deorum Natura.—Tacitus’s Annals and Latin Exercises, with an extra Division.
  7. German. Goethe’s Egmont.—Schiller’s Wallenstein’s Lager und Maria Stuart.—Exercises in Writing German.
  8. French. Mennechet’s Littérature Française Classique.—La Fontaine’s Fables.—Writing French.
  9. Advanced Spanish. Moratin’s El sí de las niñas.—Lope de Vega’s La Estrella di Sevilla.
  10. Advanced Section. Tasso’s Gerusalemme.
  11. English. Thorpe’s Analecta Anglo-Saxonica.—Mätzner’s Alt-englische Sprachproben.
  12. Modern Literature. Lectures.
  13. Patristic and Modern Greek.
  14. Geology. Lectures.
  15. Anatomy. Lectures.

SECOND TERM.

  1. History. Hallam’s Middle Ages, one volume.
  2. Religious Instruction.
  3. Political Economy. Bowen’s, finished.
  4. Rhetoric. Themes.

 

ELECTIVE AND EXTRA STUDIES.

  1. Philosophy. Schwegler’s History of Philosophy (Selections).—Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought.—Exercises and Lectures.
  2. Mathematics. Peirce’s Analytic Mechanics.—Lectures on Quaternions.
  3. Greek. Thucydides, First two Books.—Homer’s Iliad, Book IV.
  4. Latin. Lucretius and Plautus (Selections).
  5. History. Constitutional History.—Constitution of the United States, and the Federalist.
  6. Chemistry. Mineralogy and Determination of Minerals.
  7. German. Die Braune Erika.—Goethe’s Hermann and Dorothea.—Faust.—Writing German.
  8. French. Mennechet’s Littérature Française Classique.—Molière’s Misanthrope.—Beaumarchais’s Barbier.—Lessons in French Pronunciation.
  9. Advanced Spanish. Don Quijote.
  10. Advanced Section. Dante’s Divina Commedia.
  11. English. Studies of First Term continued.
  12. Zoölogy. Lectures.
  13. Modern Literature. Lectures.
  14. Patristic and Modern Greek.

[…]

 

The required studies of the Senior Class are History, Philosophy, and Ethics (together five hours a week). The elective studies are Greek, Latin, Mathematics, Physics, Chemical Physics, History, Philosophy, and Modern Languages (French, German, Italian, and Spanish). In each elective department there will be three exercises a week. Each Senior may choose three or two electives (at his pleasure), and receive marks for the same. Special students for honors may be permitted to devote the whole nine hours to two elective departments, under such restrictions as may be prescribed. Marks will be allowed in Modern Languages in the Senior year to advanced students only.

 

 

Source: Harvard University. Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1868-69.

Image Source:  Portrait of Francis Bowen from the Harvard Square Library (Unitarian Universalism). The Harvard Book: Portraits.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard Syllabus Undergraduate

Harvard. Sweezy and Stolper’s Outline for a “good Text”. 1940

 

 

Three handwritten pages of notes taken by Wolfgang Stolper sometime late in 1940 from what appears to have been a brain-storming session with his buddy Paul Sweezy were important enough to Stolper to have been saved by him in a folder filled with economics honors exams and course syllabi from his early years at Swarthmore.

Anyone who has taught an introductory economics course has probably drawn up a rough outline of one’s own ideal course. Stolper actually attached a handwritten title page that was stapled to the three pages “Outline for a good Ec A course or good Text”. I think there is a note of irony in this description, but maybe not, there really was not an abundance of good modern texts of economics at the time. Paul Samuelson’s own text Economics was only published in 1948.

The significance of the outline is to have a glimpse at what other young Harvard economists around Samuelson were thinking at that critical juncture in modern economics.

Note.  I have highlighted my conjectures for the very few illegibilities/ambiguities in the text.

_______________________________

 

Outline for a good Ec A course or good Text.
by Paul M. Sweezy and W. F. Stolper
about Nov. or Dec. 1940

  1. Nat[tional] Income
    1. explanation of what it is
    2. how received
    3. how spent
      poverty even of U.S.
    4. difference betw[een] inc[ome] prod[uced] & paid out.
  2. Conditions of Equil[ibrium]
    1. Full employment
    2. Savings & investment
      period analysis
  3. Secular Trends in investment
    1. Industr[ial] Revol[ution] today
    2. Kondratieff waves
    3. cycle
  4. Capital Formation
    Rel[ation] betw[een] investment & Nat[ional] income
    Hoarding & dishoarding
    Variation in effective Dem[and]
    Credit creation
    Fed[eral] Reserve System
    “Say’s Law”
  5. Full employment & Fiscal Policy
    thorough awareness of (8a)
  6. Assuming Full Employment
    how should factors of prod[uction] be allocated most effectively
    perf[ect] compet[ition] & rel[ative] optimum
    MP conditions
  7. Modifications of compet[ition]
  8. Corpor[ations] & unions, how effect terms of the foregoing analysis
    1. level of ec[onomic] activity
    2. the effectiveness of ec[onomic] activity
  9. The interrelationship of markets
    Interrel[ationship] betw[een] nat[ional] inc[ome] & for[eign] trade
    allocation of resources betw[een] agr[iculture] & ind[ustry]
    bal[ance] of payments, & rel[ationship] of monetary systems for trade multipliers
    cap[ital] movementsState activity designed to modify & improve working of the system

    1. Fiscal Policy & distrib[ution] of income
    2. Publ[ic] utilities, R[ail]R[oad] rates
    3. antitrust & monop[oly] regul[ation] Gov[ernment] Corp[orations,] TVA etc.
  10. [Welfare economics]
    Criteria for overall planning

    1. to increase level of activity
    2. to increase welfare
      1. meanings of welfare
      2. Taxation problems:
        shifting of taxes
        stimulating taxes
  11. Alternat[ive] Ec[onomic] Systems—Overall Planning
    State Cap[italism]—Socialism—Fascism
    Feudalism

 

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Papers of Wolfgang F. Stolper, 1892-2001, Box 22, Folder 1.

