Categories
Biography Economists Industrial Organization Policy Yale

Yale. Appointment to Council of Economic Advisers. Merton J. Peck, 1968

 

In an earlier post that featured a 1955 reading list for a course on industrial organization at Harvard taught by Carl Kaysen and Merton J. Peck, I proudly introduced that artifact with a few details about my first Yale economics professor, Joe Peck. I worked as his “bursary boy” over the next three years, undertaking the tasks of library runs, photocopying, and light editorial work to finance some of the out-of-pocket expenses of my undergraduate life. 

Peck was freshly back from the Council of Economics Advisers in the last year of President Johnson’s administration (1968), when I first encountered him as my instructor in the double-credit introductory seminar “Early Concentration Economics” in the Fall of 1969. Incidentally, the seminar was co-taught by another Joe, Joseph Persky, then a visiting lecturer from Harvard, where he was completing his Ph.D. dissertation. From those earlier regional/urban economics research days, Joe Persky has become a distinguished historian of economics.

Two documents regarding Merton J. Peck’s appointment as a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1968 are included in this post along with his obituary that was published in the Yale Daily News.

Fun Fact: In the obituary you will find a quote from yet another Joe, Joseph Altonji, now a Yale professor of economics, but then a fellow student with me in the graduate sequence of Statistics and Econometrics at Yale and my successor in the role of student assistant to Joe Peck.

_________________________

NOMINATION OF MERTON J. PECK
Monday, February 5, 1968

U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking and Currency
Washington, D.C.

The committee met pursuant to notice at 10:08 a.m., in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Sparkman, Proxmire, McIntyre, Spong, and Bennett.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is meeting in open hearing on the nomination of Mr. Merton J. Peck of Connecticut to serve as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Mr. Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 17, 1925, and attended public schools in Shaker Heights and Medina, Ohio, as well as Evanston, Ill. He served in the Army from 1944 to 1946 with overseas duty in Okinawa and Japan. Mr. Peck graduated from Oberlin College in 1949 and took his graduate training in economics at Harvard, receiving his Ph. D. in 1954. He taught at Harvard College from 1954 to 1955, at the University of Michigan 1955-56, and the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration 1956-61. During 1961 and 1962 Mr. Peck served as Assistant Deputy Controller and Director of System Analysis in the office of Charles J. Hitch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense.

In 1963 Mr. Peck was appointed professor of economics at Yale University. In July 1967 he was appointed chairman of the Yale Economics Department.

Mr. Peck, I welcome you to the committee. We are glad to have you with us this morning. We have a more complete biographical sketch which will be printed in the record.

(The information follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MERTON J. PECK

Merton Joseph Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 17, 1925, and attended public schools in Shaker Heights and Medina, Ohio, as well as Evanston, Illinois. He served in the Army from 1944 to 1946, with overseas duty in Okinowa and Japan.

Mr. Peck graduated from Oberlin College in 1949 and took his graduate training in economics at Harvard receiving his Ph. D. in 1954. He taught at Harvard College (1954-1955), University of Michigan (1955-1956), and the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration (1956-1961).

During 1961 and 1962 Mr. Peck served as Assistant Deputy Controller and Director of System Analysis in the Office of Charles J. Hitch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Controller).

In 1963 Mr. Peck was appointed Professor of Economics at Yale University. In July 1967 he was appointed Chairman of the Yale Economics Department.

Mr. Peck has written Competition in the American Aluminum Industry, 1945–58 (Harvard University Press 1961), and he is a joint author of Economics of Competition in the Transportation Industry (Harvard University Press 1959), Weapons Acquisition: An Economic Analysis (Harvard Business School 1962), Technological Change, Economic Growth and Public Policy (Brookings Institution 1967). He has also contributed articles to various professional journals

Mr. Peck married Mary McClure Bosworth in 1949. They have four children: Richard, age 13; Katherine, age 11; Sarah, age 9; David, age 7. The Pecks reside in New Haven, Connecticut.

Mr. Peck’s parents died when he was young and he was raised by his aunts, Mrs. A. R. Lyon and Miss Olive S. Peck, who now reside in Arlington, Virginia.

Mr. Peck is a member of the American Economic Association, the Econometric Society, and the Association of American University Professors.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peck, I also have a letter addressed to me which I shall read into the record.

“DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that previous commitments prevent me from being present this morning to present the President’s nominee as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Merton J. Peck.

“It is an honor to introduce Professor Peck to this distinguished committee. Professor Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1925. He graduated from Oberlin College in 1949, after serving 2 years in the Pacific theatre as a member of our Armed Forces. Upon receiving a Ph.D. degree in economics from Harvard, Professor Peck began a distinguished teaching career that led to his appointment last year as chairman of the Yale Economics Department. He now resides with his family in New Haven, Conn.

“Professor Peck combines a background of academic experience and public service, having served for 2 years in the Department of Defense as Assistant Deputy Controller and Director of Systems Analysis. Well known as an author on economic policy, he has published studies of competition in the aluminum and transportation industries. His latest book, published by the Brookings Institution, is “Technological Change, Economic Growth, and Public Policy.’

“I have touched only briefly on the accomplishments of Professor Peck, but they indicate the obvious ability and wide experience he would bring to the Council of Economic Advisers. I strongly urge that his nomination be favorably considered by this committee.

Sincerely,
ABE RIBICOFF.”

That letter will be printed in the record.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Peck, is your official residence in Connecticut at the moment?

Mr. PECK. Yes, Senator; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say we have the approval of both Senator Dodd and Senator Ribicoff. I may say for the record that accompanying Dr. Peck is Mr. Charles Warden, special assistant to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, the official attitude of the Republicans on this committee has always been that the President is certainly entitled to select his economic advisers and we should under no circumstances raise any question about that privilege.
That is a kind of a negative endorsement, but in addition to that, I think Mr. Peck’s credentials are very impressive and I am sure all of the Republicans will be happy to vote for his approval.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Senator Spong?

Senator SPONG. I am impressed with Dr. Peck’s credentials. I would like to ask him a couple of questions, however.
Dr. Peck, have you ever been retained as a consultant by private industry?

Mr. PECK. Yes, I have.

Senator SPONG. Do you intend to end all such activities if you are confirmed and become a member of the Council of Economic Advisers?

Mr. PECK. Yes, I have.

Senator SPONG. You have ended it all?

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

Senator SPONG. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any interest in any undertaking or activity which you feel would constitute a conflict of interest?

Mr. PECK. No, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you checked your situation with the General Counsel of the Council of Economic Advisers?

Mr. PECK. No, I have not, but I will do so. I have a financial statement that I filed.

The CHAIRMAN. You have filed a financial statement?

Mr. PECK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. With the Council?

Senator BENNETT. With us.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, with our committee?

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; are there any further questions?

Senator BENNETT. No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much Dr. Peck. I wish you a successful and happy tenure in office.

Mr. PECK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this unusual post as a unique opportunity to serve and, if I am confirmed, I will do so to the best of my ability.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and we shall hope to see you from time to time.

(Thereupon at 10:15 a.m., the committee went into executive session.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

(Excerpts from the Employment Act of 1946
and related laws follow):

EMPLOYMENT Act of 1946,
AS AMENDED, AND RELATED LAWS

(60 Stat. 23)
[PUBLIC LAW 304-79TH CONGRESS]

AN ACT To declare a national policy on employment, production, and purchasing power, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “Employment Act of 1946 “.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 2. The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means consistent with its needs and obligations and other essential considerations of national policy, with the assistance and cooperation of industry, agriculture, labor, and State and local governments, to coordinate and utilize all its plans, functions, and resources for the purpose of creating and maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote free competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities, including self-employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and to promote maxi mum employment, production, and purchasing power. (15 U.S.C. 1021.)

ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

SEC. 3. (a) The President shall transmit to the Congress not later than January 20 of each year an economic report (hereinafter called the “Economic Report”) setting forth (a) the levels of employment, production, and purchasing power obtaining in the United States and such levels needed to carry out the policy declared in section 2; (2) current and foreseeable trends in the levels of employment, production, and purchasing power; (3) a review of the economic program of the Federal Government and a review of economic conditions affecting employment in the United States or any considerable portion thereof during the preceding year and of their effect upon employment, production, and purchasing power; and (4) a program for carrying out the policy declared in section 2, together with such recommendations for legislation as he may deem necessary or desirable.

(b) The President may transmit from time to time to the Congress reports supplementary to the Economic Report, each of which shall include such supplementary or revised recommendations as he may deem necessary or desirable to achieve the policy declared in section 2.

(c) The Economic Report, and all supplementary reports transmitted under subsection (b) of this section, shall, when transmitted to Congress, be referred to the joint committee created by section 5. (15 U.S.C. 1022.)

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
TO THE PRESIDENT

SEC. 4. (a) There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Council of Economic Advisers (hereinafter called the “Council”). The Council shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and each of whom shall be a person who, as a result of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally qualified to analyze and interpret economic developments, to appraise programs and activities of the Government in the light of the policy declared in section 2, and to formulate and recommend national economic policy to promote employment, production, and purchasing power under free competitive enterprise.1 The President shall designate one of the members of the Council as Chairman.

(b) The Council is authorized to employ, and fix the compensation of, such specialists and other experts as may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this act, without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and is authorized, subject to the civil service laws, to employ such other officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out its functions under this act, and fix their compensation in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.

(c) It shall be the duty and function of the Council—

(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the Economic Report;

(2) to gather timely and authoritative information concerning economic developments and economic trends, both current and prospective, to analyze and interpret such information in the light of the policy declared in section 2 for the purpose of determining whether such development and trends are interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the achievement of such policy, and to compile and submit to the President studies relating to such developments and trends;

(3) to appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy declared in section 2 of this title for the purpose of determining the extent to which such programs and activities are contributing, and the extent to which they are not contributing, to the achievement of such policy and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto;

(4) to develop and recommend to the President national economic policies to foster and promote free competitive enterprise, to avoid economic fluctuations or to diminish the effects thereof, and to maintain employment, production, and purchasing power;

(5) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and recommendations with respect to matters of Federal economic policy and legislation as the President may request.

(d) The Council shall make an annual report to the President in December of each year.

(e) In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this act—

(1) the Council may constitute such advisory committees and may consult with such representatives of industry, agriculture, labor, consumers, State and local governments, and other groups as it deems advisable;

(2) the Council shall, to the fullest extent possible, utilize the services, facilities, and information (including statistical information) of other Government agencies as well as of private research agencies, in order that duplication of effort and expense may be avoided.

(f) To enable the Council to exercise its powers, functions, and duties under this act, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 9 of 1953

(Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled, June 1, 1953, pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended)

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

The functions vested in the Council of Economic Advisers by section 4 (b) of the Employment Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 24), and so much of the functions vested in the Council by section 4 (c) of that act as consists of reporting to the President with respect to any function of the Council under the said section 4 (c), are hereby transferred to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. ***

1 The Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967 provides that the annual rates of basic compensation shall be $30,000 for the Chairman and $28,750 for the other two members of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Source: On the nomination of Merton J. Peck to be a member of the council of economic advisers, February 5, 1968. Hearing Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate. Ninetieth Congress, Second Session.

_________________________

Remarks by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the Swearing in of Merton J. Peck as a Member, Council of Economic Advisers, and upon Designating Arthur M. Okun as Chairman

February 15, 1968

Dr. and Mrs. Peck and family, Mr. and Mrs. Okun and family, Secretary Wirtz, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

I want to welcome all of you to this ceremony this morning.

I stand here with one eye wet and one eye dry. Gardner Ackley’s departure saddens me. I would hope that he feels the same way.

