Categories
Berkeley Brown Carnegie Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon Chicago Columbia Cornell Duke Economics Programs Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa Johns Hopkins Kansas M.I.T. Michigan Michigan State Minnesota North Carolina Northwestern NYU Ohio State Pennsylvania Princeton Purdue Rochester Stanford Texas UCLA UWash Vanderbilt Virginia Virginia Tech Washington University Wisconsin Yale

U.S. Economics Graduate Programs Ranked, 1957, 1964 and 1969

Recalling my active days in the rat race of academia, a cold shiver runs down my spine at the thought of departmental rankings in the hands of a Dean contemplating budgeting and merit raise pools or second-guessing departmental hiring decisions. 

But let a half-century go by and now, reborn as a historian of economics, I appreciate having the aggregated opinions of yore to constrain our interpretive structures of what mattered when to whomever. 

Research tip: sign up for a free account at archive.org to be able to borrow items still subject to copyright protection for an hour at a time. Sort of like being in the old reserve book room of your brick-and-mortar college library. This is needed if you wish to use the links for the Keniston, Carter, and Roose/Andersen publications linked in this post.

___________________________

1925 Rankings

R. M. Hughes. A Study of the Graduate Schools of America (Presented before the Association of American Colleges, January, 1925). Published by Miami University at Oxford, Ohio. (See earlier post that provides the economics ranking from the Hughes’ study)

1957 Rankings

Hayward Keniston. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (January 1959), pp. 115-119,129.

Tables from Keniston transcribed here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror:
https://www.irwincollier.com/economics-departments-and-university-rankings-by-chairmen-hughes-1925-and-keniston-1957/

1964 Rankings

Allan M. Cartter, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966.

1969 Rankings

Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen, A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970.

Tables transcribed below.

___________________________

Graduate Programs in Economics
(1957, 1964, 1969)

Percentage of Raters Who Indicate:
Rankings “Quality of Graduate Faculty” Is:
1957 1964 1969 Institution Distiguish-
ed and strong
Good and adequate All other Insufficient Information
Nineteen institutions with scores in the 3.0 to 5.0 range, in rank order
1 1* 1* Harvard 97 3
not ranked 1* 1* M.I.T. 91 9
2 3* 3 Chicago 95 5
3 3* 4 Yale 90 3 7
5* 5 5 Berkeley 86 9 5
7 7 6 Princeton 82 9 10
9 8* 7* Michigan 66 22 11
10 11 7* Minnesota 65 19 15
14 14* 7* Pennsylvania 62 22 15
5* 6 7* Stanford 64 25 11
13 8* 11 Wisconsin 63 26 11
4 8* 12* Columbia 50 37 13
11 12* 12* Northwestern 52 32 16
16 16 14* UCLA 41 38 21
not ranked 12* 14* Carnegie-Mellon Carnegie-Tech (1964) 39 35 26
not ranked not ranked 16 Rochester** 31 39 1 29
8 14* 17 Johns Hopkins 31 56 13
not ranked not ranked 18* Brown** 20 52 1 27
15 17 18* Cornell** 21 56 2 21
*Score and rank are shared with another institution.
**Institution’s 1969 score is in a higher range than ist 1964 score.

 

Ten institutions with scores in the 2.5 to 2.9 range, in alphabetical order
(1969)
Duke
Illinois
Iowa State (Ames)
Michigan State
North Carolina
Purdue
Vanderbilt
Virginia
Washington (St. Louis)
Washington (Seattle)

 

Sixteen institutions with scores in the 2.0 to 2.4 range, in alphabetical order
(1969)
Buffalo*
Claremont
Indiana
Iowa (Iowa City)
Kansas
Maryland
N.Y.U.
North Carolina State*
Ohio State
Oregon
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Rice*
Texas
Texas A&M
Virginia Polytech.*
* Not included in the 1964 survey of economics

 

Categories
Economists George Mason Virginia Tech

Virginia Tech. Letter from James Buchanan to Earl Hamilton, 1983

 

Because the papers of the economic historian, Earl Hamilton, are generally an ill-sorted grab bag of documents, I figured the following letter from James Buchanan to Earl Hamilton on the eve of the former’s move to George Mason University had a small probability of being used by future Buchanan scholars if left to lie in a not-elsewhere-classified folder of Hamilton’s papers. 

The meatiest sentence in the letter for historians of economics is probably:

As for economics, I get more and more discouraged at what is being taught for and what passes for our parent discipline. It seems increasingly escapist to me, grown men playing with toys, despite the acknowledged intellectual fascination.

Womp, womp?

______________________

P.O. Drawer G
Blacksburg, VA 24060
20 May 1983

Professor and Mrs. Earl Hamilton
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Dear Professor Hamilton and Mrs. Hamilton:

We regret very much that we cannot join with you in celebrating the grand occasion of your sixtieth anniversary. It would be very nice to see both of you again after so many years. And Oak Ridge is within reasonable driving distance of Blacksburg. I have on several occasions lectured at the federal executives institute there. If it were not that I had the earlier scheduled commitment at the Pittsburgh conference, we should surely have been in attendance.

Let us wish both of you all that should be wished on such occasions.

I get news from you occasionally when I see George Stigler, who does, apparently, get to his Flossmoor house every now and then. I have been on a Hoover Advisory Committee that George chairs for several years now. And I was at a small meeting with both George and Ronald Coase last fall in Austria.

Our news, which you may have heard, is that our whole Center for Study of Public Choice, is shifting to George Mason University, in Fairfax (the Washington suburbs) after 1 July this year. So we are in the throes of moving. We shall, personally, keep our country place down here in the mountains, but we have already sold off our town property and plan to live in a Fairfax townhouse when up there, at least until retirement when we shall come back to the mountains permanently by current plans.

I find my research and writing interests moving more and more toward political philosophy and ethics (too much Frank Knight I guess), and I have recently been involved in several papers, which will be a book soon, on the basic logic of constitutional constraints. We have a Cambridge Press commitment to publish it under the title, The Reason of Rules.

As for economics, I get more and more discouraged at what is being taught for and what passes for our parent discipline. It seems increasingly escapist to me, grown men playing with toys, despite the acknowledged intellectual fascination.

My gardening suffers terribly in this wettest of all springs, indeed no spring at all. Nothing comes up even when dry enough to plant. Asparagus at least one month late and piddling. Lettuce which should be now ready only commencing to pop out, and too wet to put in any tomatoes as yet. But we hope.

I know that your day will be a grand occasion. Again I sincerely wish that we could join you. It would be very nice to get the opportunity for a visit.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Jim Buchanan

/btr

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Earl J. Hamilton papers, Box 4, Folder “Correspondence 1920’s-1930’s; 1960’s; 1980’s; and n.d.”

Image Source: PBS webpage “American Nobel Economists”, James Buchanan Image 14