Image Sources: Paul Sweezy (left) from Harvard Class Album 1942; Wolfgang F. Stolper (right) from  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (Fellow, 1947).

 

 

Categories
Curriculum Economists Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Undergraduate Economics and WWII, 1942

 

 

In an earlier post Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provided the syllabus and readings for the Harvard course Economics 18b “Economic Aspects of War” offered in the Spring term of 1940. Today’s post provides information about course changes and faculty leaves that were early parts of “broad plans to orient its [i.e., the Department of Economics] program to the nation’s wartime needs” two years later.

Marking the 70th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the Harvard Gazette (Nov 10, 2011) posted a bullet point list “to recount Harvard’s role in World War II“.

_____________________

Harvard Crimson
March 18, 1942

Training for War Work Offered by Economics
By J. ROBERT MOSKIN

This is the sixth in a series of articles to appear during the coming weeks discussing the effects of the present war on the departments of concentration, their courses, enrollment, and Faculties.

Pointing directly at the preparation of undergraduates for war work in Washington and in the quartermaster corps of the armed services, the Economics Department has developed broad plans to orient its program to the nation’s wartime needs. Although in the blueprint stage now, concrete advancements will be made this summer and next fall.

Economics, of all the non-scientific fields, has organized most fully to adapt its students to the emergency. Upon receiving their bachelor degree, students will be ready to take Civil Service examinations for such positions as junior economist, which pays $2,000 annually, or to complete further graduate work and then enter the supply division of the armed services. There is a large demand for college trained men in both these fields.

Prepared for Peace

Students in the war preparation course for government jobs, the department insists, will not be unfit for peacetime work. They will receive the usual foundation in economics but on a more concentrated and demanding scale with added emphasis on techniques. All students studying for government work, for example, will probably be required to take Math A and courses in Statistics and Accounting. At the present time, these courses are entirely voluntary.

Under the proposed plan, concentrators who wish to prepare along pre-war lines will find the field little altered and a full opportunity to study as in the past. The demands of the current crisis, however, have thrown business as usual into the background and opened the way for the development of an objective service branch in Economics.

Students in this latter portion of the field will also be required to take more economics courses. Now they must have History I, Government I, and four Economics courses including Ec A. While retention of the History and Government requisites is being debated, this minimum will surely be raised.

Two New Courses Planned

Two new courses, bearing directly on war problems, are already scheduled for next fall under the direction of Professor Abbott P. Usher. Bracketing Economic History 1750-1914, 36, Professor Usher will offer two half courses in successive semesters: Location of Economic Activity, General Principles and Current Problems, 65a, and Economic Imperialism and Allied Problems, 44b. Moreover, the contents of current courses will be supplemented to answer questions arising from the war.

The 12-week summer program presents the department with a more complicated situation. Under serious consideration both here and in Washington is a plan to extend instruction in Economics to government workers during the summer term. Courses for these men will be open to undergraduates and in fact will be very often the usual department subjects. The program will probably feature such courses as Money and Banking, Economics of War, and a new course in Commodity Consumption, Distribution and Prices.

Changes Few So Far

But all the planning is still “on order.” While the Economics Department has developed a more revolutionary and extensive war program than many others, its adjustments already in effect are much less extensive.

In the past three years there has been a violent reduction in the number of concentrators in Economics with the 372 of November 1939 down to 267 last November. The department attributes the drop, in the main, to the parallel decline of long terms for younger staff members. This rapid turnover has made for a less experienced Faculty and a slackening of student interest.

This year the department has suffered the loss of two important professors to the war effort. Professor William L. Crum is now working for the Navy and the Treasury and Professor Edward S. Mason is in the Office of the Coordinator of Information in Washington. To replace Mason, who has been absent the entire year, Corwin D. Edwards of the Department of Justice and now visiting lecturer on Economics is giving graduate Instruction in Industrial Organization and Price Policies.

Neither graduate nor undergraduate Instruction has as yet been radically affected by the war, but drastic reductions in graduate enrollment are predicted by the department. Among undergraduate courses, Economics of Agriculture, 71, has been dropped from the roster because Visiting Instructor Albert A. Thornbrough was called to Washington last September. Instructor Lloyd A. Metzler is replacing Professor Mason in Industrial Organization and Control, 62b, while Economic Aspects of War and Defense, 18b, offered in the first half year, has been extended to this semester as 18c and made available to men whether or not they have completed the previous half year’s work.

Image Source.“Harvard goes to war, University’s key role in World War II helped the Allies to triumph” Harvard University Archives, Harvard’s 1943 Commencement. Included in: Corydon Ireland,  Harvard Gazette, November 10, 2011.

Categories
Curriculum Fields Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Taussig Reports to Alumni About the Special Needs of the Economics Department, 1915

 

A recent post provided Harvard President Lowell’s interpretation (1916) of the results of a recently completed study on economics instruction at Harvard (subsequently published in 1917). In this post we see how Professor Frank W. Taussig spins his reception of the ongoing study for a pitch to Harvard alumni to get over their edifice complexes (i.e. their revealed preference to fund new structures) and to create more endowments to fund graduate students and post-docs who are an important link between the research and instructional missions of the University in general and the department of economics in particular.