When Gardner took the CEA chairmanship more than 3 years ago, the economy was already setting peacetime records. He has kept the curve climbing, turning a youthful boom into a mature and solid 8-year expansion.

Of all the good advice Chairman Ackley has given to me throughout the years, I was happiest to accept one of his fine recommendations to appoint Art Okun as his successor.

Art brings many special talents to this new job. His forecasts are so amazingly accurate that one newspaper once called him the administration’s secret weapon.

Far away from the limelight, he has been invaluable to international monetary policy — to the Treasury Department in developing the Rio Accord — to drafting the new system of Special Drawing Rights. And I am relying heavily on Chairman Okun and the Council to help us move this Nation and all nations towards swift acceptance of these new monetary arrangements.

To fill the Council vacancy, we have Merton Joseph Peck from Yale University.

I am delighted that he joins Jim Duesenberry and Art Okun at this particular time. One of our most urgent concerns in the Nation now is price stability. We have recently created a Cabinet committee to concentrate heavily on this problem. Dr. Peck is an expert on markets. He will bring special insights to price and wage problems arising from structural imperfections in labor markets, product markets, and markets for services.

Looking around us as we meet here this morning, we see more and more evidence of our economic strength. The January unemployment rate, we are pleased to say, was the lowest in more than 14 years. Corporate profits for the last quarter of 1967 were pointing upward again–to new records.

But we cannot rejoice without recognizing the dangers posed by price and cost increases. To preserve our record-breaking prosperity, we must combine it with a return to price stability.

As we have long emphasized, the first order of business is the prompt enactment by the Congress of the penny on the dollar tax increase that we will need to pay for part of our extraordinary defense costs.

Second, we need full cooperation and restraint from business and labor in their price and wage decisions. Excessive wage and excessive price increases can weaken the dollar. They cannot win lasting gains for any group. The short-run sacrifices that we ask promise long-term benefits to all of us.

Third, we must work through the new Cabinet committee for structural improvements in every market — for greater efficiency, greater productivity, and greater incentives for cost-reduction and price competition.

I will continue to look to the Council of Economic Advisers for advice on guarding our prosperity against inflation.

I was talking to someone last night and he was outlining for me the progress that our country has made throughout the years. He said, “Mr. President, there are two things that a leader must never take his mind off of in our political system. You will have many messages and many bills, but two simple rules, I suggest.”

I said, “Tell me what they are” — because he was a man of wisdom and experience and nonpartisanship.

He said, “The first one is the buck-that dollar — it must be sound. It must be stable and people must have some of them. The next one is–you don’t have to be told that one, but I want to remind you every day — the ballot. Because through the ballot people can gain the rewards they think they are entitled to. They can bring about the reforms that are essential. They can turn into motion the revolutions that are inside of all of us and they can bring them to reality and bring them to reality constitutionally and appropriately, and as we human beings should. We don’t have to act like animals to get our revolutions and reforms translated into action. That comes through the ballot.”

So, if my economic advisers are not trained counselors on the ballot, they are on the buck and that seems to be a major portion of a President’s problem. I am going to continue to look to them to guard our prosperity against inflation. They will have the help of the President and I hope they will have the help of the Cabinet and the Congress and the business and labor communities.

The Council today enjoys a worldwide reputation, I think, a reputation of three wise men who have been responsible and are responsible in the future for guiding the American economic miracle.

We expect great things from you, Dr. Peck. I am happy to welcome you officially into the world’s smallest, but the world’s most vital fraternity.

Gardner, you are on sabbatical leave, but we will expect you to carry on your good work across the ocean.

Note:
The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House. In his opening words he also referred to Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz. During his remarks he referred to James S. Duesenberry, member of the Council of Economic Advisers, and to Gardner Ackley, outgoing Chairman of the Council, whose nomination as Ambassador to Italy was announced by the President on January 1.

Establishment of the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability was announced by the President in his message to the Congress transmitting the Economic Report.

The tax increase referred to by the President was enacted as the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968.

Source:  Lyndon B. Johnson, Remarks at the Swearing In of Merton J. Peck as a Member, Council of Economic Advisers, and Upon Designating Arthur M. Okun as Chairman.
Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project 

_________________________

Professor led the Economics Department during its ‘golden age’

by CYNTHIA HUA
Yale Daily News, 18 March 2013

Merton Peck, a devoted teacher who chaired the Economics Department during its “golden age,” died in Florida on March 1. He was 87 years old.

A respected scholar and administrator, Peck came to Yale as an economics professor in 1963 and served as chair of the Economics Department for several terms in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. His former colleagues remember him for his kind and patient nature and ability to foster compromise during his lengthy tenure. In addition to recruiting many prominent economists to his department, Peck strengthened the faculty by keeping peace and oversaw a period of growth in the department, said Richard Nelson GRD ’56, a former economics professor.

“One of the reasons he stayed in the chair [position] for so long is because he was able to push the department upward and avoided conflict,” said Gustav Ranis GRD ’56, a economics professor. “He didn’t have any enemies.”

When disputes arose in the department, Peck listened to both sides and gently brought arguments to a resolution, Ranis said. He frequently met with faculty individually and ensured that all professors felt their voices were heard, Ranis said, adding that nobody in the department was ever upset under Peck’s leadership.

William Brainard GRD ’63 said Peck was respected among colleagues for the care and attention he devoted to teaching economics. His undergraduate seminars, Brainard said, were often so popular that he had to teach more than one section of the same course.

“He embodied many of the characteristics a professor should strive for, in being both a great scholar and giving a lot to Yale in terms of leadership,” economics professor Joseph Altonji ’75 said.

Brainard said Peck’s congenial personality and clarity of thought made him a sought-after adviser. Altonji, who worked for Peck as a research assistant and took one of his undergraduate courses, said Peck was influential in his decision to pursue a doctorate in economics and, later, to become a professor.

An expert in the economics of technology, Peck specialized in industrial organization and government regulation, producing books and papers that touched on numerous disciplines, including defense, communications and transportation. He served as a member of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s “Brain Trust” and on former President Lyndon Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisors in the 1960s.

Peck earned his bachelor’s degree at Oberlin College in the 1940s, during which time he met his wife, Mary Bosworth Peck, who died in 2004. The couple married in Oberlin, Ohio, in 1949, the year of Peck’s graduation from college. He went on to receive a doctorate in economics from Harvard.

During World War II, Peck served in the Signal Corps in Japan. His service abroad launched a lifelong interest in Japan that led to his later academic interest in the country and technology as an industry, said his son Richard.

Throughout his life, Peck remained modest about his intellectual and administrative achievements, Richard said. Outside of academics, Richard said Peck, who retired in 2002, cultivated a love of reading and jazz music.

Peck is survived by his children, Richard, Katherine, Sarah and David, and four grandchildren.

This article was updated to reflect the version published in print March 25.

Image Source: Chicago Tribune, Jan 4, 1968. Section 1B, p. 10. Newspaper image of Merton J. Peck touched-up at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Pedagogy Principles Teaching Undergraduate Yale

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

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

____________________________

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

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

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

____________________________

TEACHING COLLEGE ECONOMICS
By Richard Ruggles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Economics Programs Faculty Regulations Graduate Student Support Regulations Yale

Yale. Graduate economics graduate degree requirements and curriculum brochure. 1950

For the most part today’s artefact speaks for itself. It is another historical economics program brochure added to the growing Economics in the Rear-view Mirror collection.

I entered Yale College as a freshman in the academic year 1969-70 so the Yale brochure digitized below was printed just about two decades before I became an apprentice economist. Now in my senior years two decades does not seem to be all that long but it would appear that the development of the Yale economics department from 1950 to 1970 was about as dramatic as my own from infant to college student over the same time period.

Preparing this post, I was struck by the genuinely small scale of the graduate economics program at Yale in 1950, that “microeconomics”/“macroeconomics”/“econometrics” were not yet words to be found in the course descriptions, further that the history of economic theories was a visible part of the curriculum, and finally that institutional nuts-and-bolts (as well as economic history) did receive relatively greater emphasis in 1950. I was delighted at the “sight” of four of my professors (Healy, Tobin, Lindblom, and Dahl) found in the list of the graduate economics faculty of 1950, an indication that two decades is really not all that long after all within the context of a healthy human life span.

_____________________________

A Few Other Programs,
Other Times

Harvard 1967
M.I.T. 1961
M.I.T. 1974
Chicago 1956

Wisconsin 1904
Chicago 1892
Chicago 1904

_____________________________

GRADUATE CURRICULUM AND DEGREE REQUIREMENTS
IN ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
YALE UNIVERSITY
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1950

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Graduate Faculty

CHAIRMAN: Professor Kent T. Healy.

DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE STUDIES: Professor Lloyd G. Reynolds.

PROFESSORS: E. Wight Bakke, Edgar S. Furniss, John P. Miller, Eugene V. Rostow (Law), Ray B. Westerfield.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS: Neil W. Chamberlain, Klaus E. Knorr (International Relations), Charles E. Lindblom, Richard Ruggles, James A. Tobin.

ASSISTANT PROFESSORS: Robert A. Dahl (Political Science), Challis A. Hall, Jr.

INSTRUCTOR: Robert G. Link.

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ECONOMICS

The objective of the graduate program is to equip students with the theoretical and statistical tools of economic analysis, to broaden their historical and institutional knowledge, and to develop judgment in applying economic analysis to issues of public policy. The wide variety of research institutes and activities at the University, in addition to strengthening the teaching program, enables interested students to gain research experience at an early stage of their careers. Students are also encouraged to acquaint themselves with the techniques of other social sciences through course work in the relevant departments.

The number of graduate students admitted each year is limited, which makes possible an unusual degree of individual instruction and guidance. The fact that the number of students is small relative to the research and teaching activities of the University also enables a large proportion of the student body to be self-supporting after the first year of graduate study.

Preference in admission is given to students who plan to proceed toward the Ph.D. degree. The M.A. degree is awarded on successful completion of one year of course work (no thesis requirement), and most Ph.D. candidates take this degree as a matter of course at the end of their first year.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

BEGINNING GRADUATE STUDENTS. There are available each year several graduate fellowships, varying in amount from $450. to $1,000. It is possible also for a considerable number of students to earn between $200. and $300. per year by grading examinations in undergraduate courses.

ADVANCED GRADUATE STUDENTS. Students who do work of high quality during their first year have numerous additional opportunities during their second and subsequent years of study.

(1) The Sterling Fellowships of $1,500. each, competition for which is open to graduate students in all departments of the University.

(2) Appointment to a teaching position in Economics 10 (Principles of Economics). Advanced graduate students may be permitted to teach a maximum of six hours per week while continuing work toward their degree. Appointments are also sometimes given to students who transfer to Yale after completing one year or more of graduate study at another University and who have had satisfactory teaching experience.

(3) Appointment as a research assistant. There are several research institutes in the University, including the Conservation Center, the Committee on National Policy, the Committee on Transportation, the Institute of Human Relations, the Institute of International Studies, and the Labor and Management Center. In addition, members of the Department have individual research programs in progress on a variety of subjects, including decision-making in the business firm, market structure and price determination in the non-ferrous metal industries, wage differentials under collective bargaining, population growth in the United States, the cyclical behavior of cost-price relations in manufacturing, economic planning in selected countries of Western Europe and the determinants of personal savings and consumption decisions. A considerable number of graduate students are employed each year as part-time research assistants while continuing their graduate study. Compensation for this work is in line with that for members of the teaching staff.