______________________________

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS.
PROF. F. W. TAUSSIG, ’79.

The most striking change that has taken place during the last fifty years in the content of the College curriculum has been the dominance acquired by the political and economic subjects. What Greek, Latin, Mathematics were a half-century ago, that Economics, Government, History are now, — the backbone of the ordinary undergraduate’s studies. I will not undertake to say whether on the whole the change is or is not to be welcomed. It has its good sides and its bad sides. In one respect it is undoubtedly good. The main cause behind it is a great awakening of public spirit, — a consciousness that the country is confronted with pressing political and economical problems, and that we must gird our loins to meet them. And an assured consequence will be that the new generation of College men, who are being graduated every year by the thousands and tens of thousands, all trained in these subjects, will constitute a leavening force which must in time affect profoundly and beneficially the conduct of public affairs. At all events, so far as university teachers and administrators are concerned, the plain fact must be faced: instruction in these subjects has to be provided on a large scale.

The responsibility thus devolving on the Harvard Department of Economics among others was impressed on its members by the outcome of the new system of concentration introduced in 1910. It appeared that in some years this department had the largest number of concentrations of any; and in every year the number was very large. Its only rival was the English Department. These figures — familiar enough to Harvard men — set the economists to thinking. Under the able leadership of the chairman, Prof. C. J. Bullock, a deliberate inspection of the Department’s work was decided on. Obviously, the surest way to get at the unvarnished facts was to enlist the services of outside critics. To this end the Department of Education was asked to come to our aid. Its members were invited to attend lectures and recitations, to read examination books and theses, to learn by questionnaires what the students themselves said and thought, to suggest improvements. In addition, some members of the Visiting Committee appointed by the Board of Overseers really visited, attending systematically the exercises in some courses and preparing valuable critical reports. The Educators responded to the appeal with gratifying heartiness, and the two Departments have cooperated cordially in a course of action which is unique in the history of the University.

Already this movement has borne fruit; and it will bear still more. The introductory course Economics A (which has successively borne the names Philosophy 6, Political Economy 1, Economics 1, and now Economics A) has been systematically visited. New methods of instruction have been suggested, old methods have been tested, promising devices are on trial. It should be added that the more expensive and effective methods of instruction tried in it, and started even before the educational survey, were made possible only by generous financial support from the Visiting Committee. This is the largest elective course in College, having over 500 students; here is the most important teaching task. In the next tier of courses, two are being conducted on new lines; in these cases on the department’s own initiative rather than in consequence of advice from outside. They are the undergraduate courses on accounting and statistics, in which something closely akin to a laboratory system is being applied. That is, the assigned tasks are done, not in the student’s room and at his own (procrastinated!) hour, but in special quarters equipped for the purpose, at times appointed in advance, and under the supervision and with the aid of well-trained assistants. Other courses, especially those having considerable numbers, are now under similar inspection, and we have every hope that in them also good advice will be secured and good results obtained.

The problems of instruction in this subject, as in so many others, are far from being solved. How far lecture, how far enlist discussion, how far recite? In what way bring it about that the students shall think for themselves? In what way communicate to them the best thinking of others? Almost every department of the University, not excepting the professional schools, is asking itself these questions and is experimenting with solutions. Undoubtedly, different methods will prove advantageous for different subjects. Within the Department of Economics itself there is occasion for variety in methods. Some courses, especially those dealing with matters of general principle and of theoretic reasoning, are best conducted by discussion. Others, dealing with concrete problems, with the history of industry and of legislation, with description and fact, call for a judicious admixture of required reading, lectures, written work. In all, the great thing to be aimed at is power and mastery: training in thinking for yourself, in reaching conclusions of your own, in expressing clearly and effectively what you have learned and thought out. The courses that deal with industrial history, with the labor problems, with railways and combinations, taxation and public finance, money and banking, need something in the nature of laboratory work, such as I have just referred to; an extension and improvement, supervision and systematization, of the familiar thesis work.

Now, throughout all such endeavor and experimentation, the indispensable thing is a staff of capable and well-trained instructors. We need able men, effective personalities. We need them throughout, from top to bottom, — professors, assistant professors, instructors, assistants. The ideal man is one having a good head, good judgment, good teaching power, good presence, good training, the spirit of scholarship and research. Men who possess all these qualities are rare birds; we are in luck when we get the perfect combination. Often we have to accept men not up to the ideal. But we know what we ought to have, and we should strive to get as nearly to its height as we can.

In no subject is there greater need of good teachers and of trained thinkers than in economics. The subject is difficult, and it abounds with unsolved problems. Some things in its domain are indeed settled, — more than would be inferred from current popular controversies or from the differences in the ranks of the economists themselves. But on sundry important topics it is useless to maintain that we have reached demonstrable conclusions. There are pros and cons; conflicting arguments must be weighed; only qualified propositions can be stated. Differences of temperament, of upbringing, of environment, will cause the opinions of able and conscientious men to vary. Hence there is need above all of teachers who can think, weigh, judge; who are aware of the inevitable divergencies of opinion and of the causes that underlie them. There is abundant room for conviction, for enthusiasm, for the emphatic statement of one’s own views. But also there is need, above all in the teacher, of patience, discrimination, charity for those whose views are different.

It is thus of the utmost importance that young men of the right stamp should be drawn into the profession. I say the profession, because it has come to be such. And it is a profession with large possibilities, one that may well tempt a capable, high-spirited, and ambitious young man. Twenty-five years ago, when I was in the early stage of my teaching career, it would have been rash to encourage such a youth to train himself to be an economist. Then academic positions were but ill-paid, and were not held in assured high esteem. The situation has changed. Though salaries are still meager, they are rising; and the public regard for scientific work is increasing for all subjects, and not least for this one. Quite as important is the circumstance that the services of trained economists are now in demand for the public service, and that in this direction there are large opportunities for usefulness and for distinction. The possible range of work has come to be much wider than the academic field. And no large pecuniary bait is necessary to enlist men of the needed quality. Those who are interested primarily in money-making cannot indeed be advised to enter the profession; but they are also not of the sort to be welcomed in it. I am convinced that nowadays there are more young men than ever, in Harvard and elsewhere, to whom something nobler appeals. The spirit of service is abroad in the land, and moves students not only in their choice of college courses, but in their choice of a career. Yet a career should be in sight. There should be a reasonable prospect of promotion, a decent income according to the standards of educated men.

To enlist men of the right stamp in the service of the University there must be still another sort of inducement. There must be a stimulating atmosphere, a pervasive spirit of initiative and research. To mould the thoughts of students and so the opinions of the coming generation is an attractive task; but no less attractive, often more so, — much will depend on temperament, — is the opportunity to influence the forward march of thought, the solution of new problems. As I have just said, economics offers unsolved problems in abundance. There are high questions of theory, concerned with the very foundations of the social order and tempting to the man of severe intellectual ambition. There are intricate questions of legislation and administration, calling for elaborate investigation and pressing for prompt action; these will tempt the man of practical bent. For either sort of work, there must be something more inspiring than the opportunity for routine teaching. The advanced student needs the clash of mind on mind, the companionship of eager inquiry. It is this way that the Graduate School most serves Harvard College, and indeed is indispensable to the College. Without the opportunity and the stimulus of independent scientific work by the graduate students as well as by the teaching staff, it would be hopeless to try to enlist in the University service promising men of the desired quality.

I dwell for a moment on this aspect of the situation, because it is not understood by those among the alumni who believe that too much of the University’s money and too much of the professors’ time are given to graduate instruction. The late Professor Child, one of the most distinguished scholars as well as one of the most delightful men in the annals of Harvard, is said to have remarked that Cambridge would be a most attractive place were it not for the students. The remark reflects the weariness which in time comes over the professor whose teaching is confined to the routine instruction of undergraduates. It is astonishing how much scholarly work of high quality was achieved by Child and others of the older generation, under the untoward conditions of their day; sometimes, there is ground for suspecting, — not, by the way, in Child’s case, — because they simply slighted their routine teaching. Under the new conditions and the new competition in the academic world, we may be sure that if this were the only sort of work expected of the staff, the staff would be made up in the main of men qualified for this work only. It is the opportunity of doing creative work that tempts the highest intellectual ability; and creative work needs a creative atmosphere.

It is to be noted, further, that the source from which Harvard College and all the colleges must draw their teaching staffs is in these graduate schools. The experience of the Department of Economics convinces its members that the only way to secure a good staff of junior teachers, — instructors and assistants, — is to train them in a graduate school. The staff of the Department has been very much improved during the last ten years, and the improvement has come almost exclusively by recruiting from its own advanced students. We are confident that the training we give them is thoroughly good; we even cherish the belief that nowhere else can so good a training be secured. At all events, we try to retain the best of our advanced students in our service; if not indefinitely, at least for considerable stretches of time. And among the inducements which lead them to stay with us are the opportunities not only for teaching, but for research of their own, made possible by a moderate stint of stated work and enriched by the wealth of material in our great library.

What the Department of Economics most needs, then, and indeed what the University most needs in every department, is men. The University must have buildings, laboratories, libraries; but most of all it must have ripe scholars, inspiring teachers, forward thinkers. As it happens, external and mechanical facilities count less in economics than in many other subjects. There is no need of expensive laboratories, such as are indispensable for physics, chemistry, biology, the medical sciences. Like the Law School, we use chiefly collections of books and documents, and convenient lecture and conference rooms. The one fundamental thing is the men, and the one way to get them is to have free money, — enough money to pay good salaries to those on the ground, and to draw to the University the rare genius whenever by good fortune he is to be found. The specific way in which the generous-minded graduate can serve the needs of such a department is by the endowment of instruction and research.

The endowment of instruction ordinarily takes the form of the establishment of a professorship; and this will doubtless remain the most effective way of achieving the end. But there are other ways also. Professor Bullock has recently called attention in these columns to the possibilities of the endowment of economic research. I venture to offer a suggestion for something analogous, — something which may combine the endowment of research with that of instruction, and which has the further merit of not requiring so formidable a sum as is necessary nowadays for the foundation of a professorship. The University has at its disposal a not inconsiderable number of fellowships for training young men of promise. I believe that it could use with high advantage similar posts, more dignified and more liberally endowed, for mature men who are more than promising, — whose powers are proved, whose achievements are assured. Research fellowships they might be called, or professorial fellowships, if you please. An endowment of a moderate amount would enable the incumbent of such a post, if a young unmarried man, to give his whole time to research; if an older man, to limit his teaching hours within moderate bounds and so to give a large share of his time and energy to research and publication. The appointments would be made, I should suppose, for a specified term of years; and they would go preferably to scholars in the full vigor of early manhood. They would be highly honorable, and they would be tempting to men of high ideals and of quality coming up to our own ideals of University service. Will not some of our friends, not of the multi-millionaire class, desirous of doing what they can for our benignant mother, and perhaps of perpetuating a cherished name, reflect on this possibility?

 

Source: The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine. Vol. 24, No. 94 (December, 1915), pp. 274-279.