(4) There are occasional opportunities for part-time teaching in other colleges in and near New Haven, and for research assistantships in other departments of the University.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In addition to the general requirements of the Graduate School, students in Economics are expected to meet the following requirements.

PRELIMINARY QUALIFICATIONS: An undergraduate major in economics is normally required. A student whose major was in another field will be admitted in exceptional cases, but may be required to take more than the usual two years of course work. Students preparing for graduate work in economics are strongly advised to take undergraduate courses in economic theory, mathematics (at the level of differential calculus), statistics, French and German. Courses in psychology, history, and the other social sciences will also be of material benefit to the student in his graduate work.

BASIC TRAINING: Before admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree the student must have completed at least sixteen semester courses of a graduate character, of which eight must have been taken at Yale. Some of these courses may be taken in other departments or schools of the University.

GENERAL EXAMINATIONS: A certification of competence is required in the use of quantitative methods, including the statement of hypotheses and theorems in quantitative form, the use of symbolic methods in economic reasoning, and the principal statistical tools used in modern economic research. This requirement will normally be met by the satisfactory completion of the courses, Economics 103a and b, during the first year of graduate study, and must be met by the end of the second year.

At least one year before the student expects to take his degree, his general competence in economics will be tested by a written and by an oral examination. The written examination will test (a) knowledge of all aspects of economic theory, its current status and historical development, (b) knowledge of European and American history with special emphasis on the development of economic institutions in modern times, (c) ability to use theoretical tools, together with historical materials and current factual information, in analyzing issues of economic policy. Preparation for the examination will be provided not only by course work but by study of readings suggested by the department.

The oral examination, to be held within a few days of the written examination, will test for intensive grasp of two specialized fields of economics, one of which will normally be the dissertation field. The fields will be determined in consultation with the Director of Graduate Studies.

Before May 1 or October 1 (as the student elects) in the calendar year prior to that in which he expects to get his degree, the student shall provide the Director of Graduate Studies with six copies of a prospectus, setting forth the subject of his proposed dissertation, the questions it proposes to answer, its potential contribution to economic science, and the research techniques and sources to be used.

COURSE OFFERINGS

Each student is expected to plan his work in consultation with the Director of Graduate Studies in Economics, Mr. Reynolds.

Economics 100, General Economic Theory. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Ruggles.

Economics 101, Development of Economic Thought. Mr. Miller.

Economics 102, Modern Economic History.

Economics 103a, Economic Statistics. Mr. Tobin.

Economics 103b, Introduction to Mathematical Economics. Mr. Tobin.

Economics 110, Aggregate Economics and Cycle Theory. Mr. Tobin.

Economics 112b, Distribution of Wealth and Income. Mr. Reynolds.

Economics 113a, Price Systems and Resource Allocation. Mr. Ruggles.

Economics 114a, National Income Theory and Measurement. Mr. Ruggles.

Economics 114b, Types of Quantitative Research in Economics. Mr. Ruggles. Economics 120, Money, Credit, and Banking. Mr. Westerfield.

Economics 122, Public Finance. Mr. Hall.

Economics 123b, Public Control of Industrial Organization. Mr. Rostow.

Economics 124, Business Firm and Market Behavior. Mr. Miller.

Economics 125, The Labor Movement and Collective Bargaining. Mr. Chamberlain.

Economics 126, Critique of Industrial Relations Theory. Mr. Bakke.

Economics 127a, Regulatory Labor Legislation. Mr. Lindblom.

Economics 127b, Protective Labor Legislation. Mr. Lindblom.

Economics 128, Critique of Economic Planning. Mr. Lindblom, Mr. Dahl.

Economics 129, International Trade and Finance. Mr. Link.

Economics 135, The Structure of the American Economy. Mr. Ruggles.

Economics 200, Individual Research and Consultation. Department Faculty. International Relations 140, International Economic Problems. Mr. Knorr.

Transportation 102, Transportation Economics. Mr. Healy.

Related Courses:

American Studies 151, American Thought & Civilization, 1620 to the present. Mr. Gabriel.

Anthropology 109a, Culture and Personality. Mr. Linton.

Anthropology 114b, Primitive Economics. Mr. Linton.

Conservation 101b, Seminar in Conservation. Mr. Sears.

Forestry 180b, Forest Economics and Policy. Mr. Zumwalt.

Forestry 128a, Economics of the Forest Products Industries. Mr. Garrett.

Geology 150, Economic Geology. Mr. Bateman.

Geology 153, Seminar in Economic Geology. Mr. Bateman.

Government 134, Constitutional Law and Public Policy. Mr. Cahill.

Government 135, National Government and the Problems of Federalism. Mr. Key.

Government 136, American Political Parties – An Introduction to the Study of Political Behavior. Mr. Key.

History 125, Mediaeval Commerce and Capitalism. Mr. Lopez.

History 154, Liberal & National Movements in Modern Europe. Mr. Kent.

History 191, American Intellectual History in the Early Twentieth Century, Mr. Gabriel.

Mathematics 42, Statistics. Mr. Ore.

Source for text and image:  This 1950 graduate economics curriculum brochure was found at the hathitrust.org archive.

Categories
Economics Programs Undergraduate Yale

Yale. The State of Economics at Yale. Reynolds, 1951

 

The chairman of Yale’s economics department in 1951, Lloyd G. Reynolds, found his department in the crosshairs of alumni enraged by the charge of collectivist indoctrination leveled by young William F. Buckley, Jr. (Yale ’1950) in his book that was a call-to-action for religious and individualist alumni of Yale to voice their opposition to the influence of atheism and collectivism on campus. Paul Samuelson’s textbook Economics was offered as Exhibit No. 1 of the collectivist rot found in the Yale economics department. Buckley’s bottom-line was explicit though not specific. 

Image Source: PBS, American Masters. S38 EP3: The incomparable Mr. Buckley.

“I shall not say, then, what specific professors should be discharged, but I will say some ought to be discharged. I shall not indicate what I consider to be the dividing line that separates the collectivist from the individualist, but I will say that such a dividing line ought, thoughtfully and flexibly, to be drawn. I will not suggest the manner in which the alumni ought to be consulted and polled on this issue, but I will say that they ought to be, and soon, and that the whole structure of Yale’s relationship to her alumni, as has been previously indicated, ought to be reexamined.
Far wiser and more experienced men can train their minds to such problems. I should be satisfied if they feel impelled to do so, and I should be confident that the job would be well done.”

SourceGod and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom”Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1951 (pp. 197-8).

And so, in the interest of damage control, Reynolds found himself out on the stump speaking to alumni and other potential donors. This post gives us Reynold’s response to youthful calumny from the future darling of the extreme conservative fringe in the U.S.

____________________

An earlier post on Yale economics

1999 musings about Economics at Yale by a few Yale economics professors.

____________________

In Memoriam: Lloyd Reynolds
[2005]

Shaped fields of labor relations and economics

Lloyd G. Reynolds, a scholar who shaped the fields of labor and economic development and transformed Yale’s Department of Economics, died April 9 at his home in Washington, D.C., after a series of strokes.

He was 94 years old.

Born and raised on a frontier settlement in the Canadian province of Alberta, Reynolds earned a B.A. at the University of Alberta, an M.A. at McGill University and a Ph.D. at Harvard University. He held an instructorship at the latter institution before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins University.

During World War II, as federal spending increased at a furious pace, Reynolds took leave from Johns Hopkins to serve in 1942-1943 as chief economist of the War Manpower Commission, and in 1943-1945 as a public member of the Appeals Committee for the National Labor Relations Board. At these institutions, he successfully labored to prevent wartime budget deficits from turning into price and wage inflation.

During and after the war, Reynolds served widely in governmental and private agencies as labor mediator, consultant, officer and committee member, lending his analytic, organizational and administrative skills to the Bureau of the Budget, the Agency for International Development, the Industrial Relations Research Association, the Ford Foundation, the National Bureau of Economic Research and the American Economic Association.

In 1945, Reynolds joined the Yale faculty, where he remained for 35 years until his retirement in 1980. In 1951, he became chair of Yale’s Department of Economics. In the next eight years, he increased the number of faculty in economics from 31 to 65, including such notable scholars as William Fellner, Tjalling Koopmans, John Montias, Hugh Patrick, Gustav Ranis, James R. Tobin, Robert Triffin and Henry Wallich. Two later won Nobel Prizes. A third Nobel Laureate, Simon Kuznets, was soon wooed back to Harvard.

In later years, Yale President Kingman Brewster liked to tell the story of meeting Reynolds on Martha’s Vineyard. Brewster remembered asking Reynolds, “Would you take me out behind the barn some day and tell me how it is you turned one of the worst departments in the country into one of the best?”

“I don’t have to take you out behind the barn,” replied Reynolds. “It’s very simple — just be willing to hire people who are brighter than you are.”

Early in his term as chair, Reynolds confronted the firestorm caused by the publication of “God and Man at Yale,” in which William Buckley criticized “the hot collectivist turn taken by the [economics] faculty after the war” and argued that such faculty should be fired. “Whit Griswold [Brewster’s predecessor as Yale president] sent me out on the road,” he liked to recall, “with the football coach, to talk to the alumni. Usually the coach spoke first, and after that … the alumni didn’t much want to hear about the economics department.”

Twice during the 1950s, Reynolds took brief leaves from Yale to direct the Ford Foundation’s new program of support for developing countries. At the end of that decade, he convinced Ford to donate $15 million to establish the Yale Economic Growth Center, where he served as founding director until 1967. The center annually brings together about 30 faculty and visiting economists studying the growth process.

When Reynolds retired from Yale, the Graduate School minutes recorded a tribute which reads in part: “[I]n the early 1950s, he was able to convert a spirited defense of the department against right wing critics into an occasion for the substantial infusion of outside resources. It was his great capacity to recognize talent in others which helped attract a first-rate faculty, including the move of the Cowles Commission to Yale.”

In 1949, Reynolds published “Labor Economics and Labor Relations” (Prentice Hall). Now in its 11th edition, this textbook is widely credited with creating the field of labor economics. Over the course of a half century, Reynolds published 10 scholarly books and dozens of articles in the fields of labor economics, economic development and comparative economic systems. He published five introductory economics texts, trying his ideas out first on Yale’s undergraduates. Reynolds was an institution at Yale graduations, where for more than 30 years, as senior fellow of the college, he carried the Berkeley mace as he led the seniors into the Old Campus.

Reynolds had a lifelong fascination with mountaineering, a passion that took him to the summit of Mt. Blanc at age 23, and to the top of Kilimanjaro at age 41. In his 50s, on three Nepal treks with his wife, he reached the Mt. Everest Base Camp and the Annapurna glacier.

Reynolds was married for 63 years to Mary Trackett Reynolds, who died August 28, 2000. He is survived by three children, Anne Skinner of Williamstown, Massachusetts, Priscilla Roosevelt of Washington, D.C., and Bruce Reynolds of Charlottesville, Virgina; as well as seven grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren. He was a member of the Century Club of New York, the Cosmos Club in Washington and the West Bend (Wisconsin) Country Club.

A memorial service in Reynolds’ honor will be held at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday, June 11, in Battell Chapel, corner of Elm and College streets.

SourceYale Bulletin & Calendar, Vol.33, No. 27 (April 22, 2005). Links added by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

____________________

The State of Economics at Yale
[1951]

By Lloyd G. Reynolds,
Chairman of the Department of Economics.

The following paper was delivered by Mr. Reynolds at the meeting of the Alumni Board on October 20th. During the meeting the Board passed a unanimous resolution that it should be published in the November issue of Y.A.M.