 

Categories
Curriculum Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard College President Lowell on Instruction in Economics Department, 1917

In 1912 the economics department of Harvard initiated a major study of economics instruction in the University that was completed in 1916 and published as: 

The Teaching of Economics in Harvard University. A Report Presented by the Division of Education at the Request of the Department of Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1917. 248 pages.

I will of course rummage through the report for tidbits to post in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror, but for now, visitors at least have a link that will take them directly to the published study together with the following reflections of the President of Harvard College at the time A. Lawrence Lowell that were stimulated by the study. One does not really feel 100 years away from Lowell’s time, give-or-take a presentation software package, a MOOC or some learning platform (e.g. “Blackboard”).

___________________________

From the Annual Report for 1915-16 of the President of Harvard College, A. Lawrence Lowell:

One of the most interesting things done in the College during the last few years has been an invitation given by the Department of Economics to the Department of Education to investigate the undergraduate instruction in economics with a view to its improvement. Such a request to another body was not needed to prove the open mind, the desire to improve, the willingness to change its methods and to deal with its instruction as a systematic whole, which has been conspicuous in the case of the Department of Economics; but it is highly significant and full of promise. The investigation, which occupied a couple of years, has been very elaborate, making a large use of statistics, of questionnaires to instructors, students and graduates, of examination questions designed to test the progress of students in their capacity to deal with problems, and of other methods of inquiry that need not be described here. It has touched many different aspects of instruction, some of them of value far beyond the department immediately concerned. These things will appear when the report is published, but it may not be out of place to mention a couple of them here.

The fundamental questions in all education are the object sought and the result attained. Is economics studied in college for the sake of its general educational value in training the mind and preparing for good citizenship, or with a view to its vocational utility in the student’s subsequent career; and how far does it actually fulfil each purpose? An answer to these questions was sought by means of questionnaires addressed to all students taking economic courses and to a thousand graduates, beginning as far back as the Class of 1880 and comprising men engaged in every kind of occupation. Of course all the persons addressed did not reply, and many of the answers were too vague to be of use. Yet among the replies there were a large number definite enough to be of great value. Of the students, about one-third intended to take up a business of some kind; more than one-half as many were looking forward to the law; while the rest were distributed among all the different careers of which an undergraduate can conceive. Of all these men, about two-fifths gave as their chief reason for electing economics its value in training the mind or in understanding public and social problems; while even of those intending to adopt some occupation for which the subject is popularly supposed to offer a preparation, only about one-fifth expected to find what they learned directly helpful, although many more trusted that it would be of indirect assistance.

More interesting still are the replies from the graduates, for they had been enabled to measure what they had acquired by the light of experience in their various pursuits. The men in almost every occupation speak more commonly of the general cultural or civic benefit that they obtained than of vocational profit. This is notably true of the lawyers, and in a less degree also of the business men. The only two classes of graduates who speak with equal frequency of the two kinds of benefit derived are the journalists and the farmers; but they are few in number, and their answers do not appear to have been closely discriminating in this respect.

Results like those brought out by the inquiry of the Department of Education have a direct bearing upon the teaching of Economics, and the position of the subject in the undergraduate course of study. If the chief value of economics, is vocational, it ought to be taught mainly from that point of view, and undergraduates ought not to be generally encouraged to elect it who will not pursue some vocation to which it leads. But if, on the other hand, its principal benefit lies in training men to think clearly, and to analyze and sift evidence in the class of problems that force themselves upon public attention in this generation, then the greater part of the courses ought to be conducted with that object, and it is well for every undergraduate to study the subject to some extent. An attempt to aim at two birds with the same stone, is apt to result in hitting neither. Moreover, a confusion of objectives is misleading for the student. An impression often arises, without any sufficient basis, that some particular subject is an especially good preparation for a certain profession, and the theory is sometimes advocated warmly by the teachers of the subject from a laudable desire to magnify the importance of their field. Students naturally follow the prevailing view without the means of testing its correctness; not infrequently, as they afterwards discover, to the neglect of something they need more. The traditional path to eminence at the English bar has been at Oxford the honor school in literae humaniores, at Cambridge the mathematical tripos, and since the strongest minds in each university habitually took these roads, the results appeared to prove the proposition. It is well, therefore, that we should seek the most accurate and the most comprehensive data possible on the effect of particular studies upon men in various occupations, and upon different classes of minds. Such data are not easy to procure and are still more difficult to interpret, but when obtained they are of great value, and would throw light upon pressing educational questions about which we talk freely and know almost nothing.

Another matter with which the Department of Education dealt in their inquiry, again by the use of the questionnaire, is the relative value attached by students to the various methods of instruction. These were classified as lectures, class-room discussion, assigned reading, reports, essays or theses prepared by the student, and other less prominent agencies. Taken as a whole the students ascribed distinctly the greatest value to the reading, the next to the class-room discussion, placing lectures decidedly third, with reports and other exercises well below the first three. This order was especially marked in the case of the general introductory course known as Economics A. In the more advanced courses the order is somewhat changed. Even here the required reading is given the highest value, but the lectures in these courses are deemed more important than the class-room discussion. Among the better scholars in the advanced courses the value attributed to the lectures is, in fact, nearly as great as that ascribed to the assigned reading. These men also give to the reports, essays and theses a slightly greater importance than do the elementary and the inferior advanced students, although they do not place them on a par with the other three methods of instruction.

Answers of this kind are not infallible. There are always a considerable number of students who express no opinions, or whose opinions are not carefully considered. Nevertheless the replies are highly significant as indicating an impression—the impression of persons who, imperfect as their judgment may be, are after all the best judges, if not indeed the only judges, of what they have obtained from the different methods of instruction. In some ways the answers are unexpected. One would have supposed that class-room discussion would be of more value in an advanced course than in an elementary one. For it would presumably be remunerative in proportion as the members of the class possess information about the subject and a grasp of the principles involved. Probably the real reason for the relatively small importance attached to it by students in advanced courses is to be found in the fact that many of these courses are conducted mainly as lecture courses without much class-room discussion. The most illuminating fact that appears from the replies is the high value attached to the assigned reading as compared with the lectures. Even in the cases of the better scholars in the advanced courses it is not safe to assume an opinion that the lectures are of equal value with books, because they may be referring strictly to the reading formally assigned which is only a part of the reading that they do.

The problem of the relative value of books and lectures in higher education, or, for that matter, of books and direct oral teaching at school, is one that ought to receive very careful attention. The tendency for more than a generation, from the primary school to the university, has been to throw a greater emphasis on oral instruction as compared with study of the printed page. Half a century ago the boy at school and the student in college were habitually assigned a certain task, and the exercise in the class-room was in the main a recitation, the work of the teacher consisting chiefly in ascertaining whether the task had been properly performed, the set number of pages diligently and intelligently read, and in giving help over hard places or removing confusion in the pupil’s mind. But since that time the whole trend of education in all its grades has been towards in increase in the amount of direct instruction by the teacher. At school he or she talks to the class more and listens less than formerly, teaches it more directly, imparts more information. In the college or university the recitation has almost entirely disappeared, giving place mainly to lectures and in a smaller degree to class discussion. In fact, the impression among the general public, and in the minds of many academic people, is that the chief function of a professor is to give lectures, — not of course in the literal sense of reading something he has written, but imparting information directly to the class by an oral statement throughout the lecture hour.

Lectures are an excellent, and in fact an indispensable, part of university work, but it is possible to have too many of them, to treat them as the one vital method of instruction. This has two dangers. It tends to put the student too much in a purely receptive attitude of absorbing information poured out upon him, instead of compelling him to extract it from books for himself; so that his education becomes a passive rather than an active process. Lectures should probably be in the main a means of stimulating thought, rather than of imparting facts which can generally be impressed upon the mind more accurately and effectively by the printed page than by the spoken word.

Then again there is the danger that if lecture courses are regarded as the main object of the professors’ chair, the universities, and the departments therein, will value themselves, and be valued, in proportion to the number of lecture courses that they offer. This matter will bear a moment’s consideration, for it is connected with certain important general considerations of educational policy. To make the question clear, and point out its bearing upon our own problems, something may be said about the relations that exist between instruction in the College and in other departments of the University.

Many American universities have adopted a combined degree, whereby the earlier portion of the professional instruction in law, medicine, and other technical subjects, is taken as a part of the college course; and at the same time they maintain separate faculties for the college, or undergraduate academic department, and for the graduate school of arts and sciences. At Harvard we have gone on the opposite principle in both cases. We have separated each of the professional schools almost wholly from the college, with a distinct faculty and a distinct student life of its own. We have done this on the ground that a strictly professional atmosphere is an advantage in the study of a profession, and we believe that the earnestness, the almost ferociously keen interest, of the student body in our Law School, for example, has been largely due to this fact. We believe that the best results in both general and professional education are attained by a sharp separation between the two. On the other hand, we have not established a distinct faculty for the graduate school, but have the same faculty and to a great extent the same body of instruction for undergraduates and graduates, each man being expected to take such part of it as fits his own state of progress. We have done this because we have not regarded the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as exclusively or distinctly a professional school for future teachers. If it were so, it would probably be necessary to give it more of a pedagogical character than it has today. Indeed there has appeared to be no serious disadvantage, such as exists in the case of a purely professional school, in our practice of not separating the graduate school wholly from the college. Although there is a single faculty the two bodies of students are quite distinct, and the graduates take no part in the athletics or social activities of the men in college. They are in no danger of any lack of industry, nor do they suffer from contact with the college students taking courses primarily for graduates. The best Seniors who have reached the point of electing advanced courses are by no means inferior in capacity, education, or earnestness to the average graduate. And, on the other hand, competent undergraduates benefit greatly by following instruction that would not otherwise be open to them.

Our system, by closing professional education to undergraduates, obliges them to devote their college course entirely to academic studies; and at the same time it opens all academic instruction to undergraduates and graduates alike. By so doing it treats the whole list of academic courses as one body of instruction whereof the quantity can be readily measured and the nature perceived. In this way our system brings into peculiar prominence a question that affects the whole university policy in this country. A university, as its name implies, is an institution where all branches are studied, but this principle easily transforms itself into the doctrine that a university ought to offer systematic instruction in every part of every subject; and in fact almost all departments press for an increase of courses, hoping to maintain so far as possible a distinct course upon every sub-division of their fields. This is in large measure due to the fact that American graduate students, unlike German students, tend to select their university on account of the number and richness of the courses listed in the catalogue on their particular subjects, rather than by reason of the eminence of the professors who teach them. Some years ago it happened that a professor of rare distinction in his field, and an admirable teacher, who had a large number of graduate students in his seminar, accepted a chair in another university. His successors at his former post, however good, were by no means men with his reputation. Under these circumstances, one would have supposed that many of his pupils would have followed him, and that fresh students would have sought him in his new chair. But in fact the seminar at the place he left was substantially undiminished, and he had a comparatively small body of graduate students in the university to which he migrated.