AMERICAN economists in 1951 are doing about the same things they have been trying to do for the past hundred and fifty years. First, we aim to present a clear picture of what the economic system looks like and how it operates. How many business concerns, big and little, are there in the United States? How are they organized and managed? How much money do they take in and pay out, and for what purposes? How many people work for a living in the United States? What work do they do and how much are they paid for doing it? A great deal of economics is concerned simply with providing an accurate description of our economic institutions and how they have changed over the course of time.

Economic Analysis

BUT economists are not content to operate only at the level of description. We are interested always in the question of why things happen as they do in the economy. Why does one kind of work pay 80 cents an hour and another $1.50? Why does wheat sell for $2.50 a bushel and cotton for 33 cents a pound? Why has the retail price level risen by 10 per cent since June 1950? In order to answer this sort of question one needs not only a knowledge of facts but methods of arranging and thinking about the facts — in short, what we call economic theory or economic analysis. Theory is not just day — dreaming or idle opinion. It plays much the same role in economics as in physical science. It is a way of organizing and focussing facts to explain and predict economic events.

                  Economics aims to be, and is steadily becoming, a factual, quantitative science. It aims to get behind mere opinion to a solid basis of truth. The tests of an economist are these: is he thoroughly grounded in the facts and the history of our economic system? Has he mastered the methods of analysis which economists have gradually been developing over the past century and more? Can he use these methods with skill and good judgment to explain and predict actual developments in the economy? If he cannot pass these tests, it does him no good to come around claiming that he is a warmhearted fellow who wants to improve the lot of the workingman, or that he is a sound conservative and a hundred per cent American. If he cannot pass the tests, we would not trust his judgment, we would not give him an advanced degree in economics, we would not employ him for the Yale faculty.

                  I want to make it clear that economics and politics are quite different things. The study of economics can of course be applied to political issues — it would not be of much use otherwise. Our courses involve discussion of taxation systems, tariffs, the federal budget, labor laws, social security, foreign economic aid, agricultural price supports, and a host of other issues. But the job of an economist with respect to these issues is not to say what policies should be followed. His task is to discover and point out the consequences of different possible policies. Ideally, economics should be able to say what will happen if the tariff on pottery is reduced by ten per cent or the federal minimum wage is raised ten cents an hour. Whether the public, or our students, like and approve what will happen is up to them. Economics is not politics, and it is not up to us to sway people in one political direction rather than another.

Ground Rules

ECONOMISTS are also human being of course, and I see nothing wrong with an economist occasionally expressing his personal opinion on a political issue. But he should be careful to point out when he is stepping out of his shoes as a scientist and speaking as a plain citizen. He should also be mindful of contrary opinions, and should not strive just to convert his hearers to his own point view. I believe that these ground rules are well observed in the teaching of economics at Yale. I don’t think there is much political preaching in our courses and if there is some it is certainly not all on the same side. The department includes everything from Roosevelt Democrats to Hoover Republicans, and our students have ample opportunity for exposure to different points of view.

                  This brings me to my main point — the state of the Yale Department of Economics and its prospects for the future. I note first a substantial strengthening of our senior staff since the end of the war. In the first year after the war, we had nine teaching members of the department in the rank of assistant professor and above. Today we have sixteen men in the professorial ranks. The newcomers to the department have been most carefully chosen from among dozens of a candidates whom we have considered in the last five years. They are men of whom Yale can well be proud, not only scholars but as individuals. They are highly regarded by their colleagues in New Haven and by their fellow-economists throughout the United States — so much so that we are constantly fending off raids from other institutions which want to hire them away from us.

                  Our two most recent appointments are Professor Henry Wallich, who comes to us from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he has been chief of research and has also acted as consultant to several of the Latin American countries in the revision of their banking systems; and Professor Robert Triffin, who has had a distinguished career with the Federal Reserve Board, the International Monetary Fund, and as American representative on the governing board of the European Payments Union. These men, both excellent economists with a wealth of practical background, have at one stroke put us ahead of any university in the country in the area of international finance and international trade.

Research and Teaching

NOW a word about the job which we are trying to do here. As scholars, we are all concerned with trying to push back the frontiers of knowledge in our chosen field. During the last two years alone, members of the department have published ten books on subjects as diverse as the pricing of military supplies, the effect of federal taxation on executive compensation and retirement systems, the history and structure of the American cigarette industry, and the human relations problems of a large public utility company. We have other studies currently in process, some of which I will mention in a moment. I do not think that any department of economics in the country excels the Yale department in terms of the quality and significance of its research work.

                  Our main responsibility in the University, however, is for teaching. How are we doing on this front? Judging from the comments of the students who come though my office, and from other reliable sources of student opinion, I would say that about half of our undergraduate courses are excellently taught. The other half are good solid courses but not outstanding, and we may even have one or two which are a bit on the dull side. The department has currently under way a thorough study of our course offering and degree requirements in the College, and we are of course seeking continuously to strengthen the teaching staff in areas of weakness. We expect that these efforts will bear fruit in a steady increase in the quality of our teaching work.

                  Our most difficult teaching problem has been the course in elementary economics, Economics 10. It is enormously difficult to cover all aspects of the economic system in a year’s time and to arrange the material in the best possible way. No one textbook or combination of textbooks is ever fully satisfactory. I can assure you that the Department has given much prayerful thought to this matter over the past five years. We have changed both the structure of the course and the reading assignments almost every year. The course is still not ideal — it never will be — but it is a good deal better than the course we were giving four or five years ago.

                  An even more serious problem in this course has been to find enough fully qualified instructors. We were faced just after the war with the largest enrollment in the history of the University. In the peak year we had almost fifty divisions of Economics 10, requiring a staff of 20 to 25 instructors. There are just not that many good economists, even at Yale. We were forced to take on a considerable number of partially-trained men from the graduate school as teaching assistants, often on very short notice. Some of these men turned in an excellent teaching job but we also drew a few lemons who had to be dropped after a short time.

                  This phase is now happily behind us. Enrollments have declined to a more normal level, and we are much better staffed to handle them. Of the nine men teaching in Economics 10 this year, only one is without previous teaching experience; and this man is a mature individual who in fact owned and operated a profitable business for several years before coming here for graduate study.

                  The central purpose of our teaching work is to give students an understanding of the history and present operation of American economic institutions, and to train them to think systematically about the economic issues of the day. We hope to develop habits of reflection and careful analysis which will stand our students in good stead as they emerge to take their place as citizens and as leaders of public opinion.

                  We are not trying to sell the American economic system to our students as one might sell a package of breakfast food. We believe that such an approach is both futile and unnecessary. We have found from experience that, if our economic institutions are carefully explained and thoroughly understood, the great majority of students will support them of their own accord. They will support them, not in a spirit of blind adherence to a fixed creed, but with an understanding of why they prefer our system to any sort of totalitarian regime. They will seek to perpetuate American institutions, not by freezing them into a fixed mold, but by striving constantly to improve them over the years to come. This outlook, which I would term intelligent conservatism, is characteristic of most of our faculty members and most of our student body.

                  How do our students come out from this sort of training? If you could read the departmental examinations which our economics majors write at the end of the senior year, I believe you would find that most of them show a good grounding in economic facts and economic analysis. They also show a healthy diversity of political viewpoint. We do not and should not turn out students whose minds are tailored to a particular pattern. If a student is intellectually honest, accurate in his use of facts, willing to state his basic premises, capable of reasoning logically from those premises — then I respect him. Let him come out where he will, politically speaking. I believe this is good American doctrine and sound educational policy.

                  I realize that some people hold a contrary point of view. They believe that the function of an economics department should be to propagandize students for a particular political and economic creed, that only professors willing to swear allegiance to this creed should be allowed to teach, and that students should be carefully protected against contrary opinions. This totalitarian outlook, though it has had much success in Europe, seems to me completely at variance with American traditions. The members of the economics department at Yale would, I am sure, be unalterably opposed to the establishment of any official party line on economic questions. I do not see how a free university in a democratic country can take any other view.

                  Now before closing I want to admit in all humility that there are many things wrong with our understanding of economics and our teaching of it. A great deal of the economics currently taught in universities is undoubtedly unrealistic, ivory-tower, out of touch with the facts of economic life. Too many of the books which we read and teach were written strictly in the library. Too many of our teachers of economics have had no contact with practical affairs.

                  I want to assure you that this ignorance of the real world is not deliberate on the part of the professors. It comes about mainly because of the way in which young economists are trained and employed. On finishing college, a prospective economist is usually advised to go directly into graduate school to work toward the hallowed Ph.D. without which his future career is hopeless. If he is a really good student he may receive a fellowship to support him in his studies. This phase lasts at least three or four years, during which time he spends his life mainly in the classroom and the library. As he hears the end of his graduate training, he begins to cast about for a job and, if he is capable and lucky, he lands an instructorship somewhere. But he is now being paid to educate students, and only incidentally to educate himself. He is not especially encouraged to wander outside the academic walls. If he does so on his own initiative and tries to learn something about business operations, he may quite possibly be rebuffed by executives who are busy with their own affairs or worried at the idea of stray professors wandering around the plant.

                  I am very conscious, and I believe any economist who has had much contact with industry is conscious, of how much economists have to learn about the facts of life and how wide a gap still exists between economic theories and business practice. I have given much thought to the question of how young teachers in their formative years can gain more experience of practical affairs, and have a few ideas on the subject. The difficulty, is that all of my ideas would cost money and money is not the most plentiful thing on the University scene.

                  We are not taking a defeatist view of this problem. We have already made some beginnings toward building bridges between industry and the University community. Professor Healy’s work in transportation has brought him into close contact with the largest railroad systems in the country. Professor Bakke’s studies of human relations in industry have included a thorough analysis of the management structure of a large New England Company, and he is going on from this to similar studies in other companies. I am currently working, along with my colleague Professor Miller, on a study of top management organization and policy which will involve discussions with the top officers of a dozen or so companies. Professor Westerfield, who has been in charge of our teaching of money and banking for many years, is president of a highly successful savings and loan association. Professor Wallich, I am sure, will not neglect his banking contacts in New York because of his move to New Haven.

                  We believe in this sort of thing and hope to develop it increasingly in the future. We consider that the factories, stores and offices of the country are the laboratories in which a real science of economics can be developed. There are difficulties, of course, in using these laboratories without upsetting normal business operations, but we are confident that these difficulties can be overcome. We believe that in this way the practical experience of men of affairs can be gradually translated into economics textbooks and economics teaching. If some of you can take a little time from your businesses to educate us, we shall stand a better chance of educating our students. Until both you and we have done more in this direction, economics will continue to be too largely an ivory tower subject.

                  I have tried to give a realistic picture of our present situation, not simply a rosy one. We are certainly doing a better job than we were doing five years ago, and five years ahead we expect to be doing still better. But we are not complacent about our progress. We realize that we have still a long way to go and will never do the job perfectly. We welcome advice and suggestions on what we are doing. We hope for sympathetic interest and support.

Source: Yale Alumni Magazine (November 1951), pp. 18-20. A copy of this article was provided to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror directly by the Yale Alumni Magazine. On behalf of the history of economics community I thank the executive editor, Mr. Mark Branch for his help.

Image Source1954 Fellow, Lloyd G. Reynolds. John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

 

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
Chicago Economists Yale

Chicago. Meet Ph.D. alumnus, Charles E. Lindblom, 1945

Charles Edward Lindblom (1917-2018!) was a Chicago economics Ph.D. (1945) who ultimately climbed as far up the Yale ranks as you could get – a Sterling Professorship of Political Science and Economics. He was working on his 1977 book Politics and Markets when I took a course with him in the Spring semester of 1973. His lectures have left no real mark on me, but I recall my impression of watching a thinker in real time who would dare to attempt to think things through while lecturing. I guess it should come as no surprise that someone who attained fame through an article with the title “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’” (1959), talked the talk the way he perceived policymakers to walk the walk (incrementally).

In a different course (Democracy and its Critics) I experienced his long-time colleague and collaborator Robert Dahl as the opposite model of an equally content-rich but silky smooth lecture style. I am glad to have sat at the feet of both when I was still of an impressionable age.

_____________________

From: The Yale Banner of 1960

Associate Professor of Economics CHARLES E. LINDBLOM came to Yale in 1946, after receiving his B.A. at Stanford and his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago. Mr Lindblom has always had an interest in the fields where economics and political science converge, and thus he is active in both areas. In 1951 he held a Guggenheim Fellowship and later he was a fellow at the Center for Advance Studies in the Behavorial Sciences. Mr. Lindblom also assisted former Connecticut Governor Bowles [Fun fact: Gov. Chester Bowles was economist Sam Bowles‘ father.] on the problems of housing and compensation legislation. At present, Professor Lindblom is on a committee on Latin American economics for the Twentieth Century Fund, a consultant for the RAND Corporation, and a consultant to a United States Senate subcommittee. On the Yale scene, he is an advisor to the Political Union and has written Politics, Economics and Welfare with Mr. [Robert] Dahl and Unions and Capitalism; he is working on several books now. What time he can salvage from this busy schedule is devoted to woodworking and sculpting. Next year he will be a Ford Faculty Fellow in economics.

Source: The Yale Banner 1960, p. 39.

Categories
Economists Yale

Yale. Meet an assistant professor of economics. Montias, 1960

One of the first professors to lead me into the field of comparative economic systems was John Michael Montias (1928-2005). He provided me an early exposure to the economic theory behind the indexes of comparative productivity computed by Abram Bergson (see Chapter 6 by Bergson and also Chapter 7 by Evsey Domar published in Alexander Eckstein (ed.), Comparison of Economic Systems: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches. U. of California Press, 1971).

The portrait shows Mike Montias in his early thirties, a beaming assistant professor at Yale. I include the short biographical clip from The Yale Banner of 1960 that accompanied the portrait. I can confirm that he was very much “a genial person” and will add a “a very learned scholar.”

____________________

From: The Yale Banner of 1960

An authority on Soviet economics, JOHN M. MONTIAS, Assistant Professor of Economics, came to Yale in 1958 after extensive study at Columbia. As an undergraduate, Professor Montias studied both Russian and economics and decided to combine them in his later career. After serving three years as an economic analyst for the United Nations in Geneva, Beirut, and New York, Mr. Montias traveled extensively in central Europe, working as a consultant for the Ford Foundation on the Polish Fellowship Program and holding several fellowships and grants for research. In addition to co-authoring a book on the Polish economy, Professor Montias has written for numerous professional magazines. Mr. Montias likes to play chess, study languages and travel. A genial person, Mr. Montias is well liked in his undergraduate course on the Soviet economy and his graduate course on central planning.

Source: The Yale Banner 1960, p. 35.

Categories
Economists Gender Northwestern Uncategorized Yale

Yale. Economics Ph.D. Alumna, 2nd wife of Richard T. Ely, Margaret Hahn Ely

One can imagine the raised eyebrows when colleagues learned that Professor Richard T. Ely at the tender age of 77 married his former student who was a gentle 32 years old, leaving a 45 year age gap to fill with conjugal bliss. It even became national news when it was reported that Richard T. Ely became father for the fourth and fifth times at ages 78/79, respectively. Robust Professor Ely lived another ten years and his widow Margaret Hale Ely, née Hahn, went on to teach economics at Connecticut College for Women for two decades after his passing. Along the way, she picked up her Yale economics Ph.D. Her retirement years spanned another seventeen years.

______________________

Professor Ely is Married to Former Pupil

Madison—Prof. Richard Theodore Ely, 78, honorary professor of political economy at the University of Wisconsin, was secretly married last summer to Miss Margaret Hahn, 30 [sic, 32 years is correct], once his student at Northwestern university friends here learned today.

The economist and his bride are living at Radburn, N.J., near the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities established by Dr. Ely several years ago in New York.

He was professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin from 1892 until 1925, when he went to Northwestern. There he met the co-ed destined to become his wife.

In 1933 he received an LL.D. degree from the university.

Before coming to Wisconsin he was head of the department of political economy at Johns Hopkins university for 11 years.

His marriage to Miss Hahn was his second. In 1884 he was married to Miss Anna Morris Anderson, who died in 1923. He has three children, Richard S. Ely, John T. A. Ely and Mrs. Anna Ely Morehouse.

Dr. Ely received his A.B. and A.M. degrees from Columbia university, his Ph.D. at the University of Heidelberg, and another LL.D. from Hobart college.

He was founder of the American bureau of industrial Research, one of the organizers of the American Economics association, first president of the American Association for Labor Legislation, and founder of the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities.

He has written several books dealing with economics.

Source:  Wisconsin State Journal, December 21, 1931, pp. 1,4.

______________________

L.A. Times exclusive, 1932

Economist Ely Becomes Father
at 79 (sic, should be 78) Years of Age

New York, July 15 (Exclusive)

Prof. Richard T. Ely, the economist, 79 years of age, who last year married Miss Margaret Hahn, still in her early thirties, became the father of an 8-pound son on the 1st, it was learned today.

Prof. Ely proudly confirmed the news at the offices of the Institute for Economic Research, Inc., of which he is the head.

“He’s a fine, big, kicking fellow,” he said. “We named him after William Brewster, a leader in the Mayflower colony and an early ancestor of his.”

Prof. and Mrs. Ely live at Radburn, N.J., the model motor-age real-estate development planned by the professor and financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and others.

Prof. Ely and the mother of his child, who was born in a Paterson (N.J.) hospital, met at Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., where he was teaching in the summer of 1931. She was one of his students, and received a Ph.D. degree at that institution of learning (sic, she did not).

The professor, a noted economist, is the author of a number of books. He came to New York several years ago to establish the institute he heads.

Source: The Los Angeles Times (July 16, 1932), p. 1.

______________________

Associated Press, 1934

Dr. Ely Father Again at 79
Daughter Second Child
Since He Wed Former Pupil in 1931

By the Associated Press.

New York, March 30.–Dr. Richard T. Ely, 79-year-old economist and president of the Bureau of Economic Research, became the father of his sixth child last Wednesday, friends here have learned.

A nine-pound-seven-ounce daughter, named Mary Charlotte, was born to his wife, the former Margaret Hahn of Chicago, in Paterson General Hospital, Paterson, N.J. Dr. Ely will be 80 April 13. Dr. and Mrs. Ely have another child, William Brewster Ely, born in July, 1932. Mrs. Ely is the economist’s second wife. Dr. Ely, founder of the American Economic Association, married her, a former pupil, in 1931.

SourceSt. Louis Post-Dispatch (March 30, 1934), p. 2.

______________________

From the horse’s mouth:
Richard T. Ely’s Memoir
1938

It was at Northwestern, also, that I found the young woman who later became my wife, Margaret Hale Hahn was a member of my round table, a dynamic personality, with many varied interests. She was a Northwestern graduate and had attained distinction in athletics, as well as in scholastic work. She was a member of the debating group and was one of the first women to represent the university in a joint debate with Wisconsin; she was also president of the hockey team and had obtained her letter. We were married in 1931. Her companionship and her vitality have greatly enriched my life. We are now the proud parents of two loverly children, Billy, six, and Mary, four.

Source: Richard T. Ely. Ground Under Our Feet, p. 250.

______________________

Personal and professional timeline of
Margaret Hale Ely, née Hahn

1899. June 29. Born in Ohio to Parents Raymond C. Han and Mary Katruah Hahn née Hale.

1923. B.S. from Northwestern University.

1931, August 8. Marriage to Richard Theodore Ely in Old Lyme, Connecticut.

1932, July 1. Birth of son, William Brewster Ely in Paterson, New Jersey.

1934, March 28. Birth of daughter, Mary Charlotte Ely in Paterson, New  Jersey. [Family residing at 2 Audubon Place, Rayburn, N.J.]

1936, May 12. Third child, stillborn.

1943, October 4. Richard T. Ely dies at home in Old Lyme, Connecticut.

1944. Appointed assistant professor of economics at Connecticut College for Women.

1947. A.M. from Yale University.

1954. Ph.D. in economics from Yale University.

1966. Retires from Connecticut College for Women.

1983, May 24. Died May 24. in Waterford, Connecticut.

______________________

MRS. MARGARET H. ELY
Associate Professor of Economics

Mrs. Margaret H. Ely’s life, on this campus and away from it, has been expressive of a personal philosophy which will continue to pervade her experience after she leaves her position as Associate Professor of Economics at Connecticut. She believes strongly in a commitment to education as a challenge and as a creative process, and she considers the lack of such a commitment the main problem in education today. In accord with this belief, Mrs. Ely has taught the Senior Seminar in Economic Research since she has been here. This course emphasizes creative research and enables students to talk with experts in their particular area. Labor and investment have always been Mrs. Ely’s own favorite areas of interest and instruction. She was originally trained as a banker in the investment division of the Irving Trust Company. In addition to her love of teaching, she has actively extended her own education. Last summer she attended a Contemporary Economics Seminar and this year at Connecticut she has studied mathematical statistics. In the language of economics, Mrs. Ely feels there is a great deal of manpower, the country’s most valuable resource, which is being wasted in the form of the unmotivated student. She believes this situation can be improved and, with this in mind, she intends to continue working in the educational system: We can expect further significant accomplishments by Mrs. Ely, a woman dedicated to her field and her profession.

Source: Connecticut College for Women student yearbook, Koiné 1964, p. 74.

______________________

Retirement note by Connecticut College President

Mrs. Margaret Ely joined the Faculty in 1944 as a recent widow and the mother of two young children. Ten years later she had received her Doctor’s degree in Economics at Yale, created new courses in Labor Economics and Corporations at this college and brought her own children into young manhood and womanhood. She likes to teach the lore of corporations by the case study method. A study of her own case suggests that she is the sort of educated American woman who has demonstrated to the undergraduates of this college that a woman of purpose and courage can do anything she wants to do. Her human warmth and ingenious teaching methods will be available to us for one year more in the absence of her Department Chairman.

SourceConnecticut College Alumnae News, August 1964, p. 19.

Image SourceConnecticut College Alumnae News, August 1964, p. 19. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Johns Hopkins Yale

Yale. Evsey Domar’s Letter of Support for Promotion of Thomas Schelling to Full Professorship, 1957

For anyone whose experience in academic hiring and promotions has only been acquired over the past several decades, it might come as a shock that outside letters to support a department’s vote to offer a full professorship back in the 1950s would hardly exceed the length of a very modest thread of tweets today. To be honest, a thumbs-up emoji would have been an adequate response to Yale’s request for Evsey Domar’s opinion on the work of Thomas C. Schelling. 

Since the two letters transcribed for this post are so short, I figure that this is as good an opportunity as any to add a brief bio written for the 1962 Radcliffe Yearbook. The poor quality of the yearbook image is a pity, but at least we have a classic Harvard professorial pose complete with a bow-tie and a cigarette held à la Madmen.

_____________________________

From the 1962 Radcliffe Yearbook

THOMAS C. SCHELLING, Professor of Economics, graduated from high school just after the Great Depression. Upon entering the University of California in Berkeley, he decided to major in economics: “Somehow I felt that the social conflicts, the severe poverty, even the problems of war, were partly solvable by a knowledge of economics.” He graduated with an A.B. in 1944 and got his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1951.