The real reason for increasing the list of courses, though it is often not consciously recognized, is quite as much a desire to attract students as a belief in the benefit conferred on them after they come. The result has been a great expansion within the last score of years in the number of courses offered by all the larger universities. Counting two half-courses as equivalent to one full course, our Faculty of Arts and Sciences offered last year to undergraduates or graduates 417½ courses running throughout the year. Of these 67 were designated as seminars, where advanced students work together in a special field under the guidance of the professors. More will be said of these later. Some of the remaining 350½ were in reality of the same character, and others involved purely laboratory work; but most of them were systematic courses of instruction, mainly what are called, not always accurately, lecture courses. In addition, there were 119 more courses listed in the catalogue, but marked as being omitted that year. These are in the main courses designed to be given in alternate years, where the number of applicants is not large enough to justify their repetition annually. A student has thus an opportunity to take them at some time during his college career. They entail upon the instructor almost as much labor in preparation as the others, and are an integral part of the courses of instruction provided by the University. The total number of courses, therefore, offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was 536½, whereby something over 73 were in the nature of seminars.

Some years ago a committee of the Board of Overseers suggested that there were needless courses provided, and the Committee of the Faculty on Instruction examined the whole list, making careful inquiries of the members of the several departments, and reported that with one or two exceptions there were no courses for which good and sufficient reasons could not be given. The result of a similar inquiry would be the same today. There are few, if any, courses that could be seriously considered by anyone as useless or superfluous in themselves. Almost every one of them is intrinsically valuable, and a distinct contribution to the instruction in the subject. Nevertheless, it is a proper subject for consideration whether the policy of offering courses of instruction covering every part of every subject is wise. No European university attempts to do so. No single student can take them all in any large field and his powers would be deadened by a surfeit of instruction if he did. For the undergraduates a comparatively small array of staple courses on the most important portions of the subject, with a limited number of others on more highly specialized aspects thereof, is sufficient. For the graduate students who remain only a year to take the degree of Master of Arts, and who are doing much the same work as the more advanced Seniors, the same list of courses would be enough; and for those graduates who intend to become professors in universities and productive scholars it would probably be better, — beyond these typical specialized courses, which would suffice to show the method of approaching the subject — to give all the advanced instruction by means of seminars where the students work together on related, but not identical paths, with the aid of mutual criticism and under the guidance of the professors. Fewer courses, more thoroughly given, would free instructors for a larger amount of personal supervision of the students, would be better for the pupils; and would make it possible for the University to allow those members of the staff who are capable of original work of a high order more time for productive scholarship. Many a professor at the present day, under the pressure of preparing a new course, cannot find time to work up the discoveries he has made, or to publish a work throwing a new light on existing knowledge.

In making these suggestions there is no intention of urging a reduction of our existing schedule. But it is time to discuss the assumption, now apparently prevalent in all American universities, that an indefinite increase in the number of courses provided is to be aimed at in higher education. The question is whether that policy is not defective in principle, and whether we are not following it to excess, thereby sacrificing to it other objects equally, if not more, important.

Courses are merely a means to an end, and that end is the education of the student. One method of placing courses in their true light as a means of education is the provision of comprehensive examinations for graduation, covering the general field of the student’s principal work beyond the precise limits of the courses he has taken. This has long been done in the case of the doctorate of philosophy; and in the year covered by this report it was applied for the first time to undergraduates concentrating in the Division of History, Government and Economics. Only 24 students of the Class of 1917, who finished their work in three years and concentrated in this field, came under its operation; but they were numerous enough to give a definite indication of the working of the plan. To that extent the results were satisfactory. The examination papers were well designed for measuring the knowledge and grasp of the subject, with a large enough range of options to include the various portions of the field covered by the different candidates; and the examiners themselves were satisfied with the plan as a fair means of testing the qualification of the students. During the coming year a much larger number of men will come up for this comprehensive examination, which promises to mark a new departure in American college methods.

 

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College 1915-16 (Cambridge, 1917), pp. 11-19. Reprinted in Harvard Crimson, January 19, 1917.

Image Source: Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell from Harvard Class Album 1920.

 

Categories
Courses Curriculum Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Major Expansion of Economics Course Offerings. 1883

Harvard’s decision to significantly increase its course offerings in political economy in 1883 received some national press coverage (that story posted earlier in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror). Today we have the announcement published in the Harvard Crimson. The trio Charles F. Dunbar, J. Laurence Laughlin and Frank W. Taussig were on their way to launch the take-off into a full academic program of economic study.

______________________

POLITICAL ECONOMY.
Courses of Study for 1883-84.

Harvard Crimson
May 24, 1883

Arrangements recently completed have enabled the college to offer a more extended course of study in Political Economy than that which has been announced. A full statements to be substituted for that given on page 14 of the Elective Pamphlet, will be found below.

On page 15 of the pamphlet, line 13, for Course 6 read Course 7.

  1. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. – Lectures on Banking and the Financial Legislation of the United States. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Prof. Dunbar and Asst. Prof. Laughlin.
  1. History of Economic Theory and a Critical Examination of Leading Writers. – Lectures. Mon., Wed. at 2 and (at the pleasure of the instructor) Fri. at 2. Prof. Dunbar.
  1. Discussion of Practical Economic Questions. – Theses, Tu., Th., at 3, and a third hour to be appointed by the instructor. Assistant Professor Laughlin.
  1. Economic History of Europe and America since the Seven Years’ War. – Lectures. Mon., Wed., Fri., at 11. Professor Dunbar.
    Course 4 requires no previous study of Political Economy.
  1. Economic Effects of Land Tenures in England, Ireland, France and Germany. – Theses. Once a week, counting as a half course. Asst. Professor Laughlin.
  1. History of Tariff Legislation in the United States. – Once a week, counting as a half course. Mr. Taussig.
  1. Comparison of the Financial Systems of France, England, Germany and the United States. – Tu., at 2, counting as a half course. Professor Dunbar.