Professor Schelling’s varied career background includes two years with the Marshall Plan (in Copenhagen and in Paris, 1948-50); Associate Economic Adviser to the Special Assistant to the President (1950-51); Officer-in-charge, European Program Affairs, Office of the Director for Mutual Security, Executive Office of the President (1951-53); Yale University (1953-58); the RAND Corporation (1958-59). He has been at Harvard since 1959, on the faculty and says, “Harvard students are more interesting to teach than those at Yale.”

Primarily interested in the relationship between economics and national security, Professor Shelling recently collaborated on Strategy and Arms Control, published in 1961. Other works include National Economic Behavior, International Economics, and numerous articles in various periodicals.

Although teaching and consultation in foreign policy (he is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board, U.S. Air Force) take up most of his time, Professor Shelling is now turning his research interests to the problems of bargaining and conflict management, particularly as these problems affect foreign affairs.) Professor Schelling feels that, although a nuclear test moratorium would be a good thing, test bans without some system of control or inspection are unworkable. Furthermore, he feels that cessation of tests alone is not a potent form of disarmament. As for the testing itself, we don’t really know whether testing is necessarily harmful.

Source: The 1962 Radcliffe Yearbook, p. 91.

_____________________________

Yale Requests Domar’s Opinion of Schelling

Yale University
Department of Economics
New Haven, Connecticut

Lloyd G. Reynolds, Chairman

February 18, 1957

Professor Evsey Domar
Department of Political Economy
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore 15, Maryland

Dear Evsey:

The Department here has voted to promote Thomas C. Schelling to the rank of Professor of Economics. We are now about to begin putting the appointment through the regular committee procedures. It is customary at this stage to invite a number of leading scholars in other institutions to appraise the qualifications of the candidate. I should be grateful if you could take time to write me your impression of Schelling—the quality of his thinking and scholarship, his probably contribution to economics over the long run, his professional standing in comparison with other men of about his own age, and his general suitability for a professorship here.

We shall value your judgment and I am sure will find it helpful in putting the matter before our faculty for action.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Lloyd

LGR/shd

_____________________________

Copy of Domar’s Response

25 February 1957

Professor Lloyd G. Reynolds
Chairman
Department of Economics
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

Dear Lloyd:

This is in response to your letter of February 18 regarding the qualifications of Thomas C. Schelling.

I have known him approximately since 1944 or 1945 and have read most of his writings. He is an exceptionally capable young man, endowed with creative intelligence and with common sense. I have the highest opinion of him as an economist and great hopes regarding his contribution to economics.

In comparison with other men of his age he stands out very close to the top. I would support his promotion most wholeheartedly.

Sincerely yours,

Evsey D. Domar
Professor of Political Economy
The Johns Hopkins University
(on leave, spring term, 1956-57)

EDD:am

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers, Box 8, Folder “Yale University (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Thomas Schelling portrait, 1964. Harvard University. Office of News and Public Affairs. Hollis Images olvwork369281.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Economics Programs Harvard Yale

Columbia. Plans for Graduate Classes and Creation of a School for Civil Service Preparation. Burgess, 1880

 

In the beginning was the pitch. On June 7, 1880 the Board of Trustees of Columbia College passed resolutions to establish the School of Political Science (within which the field of political economy was embedded). The School of Political Science would open for students beginning with the 1880-1881 academic year. The pitch and plan for a “School of Preparation for the Civil Service” of February 1880 by the School of Political Science founder John W. Burgess  is transcribed below.

From this document is clear that in Burgess’  initial vision the principal mission of the future Faculty of Political Science would be to “prepare young men for the duties of public life”. So one can think of the ancestor faculty from which today’s department of economics at Columbia University descended was actually a School of Public Policy in which History, Law, and Philosophy constituted the supporting disciplinary pillars. 

__________________________

OUTLINE OF A PLAN
FOR THE
INSTRUCTION of GRADUATE CLASSES
FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM OF STUDY
IN THE
UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENT.
AND FOR THE CREATION OF
A SCHOOL OF PREPARATION
FOR THE
CIVIL SERVICE

Macgowan & Slipper, Printers, 30 Beekman Street, New York.

__________________________

COLUMBIA COLLEGE

GRADUATE INSTRUCTION, AND THE EXTENSION OF
THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM

To the Committee of Trustees of Columbia College on the Course and Statutes:

GENTLEMEN: The circumstances of the College are at length such as to make it possible to provide for giving instruction of a more advanced character than is required in the undergraduate classes. This is an object which many members of the Board of Trustees have long esteemed to be desirable, and of which the accomplishment has been regarded as only a question of time. Educational institutions of a nominally superior order are numerous enough in our country, but those which possess any just claim to be considered fountains of really high learning are as yet comparatively few. The country has, nevertheless, need of such institutions, as is made evident by the yearly increasing numbers of American youth who resort for the completion of their education to the Universities of the Old World. Such institutions will accordingly be erected, but it is hardly to be expected that they will be built from the ground up, on new and independent foundations. They will rather be developed out of existing institutions already well established, well endowed, and possessed of instrumentalities in actual operation, adequate, with some modification of the mode of their application, to accomplish the new and higher work proposed, without interfering with their present usefulness, or materially increasing the burden of their maintenance. The number of educational institutions in our country capable of such development is not at present great, nor is it important that it should be. It is far from being desirable, in the interest of the higher education itself, that universities (employing the term in the commonly accepted sense) should be numerous relatively either to the population or to the schools of lower grade. It is, on the other hand, vastly preferable that they should be few, strong, and largely attended, rather than many and, as an almost necessary consequence, ill-supported and feeble.

Circumstances already very distinctly indicate certain of the educational institutions of our country as destined inevitably to occupy this higher grade. There are others, doubtless, which will yet be added to the number, whose destiny is at present less clearly manifest; but as to these few there can be no possibility of mistake. Among the conditions which will aid in determining the future of these institutions is, of course, the present possession of adequate financial strength; but another, which is of nearly equal importance, is geographical position. Many reasons conspire to make the city of New York the fittest place on this continent for the growth of an educational institution of the highest order. It is not merely because of its superior population or its superior wealth that it possesses this advantage. It is because here are gradually concentrating themselves, in the most marked degree, all the most important accessories to mental cultures, all that most strikingly illustrates the triumphs of the human intellect in science, in letters, and in the arts of civilized life. And it is because in the ebb and flow of the vast human ocean which overspreads the continent, this city is the point toward which the currents of the population are continually tending, or from which they are retiring; and this is therefore, the point in which knowledge may be most conveniently sought, and from which it may be most easily diffused.

Columbia College occupies this very favorable position. It has already an honorable and well-earned reputation. It has around it a large body of Alumni interested in its prosperity, zealous for the promotion of its usefulness, and occupying, many of them, positions of influence in the social and political world. It has gathered together the most important of the instrumentalities necessary to the efficiency of instruction, or to the aid of literary research or scientific investigation. It has built up professional schools which, in there several specialties, take easily precedence of all others of their class in the United States. Its several faculties embrace men accomplished as scholars, thoroughly versed in the various departments of science, and profoundly learned in history, philosophy, and the law. What it needs to give it the character of a true university is to open its doors to aspirants for knowledge, who are seeking, not, as at present in the undergraduate department, knowledge in its mere rudiments, nor, as in the professional schools, knowledge for its immediately useful applications, but knowledge in the largest sense—knowledge pursued for its own sake, or to qualify the learner to contribute on his own part to the intellectual progress of the race.

To aspirants of this class opportunities may be offered for instruction in a great variety of subjects, without any addition, not demanded in the interest of the undergraduate department alone, to the present educational staff. To this end it is only necessary to adopt the simple expedient of distribution the hours of instruction over a larger portion of the day than they now occupy. According to the existing arrangement, all instruction is given within the limited space of three hours daily, and these are filled up with the exercises of the undergraduate classes. It is true, that within this limit it frequently happens that officers have unemployed hours; but these are not so distributed as to permit the arrangement of a working system of graduate instruction. To make such a system practicable, it is necessary that the subjects which a student may desire to combine should be taught at different hours. And this condition cannot be fulfilled without scattering the exercises over the greater part of the day. This is what is done in the School of Mines, in which all the hours from nine or ten o’clock in the morning till four or five in the afternoon are made available in one form or another for purposes of instruction.

But this expedient, while it provides that instruction shall be going on at every hour in one department or another, involves to the individual student the consequence that, between the hours in which he is engaged in class, there will occur other hours when he is without any scholastic exercise to employ him. During these hours it is proper that he should be occupied in study; and so he might be presumed to be were his residence in every instance within easy distance from the College. The institutions which provide lodgings for their students upon their own grounds find no difficulty in this matter. At Harvard University, for instance, exercises occur at every hour from nine till five; but the students, when not under instruction, are expected to study in their rooms. Since students with us have no private rooms, and are, in general, too distant from their homes to study there, the distribution of time proposed would hardly be judicious or just unless provision should be at the same time made for usefully employing the hours intervening between class duties. In the School of Mines abundant occupation for these hours is found in drawing, laboratory work, or practice in the use of tools and instruments. For the undergraduates it would be necessary to provide study rooms, to be used by students in common, by setting apart for the purpose some portion of the buildings not as yet otherwise assigned. The upper floor of the recently-erected building is entirely suitable to this object, and is quite sufficient. It is not needed for any present college uses, nor for any likely to arise so long as the old building continues to stand; and it is very evident that that building cannot be demolished until another shall have been erected somewhere else. Its demolition would necessitate the provision of other accommodations for the great variety of operations now going on in it; and though such might be found for the physical department in the new building, yet, for the Herbarium, for the classes in French, German, Mechanical Engineering, and Descriptive Geometry, for the operations of air and water analysis, for the library overflow, the gymnasium, etc., etc., no adequate space could be found there disposable. The future wants of the institution, for which the remaining floor of the new building is presumably held in reserve, will, therefore, undoubtedly be provided for in some manner not likely to interfere with any present disposition which may be made of that floor; and hence the devotion of that now unoccupied space to the uses of a study room cannot on that account be regarded as objectionable.

Supposing this arrangement to be adopted, it is easy, without adding to the number of our instructors, to plan a system of instruction for graduates which shall embrace reading or lecture courses in the Classics, English Literature, Anglo-Saxon, Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Physiological Psychology, Political Science, Public Economy, History, the Higher Mathematics, Mechanics, Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and certain branches of Natural History, to occupy, on an average, not less than two hours weekly each. There can be no doubt that, when this system shall have been fully inaugurated, the number of students attracted by it will so far add to the revenues of the College as to justify the appointment of additional instructors on subjects not included in the above enumeration, such as Foreign Literature, Hebrew, Oriental Literature, Comparative Philology, Ethnology, Archæology, Natural History in its various ramifications, Animal and Vegetable Physiology, Methods of Research in Physics and Chemistry, Physical Astronomy, Architecture and the Fine Arts, and any others which may be necessary to make the institution a school of universal knowledge.

For the purpose of illustrating the practicability of carrying the proposed plan into effect without interfering with the undergraduate course already in operation, an ideal scheme of attendance is annexed to this communication, showing a distribution of the subjects of instruction to the hours of each day throughout the week, by means of which the convenience of instructors, as well of students, both graduate and undergraduate, may be satisfactorily provided for.

ENLARGEMENT OF THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM FOR UNDERGRADUATES.

An advantage incidental to the distribution of the hours of instruction over the entire day will be the opportunity it affords for giving to the students of the undergraduate department a greater liberty of option than they at present enjoy in the selection of their studies. It appears to the undersigned that the collegiate course for the student of our day cannot properly he made so severely a course of mere mental discipline as it was judicious to make it in the last century, or even during the earlier years of the present. The average age of our graduates is that of fully grown men. The age of the applicant for admission, a century ago, ranged from ten to fourteen years. The four years of college life embraced at that time the period of gradual mental as well as of physical development and growth; and it was eminently proper that the studies enforced upon the learner should be adapted rather to train the faculties than to inform the mind. At present this period is spent mainly in the preparatory schools, and it is in them that this work of mental gymnastics should be chiefly carried on. The end of college instruction is not merely to discipline, but also to inform; and since men differ no less in their mental than in their personal characteristics, it follows that different individuals do not acquire the same kind of knowledge with equal facility, nor are they equally profited by it. This provision of nature is one of great and beneficial importance to the progress of the race; for inasmuch as it is impossible that any one shall be proficient in all departments of human knowledge, the fact that each seeks spontaneously some special field insures the certainty that every such field will be energetically explored.

It seems, therefore, to be proper that at that period of comparative maturity at which young men begin to be conscious of their fitness for some particular pursuit or vocation, and desirous to acquire the knowledge most likely to be advantageous in following it, they should be allowed, to a pretty large extent, to select their subjects of study from among those which are in harmony with their tastes and aspirations. That public opinion in the social and the educational world recognizes this propriety is manifest in the flourishing condition of the institutions in which the elective system of study has been largely developed, and in the rapidity with which those institutions have grown in popular favor. In our own College the introduction of this system on an extended scale has been hitherto impracticable, for the same reasons which have made it impossible to provide for the instruction of graduates; yet the results of the limited trial of it which we have made have been altogether favorable.

The introduction of the elective system, however, in its largest latitude, does not by any means imply the necessity of discarding the system which at present exists. If there should be any who prefer still to cling to traditions, they may enter themselves from the beginning for the course of study prescribed for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in our statutes as they stand, and follow the same undeviatingly to the end. Degrees in Arts may be reserved to be conferred on such only; while those who prefer the optional course may be graduated as Bachelors of Letters or Bachelors of Science, according to the character of the studies which they chiefly pursue.

The adoption of a scheme of study largely elective would not necessarily require an increase in the number of instructors employed. As it is true, however, that, in such a system, the modern languages ought pretty fully to enter, it would be advisable to add to our present corps, a tutor in Italian and a tutor in Spanish. As to the French, arrangements could probably be made by which the instructor in that language in the School of Mines would teach also in the College; and for the German, we have already a professor who has hitherto given instruction in his proper department only under circumstances of serious embarrassment, and who would find the proposed change advantageous to his usefulness.

An ideal scheme of attendance accompanying this communication shows in what manner the exercises may be arranged so that students pursuing elective courses may attend along with candidates for degrees in Arts, so far as the subjects of study of these two classes of students are identical. Another appended paper shows the variety of particular courses of study which may be offered in the several departments indicated only by general titles in the scheme of attendance. In this latter paper are embraced some titles which do not fall within the special province of any of our present instructors; such as Hebrew Sanskrit, the Evidences of Religion, Anatomy, Physiology, and the principles of the Common Law.

In regard to the Evidences, there is no doubt that, under the voluntary system, the Trustees would think it advisable to reestablish the course; since with the abandonment of the principle of compulsion would disappear the reasons which have led to its discontinuance heretofore.

As to Anatomy and Physiology, arrangements could be made not involving any considerable expense, with Professors of the Medical School, to give annual courses adapted to the wants of the general learner, of great interest and value, though not extending to more than ten or twelve lectures each. A brief course of similar extent, upon the principles of the Common Law, could be given by our principal Law professor, embracing information highly important to educated men, but not now easily obtain able except in professional schools. Such a course used to be given to the Seniors at Yale College during the lifetime of the late Judge Daggett, which was always fully attended, though attendance was merely voluntary.

As to Sanskrit, a language occupying every year more and more the attention of scholars everywhere, there would be very little difficulty. Some of our own recent Alumni have already honorably distinguished themselves in this interesting study. One of our Fellows in Letters of the Class of 1878, now pursuing his studies at the University at Leipzig, had made himself by his own private and independent efforts a proficient in Sanskrit literature before his graduation, and since entering upon the course at Leipzig has received signal marks of approval and consideration from the professor in that department there. Another, of the Class of 1875, after completing his course of study abroad, has returned to this country bringing flattering testimonials to his attainments in general scholarship, and especially as to his proficiency in this particular branch. This young man, or some other similarly qualified, could be appointed to fill one of the new tutorships which it will presently become necessary to create in Greek or Latin in our College, and could be engaged at the same time to take charge of the instruction of any class which might be formed in Sanskrit. Considering that the condition of things is such in College at present as to make it impossible any longer to defer increasing the number of subordinate officers, it may be regarded as a happy concurrence of circumstances which enables us by the same act to provide a competent instructor in a subject in which as yet in this country the proficients are few.

All the subjects, however, for which instructors cannot be found among the members of our present Faculties, unless the modern languages be excepted, may be omitted, if necessary, from our scheme, till the success of the measure shall permit them to be provided for without adding to the burdens of the treasury.

PREPARATION OF YOUNG MEN FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE.

Since the passage of the resolution in regard to graduate classes, now before the Committee, a plan has been proposed for establishing, in addition to the special schools connected with the College already in existence, a new one of an original character, designed to meet what is believed to be a want of the present time, by preparing young men to engage intelligently in the service of the government. Though as yet in our country the civil and consular service has not been securely placed beyond the control of influences purely political, the popular sentiment manifests itself more and more strongly every year in favor of such a separation, and enough has been already accomplished to make it evident that, at least in the lower ranks of this service, proper qualification and the personal merit of the aspirant are likely hereafter to carry with them more weight in the competition for office than political favor. Even, moreover, should the so-called Civil Service reform receive a check, the course of instruction which it is proposed to give in the new school would still prove attractive to young men who desire to fit themselves to deal with questions of public interest, whether in professional life, or as politicians, or as managers of public journals. A school of a character similar to this has for several years been in successful operation in Paris, and counts among its teachers some of the most eminent publicists of France.

The proposition referred to proceeds from our Professor of Political Science, and is set forth in its details in a letter addressed by him to the undersigned, which is given below. As the proposed school involves the question of both graduate and undergraduate instruction, its consideration falls within the scope of the resolution referred to the Committee. An ideal scheme of attendance hereto appended shows in what manner the exercises of this course may be combined with those of the graduate and undergraduate classes, so that each may be accessible, if desired, to the students of the others.

In order that this project may be carried into effect, it would be necessary to appoint, within the next two years, two additional instructors, at salaries of $2,500 each. Within the same period the number of students entering for the course might reasonably be computed at not less than fifty, and would probably be greater. It would conduce very much to the success of the undertaking that the Law School should be removed from its present situation and united with the other departments upon the same ground, though that need not be regarded as in dispensable.

Following the letter of Professor Burgess below, will be found, marked A, a succinct résumé of the essential features of the plan herein recommended, and also of that of the proposed School of Preparation for the Civil Service, marked B. Also, marked C, an estimate of the probable effect upon revenue and expenditure of the adoption of these projects; and finally, an enumeration, marked D, of the subjects of the several courses of instruction which the proposed plan will embrace. The hypothetical schemes of daily attendance referred to above are presented separately.

All which is respectfully submitted,

F. A. P. BARNARD, President.

COLUMBIA COLLEGE, February 25, 1880.

__________________________

LETTER OF PROFESSOR BURGESS TO THE PRESIDENT.

323 West 57th St., Feb. 20th, 1880.

My Dear Dr. Barnard:

It seems to me evident that the time has now fairly arrived, both in the history of this nation and of this University, when a decisive step forward in the development of the political sciences is positively and specially demanded.

In the history of the nation it is so, not only because the Republic has now reached those mighty proportions demanding the finest training, as well as the finest talent, for the successful management of its affairs, but because the Government itself has recognized this fact, and in its Civil Service reforms, which, I think, are now fairly planted and destined, under the proper influences, to a noble growth, has opened the way for an honorable career to the young men of the nation in the governmental service, which may be successfully pursued by the best intelligence, skill, and fidelity, offering itself without any reference to political influence or patronage.

In the history of the University it is so, not only because it is the bounden duty of a university, worthy the name, to teach all that has been gathered by the world’s experience in this as well as all other departments of superior knowledge, and to add continually thereto, but because, also, of its metropolitan situation, which fits it better than any other in the nation, both to place its students in immediate connection with the Civil Service examinations, so far as they now exist, and to exert its influence with greatest efficacy for the extension of the same throughout every branch of that service, as the indispensable condition of appointment to governmental office, and because I think I may assert that the foundation is now already fairly laid in our University for the development which I now propose.

The elements of the plan which I would suggest are, in outline, as follows:

I

The course of study shall extend over a period of three years, and comprise the following subjects:

FIRST YEAR.— The History of Philosophy; The History of the Literature of the Political Sciences; The General Constitutional History of Europe; The Special Constitutional History of England and of the United States.

SECOND YEAR.— The Roman Law—the general principles of the jurisprudence of the existing codes derived therefrom; The Comparative Constitutional Law of the Principal European States and of the United States; The Comparative Constitutional Law of the Different Commonwealths of the American Union.

THIRD YEAR.— History of Diplomacy; International Law; Systems of Administration, both of the Nation and the Commonwealths in the American Union; The Comparison of the Administrative System of the United States with those of the principal European States; Political Economy in all its Branches, and Statistics.

II.

The requirements for admission to this department shall be:

FIRST.— The completion, successfully, of the Junior Year in any regular college of the United States; or—

SECOND.—The passing of a successful examination upon all  the studies of the first three years of the Academic Department of this University; and—

THIRDLY. — Including therein, in either case, a fair reading knowledge of the French and German languages.

III.

The degree conferred, upon the completion of all the courses and after successful examination therein, shall be that of A.M., Ph.D.; and if, in addition to the courses in this department, the student shall have received the degree of LL.B., either from the Law School of this University or from any other School of Municipal Law in good standing, the degree shall be that of D.C.L. For the students of a single year’s standing the degree will be that of A.B.

IV.

The fee for instruction in this department shall be the same in amount as is paid by undergraduates. But members of the Senior Class in the Academic Department of the University may attend the courses of the first year, and members of the School of Law may attend any or all of the courses free.

Finally, my dear Doctor, I would add that, in my opinion, this plan can be now realized without much, if any, additional expense to the Treasury of the University. When in complete running order it will require the appointment of two assistants to the Professor now in charge of the department — one for the courses in Roman Law and its branches, the other for the courses upon the administrative systems of Europe and the United States. I am confident that two fit persons, both graduates of the Law Department of this University, and now about finishing their courses of special study upon these topics in European universities — the one at Berlin and the other at the Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques in Paris–can be secured at salaries of $2,500 each per annum; and if one of these should be appointed, his office and salary to take effect from October 1st, 1881, and the other from October 1st, 1882, I fully believe that the receipts from the fees of students in the department would be sufficient to cover one, if not both, of these salaries, and in five years from this time would be a source of revenue to the Treasury. I am informed that in the city of New York  alone fifty or more vacancies occur every year in the Civil Service of the United States, from death, resignation, or inability to serve; and that, through the present method of Civil Service examinations, fifty or more appointments are therefore annually made to offices having salaries of from $1,200 to $5,000; and I feel assured that the institution of learning which shall first seize the opportunity for establishing among its departments a school of training for the Civil Service of the National Government, will not only increase its own prestige and be a national benefactor, but will also reap no mean financial reward therefrom.