As a preparation for Courses 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 it is necessary to have passed satisfactorily in Course 1.

Course 1 is in Examination Group I.; Course 2, in Group V.; Course 3, in Group XII.; Course 4, in Group III.; Course 7, in Group XI.

The first two courses are intended to present the principles of the science, while the remaining five treat the subject in its historical and practical aspects. No. 2 will take up the principal writers of the present day, as Cairns, Carey and George, together with the current literature of the science. No times of recitation have been assigned to courses 5 and 6, as this will be arranged between the instructors and the students choosing the course. The department intend issuing a full descriptive pamphlet describing the different courses, which can be had at the office in a few days.

Image Source:  Charles F. Dunbar (left) and Frank W. Taussig (right) from E. H. Jackson and R. W. Hunter, Portraits of the Harvard Faculty (1892); J. Laurence Laughlin (middle) from Marion Talbot. More Than Lore: Reminiscences of Marion Talbot, Dean of Women, The University of Chicago, 1892-1925. Chicago: University of Chicago (1936).

Categories
Courses Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Principles of Economics. Taussig, Andrew and Bullock. 1906-07

The popularity of the introductory course in economics at Harvard led Frank Taussig to establish a structure of two one-hour lectures per week with ca. 15 sections (of about 25 students) taught by four teaching assistants who administered (and presumably then graded) a 20 minute quiz on a week’s reading assignment that would be followed up with a 35-40 minute class discussion. 

Apparently Taussig’s Columbia University colleague, E.R.A. Seligman, asked Taussig how Harvard ran its principles of economics course. Maybe he was just curious to hear whether Harvard was about to adopt his Principles of Economics With Special Reference to American Conditions. In his answer, Taussig clearly stakes his claim to have invented the large lecture with small recitation sections format. 

 

_________________________

[Copy of letter from Frank W. Taussig (Harvard)
to E.R.A. Seligman (Columbia)]

Cotuit, Mass.
Aug. 8, 1906

Dear Seligman:-

Our present system in Economics 1, is as follows. There are three exercises a week, of which two are lectures, and the third is for section work, something like what you call a quiz. The lectures are given to all the men in a large lecture hall. During the first half year I give all the lectures; during the second half year it will be given (1906-7) by Andrew and Bullock. For the section work the men are divided into sections of about 30 men each, and meet weekly in separate rooms, and at various hours, in the charge of younger instructors. Each instructor has three to four sections, there are four or five instructors. The first thing at the section meetings is a sort of examination. The question is put on the board and answered in writing during the first twenty minutes; these papers are read and a record kept of the results. The rest of the hour, thirty-five or forty minutes, is given to oral discussion.

Last year we used three text-books, Mill, Walker, and Seager. Specific assignments of reading are made for each week. The lectures cover the same topics as the reading, and the question of the week is on both reading and lectures.

To ensure consistency, the lecturer in charge (for instance myself) meets the younger instructors weekly at a stated hour. Then the questions to be asked by the instructors are submitted for approval, and the work of the week talked over.

This system is of my devising, and has worked better than anything we have tried. It has now been adopted into other large courses, History 1, and Government 1. Any other information I can give you are very welcome to.

I was extremely sorry to hear of your bereavement, and sympathize with you very fully [Seligman’s daughter, Mabel Henrietta died October 30, 1905 at age eleven]. Ripley has returned from Europe. His present address is New London, N. H. I have written a review of your book for our Journal, in which I have said some things that may not please you. But I take it you agree with me that the only object of reviews is to elicit frank statement of opinion. [Taussig’s review of Seligman’s Principles of Economics, Seligman’s Reply and Taussig’s Rejoinder]

Sincerely yours,
F. W. Taussig.

Prof. E.R.A. Seligman,
Lake Placid, N.Y.

_________________________

Course Announcement 1906 (no description)

ECONOMICS
Primarily for Undergraduates

  1. Principles of Economics. Tu., Th., Sat. at 11. Professor Taussig, Asst. Professors Bullock and Andrew, assisted by Messrs. Howland, Lewis, Huse, and Mason.

 

Source: “Announcement of the Course of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences 1906-07, 2nd edition”. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. III, No. 15, Aug. 1, 1906. P. 47.

_________________________

Course Announcement 1910-11 with Description

INTRODUCTORY COURSES
Primarily for Undergraduates

  1. Principles of Economics. Tu., Th., Sat., at 11. Professor Taussig, assisted by Drs. Huse, Day, and Foerster, and Messrs. Sharfman and Balcom.

Course 1 gives a general introduction to economic study, and a general view of Economics for those who have not further time to give to the subject. It undertakes a consideration of the principles of production, distribution, exchange, money, banking, international trade, and taxation. The relations of labor and capital, the present organization of industry, and the recent currency legislation of the United States will be treated in outline.

The course will be conducted partly by lectures, partly by oral discussion in sections. A course of reading will be laid down, and weekly written exercises will test the work of students in following systematically and continuously the lectures and the prescribed reading.

 

Source: History and Political Science, Comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics, 1910-11. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. VII, No. 23, June 21, 1910, p. 52.

Note: The course description is almost a verbatim copy of that for 1902-03, so we can presume the same description for 1906-07.

_________________________

Course Enrollment 1906-07

  1. Professor Taussig and Asst. Professors Bullock and Andrew, assisted by Messrs. Martin, Mason, G.R. Lewis, Huse, and Holcombe,–Principles of Economics.

Total 392: 1 Graduate, 15 Seniors, 43 Juniors, 252 Sophomores, 50 Freshmen, 31 Other.

 

Source: Harvard University. Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1906-07, p. 70.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1906.