Trusting that these suggestions may meet your favor and support,

I am, as ever, your most obedient servant,

JOHN W. BURGESS.

President F. A. P. BARNARD, LL.D.

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

(A.)

PLAN FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF GRADUATE CLASSES, AND FOR THE EXTENSION OR THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM IN THE UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENT.

1.—Scholastic exercises to be distributed over all the hours of the day from 9½ A.M. till 4 P.M. from Monday to Friday inclusive, and from 9½ till 11 on Saturday.

2.—Every student to be under instruction in class for three hours each day till Saturday, and for two hours on Saturday.

3.—Students, when not under class instruction, to be occupied in study in rooms set apart for the purpose.

4.—A recess of half an hour to be allowed at mid-day for lunch.

DEGREES.

1.—If no modification of the course of instruction or no enlargement of its scope be made, the only degree conferred at the close of the four years’ course to be the degree of Bachelor of Arts.

2.—Should the course be enlarged and liberty of option be increased, the degrees of Bachelor of Letters and Bachelor of Science to be also given.

3.—The course leading to the degree in Arts to remain unchanged, consisting as at present of a prescribed curriculum up to the close of the Junior year, and of a partially elective course during the Senior.

4.—For degrees in Letters and Science, the course to be identical with the course in Arts during the Freshman year, and to embrace as obligatory during the subsequent years all the subjects of that course in the departments of English Literature, History, and Political Science, occupying six hours in the Sophomore year per week; five hours in the Junior, and four hours in the Senior. The remaining hours up to seventeen per week to be occupied by elective studies. The degree in Letters to be conferred on those who choose as electives the Languages, Ancient or Modern, Literature, Psychology, and Philosophy; and the degree in Science on those who choose principally the Mathematics, Physics, Mechanics, Astronomy, and Chemistry. Specific regulations in regard to this subject to be made by the Faculty, with the approval of the Trustees.

INSTRUCTION TO GRADUATES

1.—Instruction to be given to graduates of this and of other Colleges who desire to fit themselves for literary or scientific work not professional; as for authorship, historical or philological research, scientific investigation, etc.

2.—Special courses of instruction adapted to the wants of such graduates to be arranged in the departments of Greek, Latin, Mathematics, Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Philosophy, Political Science, Natural History, and the Modern Languages. Only such courses to be attempted at present as can be conducted without materially increasing the staff of instructors.

3.—Notice to be publicly given before the close of the present academic year of the purpose to institute courses for graduates, with specification of such as may be commenced in October, 1880.

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

(B.)

SCHOOL OF PREPARATION FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE, DIPLOMACY, AND THE EDITORIAL PROFESSION.

1.—A School to be instituted with a definitely prescribed curriculum of instruction, designed to prepare young men for public life, whether in the Civil Service at home or abroad, or in

the legislatures of the States or of the nation; and also to fit young men for the duties and responsibilities of public journalists.

2.—Students of our own College, or of other Colleges in good standing, who have completed with credit the undergraduate course up to the close of the Junior year, to be allowed to enter themselves as students in this School.

3.—The course of instruction to extend over three years.

4.—At the close of the first year, the student, on passing an approved examination, to be entitled to the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy.

5.—At the end of the course, the student who passes all his examinations with approval, to be recommended to the Trustees for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

6.—Students of this School to be permitted to attend such exercises of the Graduate or Undergraduate department as their time will allow, the approval of the Professors in the School being first obtained.

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

(C.)

PROBABLE EFFECT ON REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME.

I.—EXPENDITURE.

It must, in the first place, be considered that the exigencies of the College will require, whether this plan be adopted or not, the appointment, in anticipation of the opening of the ensuing academic year, of an additional tutor in Greek, of one in Latin, and of one also in Mathematics. This will involve an increase of annual expenditure not to be charged to the present project, of $3.600.

For the supervision of students in their study rooms it will be expedient to appoint two Proctors at salaries of one thousand dollars each per annum. It is probable that this amount might be reduced by arranging that Tutors may act as Proctors.

The department of Modern Languages, in regard to which our College is now deplorably deficient, would require the appointment of an instructor in Italian, and an instructor in Spanish, who might probably be engaged for about $1,300 per annum each. The instructor in French of the School of Mines would probably be willing, for a slight increase of compensation, to take charge of the French classes in College also.

These comprise all the additions to our annual outlay which it seems to be necessary at present to make. Summed up they are as follows:

Two Superintendents of study rooms $2,000
Two Instructors in Modern Languages $3,000
Increase of salary of Instructor in French $500
Total $5,500

II.—REVENUE.

The tuition fee now charged in the Undergraduate Department is less by fifty dollars per annum than that which is charged at Harvard College or at the University of Pennsylvania. It seems fitting that, in so largely increasing the advantages offered to students here, we should make our charges equal at least to what they are elsewhere. To increase the fee from $100 to $150 per annum would not diminish the number of our undergraduate students, and hence, even should the new attractions fail to add to our numbers, the effect of this measure would be to add $10,000 to our annual revenue.

It may, however, be safely estimated that, before two years shall have passed under the new system, we shall have at least twenty graduate students, and that the number of undergraduates will be more than equally increased. The following, then, are the items of the probable increase of revenue, viz.:

From increase of tuition fee $10,000
From graduate students (say 20) $3,000
From increased number of undergraduates (say 20 also) $3,000
Total $16,000

The probability, therefore, is that the adoption of the plan, if accompanied as it should be with a simultaneous increase of the tuition fee, will tend to enlarge rather than diminish the annual balance in the treasury.

If, now, we consider the further effect of the establishment of the proposed new school of preparation for the Civil Service, we shall have to add to the annual outlay the amount of the salaries of two Instructors or Adjunct Professors, one in Roman Law and one in Administrative Law, each of $2,500. On the other hand, we may safely count on attracting to this school, in the course of the next two or three years, at least fifty students—a number likely afterward largely and rapidly to increase. We may assume, then, at the end of the second year, something like the following, viz.:

I.—EXPENDITURE.

Total as above $5,500
Salaries of two instructors $5,000
Total $10,500

 

II. REVENUE.

Total as above $16,000
Fees of fifty students $7,500
Total $23,500

Leaving a probable balance in favor of the treasury of $13,000 per annum.

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

(D.)

COURSES OF STUDY.

The subjects or authors herein enumerated as for undergraduates, are in general those taught during the academic year 1878-9. In the classical departments these are liable to be changed from year to year. Should the proposed plan be adopted, every course not marked as obligatory will be open for election to all undergraduates above the Freshman grade, without regard to year.

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK.

1.— Iliad or Odyssey, one term 3 hours per week
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.— Herodotus, one term
3.—The Odyssey 2 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Voluntary.
4.—Aristophanes and minor poets 2 hours,
Sophomores,
Voluntary.
5.—Euripides, one term 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Elective.
6.—The Memorabilia, one term
7.—Sophocles, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective
8.—Plato, one term
9.—Æschylus, one term 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective
10.—Demosthenes, one term
11.—(To be announced annually in advance) 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
12.—(To be announced annually in advance) 1 hour per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF LATIN.

1.—Pliny 3 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Horace, one term 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Elective.
3.—Livy, one term
4.—Juvenal, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective
5.—Cicero De Officiis, one term
6.—Terence, one term 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective
7.—Catullus, one term
8.—(To be announced annually in advance) 2 hours per week,
Graduates,
Elective.
9.—(To be announced annually in advance) 1 hour per week,
Graduates,
Elective.

 

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS.

1.—Geometry, one term 5 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Algebra, one term
3.—Curves of Second Order, one term 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Elective.
4.—Trigonometry, Mensuration and Surveying, one term
5.—Differential and Integral Calculus 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective
6.—Calculus of Variations 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
7.—Quaternions 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICS AND ASTRONOMY.

1—Analytical Geometry, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective.
2.—Mechanics, one term
3.—Astronomy 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
4.—Practical Astronomy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
5.—Spherical Astronomy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
6.—Analytic Mechanics 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
7.—Physical Astronomy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS.

1.—Elementary Physics 2 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Heat and Electricity 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective.
3.—Optics and Acoustics 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
4.—Mathematical Physics 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
5.—Methods of Physical Research 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY.

1.—Elementary Chemistry 1 hour per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—Theoretic Chemistry 2 hours per week,
Sophomores or Seniors,
Elective.
3.—Applied Chemistry 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Elective.
4.—Organic Chemistry 2 hours per week,
Graduates.
5.—Methods of Chemical Research 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY.

1.—Logic 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
2.—Psychology 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Obligatory.
3.—Philosophy 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
4.—Physiological Psychology 1 hour per week,
Graduates.
5.—History of Philosophy 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LITERATURE.

1.—Rhetoric 3 hours per week,
Freshmen,
Obligatory.
2.—History of Literature 2 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Obligatory.
3.—English Classics 1 hour per week,
Sophomores,
Obligatory.
4.—Logic 2 hours per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
5.—English Classics 1 hour per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
6.—The Early English Authors 2 hours per week,
Graduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE MODERN LANGUAGES.

1a.— French, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
1b.—Course of French Literature
2a.— German, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
2b.— Course of German Literature
3a.— Italian, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
3b.— Italian Literature 1 hour per week each,
Graduates or Undergraduates.
4a.— Spanish, Elementary Course 3 hours per week each,
Undergraduates.
4b.— Spanish Literature 1 hour per week each,
Graduates or Undergraduates.

 

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

1.—Outlines of General History 3 hours per week,
Sophomores,
Obligatory.
2.—History of England and the United States, one term 3 hours per week,
Juniors,
Obligatory.
—Political Economy, one term
3.—Political Economy and Statistics 3 hours per week,
Seniors,
Obligatory,and School of Civil Service.
4.—British and American Constitutional history 2 hours per week,
Seniors,
Obligatory.
5.—General Constitutional History 3 hours per week,

School of Civil Service.

6.—Literature of Political Science 1 hours per week,
3 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.
—Comparison of Constitutional law of Europe and the United States
7.—Systems of Administration 3 hours per week,
2 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.
—Comparison of Constitutional Differences of the American States
8.—Comparison of Systems of Administration 5 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.

 

ROMAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

1.—Roman Law 3 hours per week,
School of Civil Service.
2.—International Law 3 hours per week,

School of Civil Service.

 

DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY.

1.— General Geology 1 hour per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
2.— Palæontology 1 hour per week,
Seniors,
Elective.
3.— Lithological Geology, first term 3 hours per week,
with School of Mines.
4.— Cosmical and Historical Geology, second term 3 hours per week,
with School of Mines.
5.— Economical Geology 2 hours per week, through the year
with School of Mines.

 

NATURAL HISTORY.

Botany, first term 2 hours per week,
with School of Mines.
Zoology 1 hour per week, throughout the year
with School of Mines.
Vegetable Physiology, Animal Physiology, Anatomy—Human and Comparative To be provided for.
Mineraology and Crystallography 2 hours per week,
with School of Mines.

 

LAW.

1.— Outlines of British Common Law Ten lectures.

 

SEMITIC AND ORIENTAL LANGUAGES.

Hebrew 2 hours per week,
To be provided for.
Sanskrit 2 hours per week,
To be provided for.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Historical Subject Files, Series I: Academics and Research/Series VIII: Events/I. Box 289. Folder 1 “Political Science, Faculty of, 1920s-1930s”.

Image Source: John W. Burgess, from the Columbia University, Department of History webpage: A Short History of the Department of History.