The Columbia Provost, Frank D. Fackenthal, must have sent out a request to department chairs to answer a set of questions regarding their departments’ educational programs early in 1944. I have found a copy of a letter dated April 10, 1944 in which Carl S. Shoup (1902-2000) provides his reply in which he was able to comment both on graduate economics as well as business education. Shoup refers to an “accompanying memorandum” in which his thoughts are spelled out more precisely. That memorandum was not filed with the copy of the letter I found, so it must be left to another archival visit to see if there might not be some copy filed elsewhere.
Note to self (or others): the “accompanying memorandum” might be found in Provost Fackenthal’s papers.
____________________
Letter to Provost Frank D. Fackenthal from Professor Carl Shoup on the educational programs in economics and business at Columbia University
April 10, 1944
COPY
[Omitting some minor points, as explained in letter to Professor Mills, April 18, 1944]
April 10, 1944
Mr. Frank D. Fackenthal
Provost of the University
Low Memorial Library
Dear Mr. Fackenthal:
This letter and the accompanying memorandum are in reply to your request of February 18 for suggestions on the educational program of the University.
It so happens that during some spare moments last summer and fall when I was in Washington with the Treasury Department, I drew up a memorandum on graduate instruction in the American universities in the fields of economics and public finance, with special but not exclusive reference to Columbia. I had for some time been of the opinion that the training given to graduate students was falling short of what it might accomplish, and this memorandum was an attempt to systematize my thoughts. Upon returning to Columbia I found that Professor Mills, as head of the Department of Economics, was planning to appoint a curriculum committee and also hold a series of Department meetings in which the curriculum of the Department would be analyzed and suggestions for improvement made. I showed him my memorandum, and he thought it advisable to circulate mimeographed copies among the members of the Department. Since this memorandum contains most of what I have to say on the educational program, I am enclosing a copy; but I also add a few remarks below, addressed more specifically to some of the questions raised in your letter, and to Columbia rather than graduate schools in general.
My remarks here and in the mimeographed memorandum, rest upon three general assumptions: (1) that graduate students in economics and public finance are willing and even eager to assume a more responsible and professional attitude toward their work, which involves more hours of work and more intense work, the satisfying of more exacting standards in examination, and a realization of the damage they can cause if they go into government or private research, or teaching, without adequate training; (2) that many, perhaps most, faculty members (including certainly myself) have not been fully aware how small have been our direct efforts to challenge the graduate student to higher standards, and to help him reach them, perhaps because we have to readily assumed that by continually improving ourselves through research and study we could help the mature student about as well as we could in any other way; (3) that, finally, there is indeed no real conflict between this value we customarily put on faculty research and the producing of highly trained graduate students, but that the faculty member’s research experience needs to be made more available to the graduate student through participation by the latter at least some of the research carried on by the faculty. Unfortunately for the chances of formulating a specific program, I have not yet been able to devise a mechanism (to train the graduate by participation in research) that will be highly effective in a graduate department which, like Columbia’s, already has a long history of development along somewhat different lines. It may be that the idea is impracticable except for a graduate department that is founded primarily with this end in view. The problem of mechanism is discussed in some detail in the accompanying memorandum. In any case it would be essential to guard against the development of the research work into an element of so-called (“prestige” whereby it became necessary to grind out a certain amount of published product regularly for the public view. The results should be good enough to warrant publication, but not on any monthly or other periodic schedule.
To turn out to the specific subjects suggested in your letter of February 18, 1944:
(1) Comment on the Department of which I am a member (I am a member of the School of Business and also of the Faculty of Political Science).
(A) The most troublesome problem facing the graduate Economics Department in curriculum construction is in my opinion caused by the wide variety in background and in aims of our graduate students. The difficulty takes this specific form: shall we introduce so-called “first graduate-year courses” (or “intermediate courses”) in subjects like public finance, international trade, and monetary theory, for students who have had few if any undergraduate courses in economics, or who, having majored in economics, have not had courses in one or more of these particular subjects? There are diverse views on the principles we should follow, but my present inclination – subject to change, of course, as we debate the matter further – is that we cannot do work on this intermediate level without forgoing a good deal of work on the higher level, and that we therefore should not attempt to make good the undergraduate’s course deficiencies except by special reading assignments and special examinations. If we had a much larger faculty, we might be able to offer a satisfactory selection of “intermediate” courses without decreasing our advanced offerings. Even so, I should doubt the desirability of going far in that direction. Before we realized it, we might find ourselves taking over much of the work of undergraduate colleges. From a long run point of view, the effect would be to weaken undergraduate work, not strengthen it.
The School of Business is revamping its entire curriculum. I am a member of a central curriculum committee that has been appointed to suggest what changes should be made, and since we are in the middle of our deliberations at the moment, I have nothing specific to report at this time. I am also a member of a curriculum sub-committee of the Department of Economics, but this sub-committee is awaiting the close of a series of conferences now being held by the Department, before assembling to consider whether specific changes in the curriculum should be recommended.
(B) I believe that it might be good practice for the Department of Economics and the School of Business to appoint a two or three-man committee to become thoroughly acquainted with the record, and to assess the possibilities of, any individual – within or outside the University – who is suggested as a possible member of the Department. This small committee would make an extended report to the Department after some period of time, perhaps six months or so. I think we need some much practice as this to avoid letting ourselves drift into accepting someone largely because there is a general impression that he seems to be the best one readily available at the moment. Perhaps it would be better to appoint a small committee whenever there is a vacancy, with the instructions to search carefully throughout the country to find the best possible prospect and to report back a year later. It is, I think, worth our while to take unusual pains in this respect, for the University has great pulling power, and should not waste it.
(C) As to relations with other departments, the major point, both for the School of Business and for the Department of Economics, is the relation between these two. Fortunately, the two faculties are keeping in close touch with each other. There is almost surely substantial duplication of effort at the present time, more of it than is desirable in some fields, especially, in my opinion, in money and credit theory. It is to be hoped that the two curriculum committees will suggest ways of eliminating needless duplication.
(D) I know very little about present methods of finding, and opening the way for, the brilliant student in the undergraduate group who should devote himself to scholarship and research, but I suspect that the supply of brilliant scholars could be substantially increased if some general effort were made to call to the attention of A-grade undergraduates the possibilities of careers and research and in college or university teaching.
(E) I have no suggestions on scholarships and fellowships, since I happen to have had very little to do with choosing from among the candidates or with examining the general system of selection.
(2) Comment on the programs of study.
(A) In my opinion the program both of the School of Business and the Graduate Department of Economics have lacked sufficiently definite aims and standards, in standards sufficiently high. There is no specific suggestion I should want to venture at the moment, pending completion of the discussions in our two curriculum committees, but some of the suggestions and the accompanying mimeographed memorandum will indicate in a general way what I have in mind. We do not want rigidity in curriculum and teaching; indeed, we need experimentation, but it needs to be experimentation by the department or school as a whole, with some agreement on what we are trying to do. During the 1930’s, particularly, I have the impression that both the School of Business and the Economics Department rather drifted along, each faculty member being concerned chiefly with his own work as it affected himself, not in its relation to the group as a whole (at least I am sure I fell into that habit). We are beginning to overcome this tendency, as a result of frequent group meetings, but the former attitude has become so deeply ingrained in us that I am not optimistic for the future unless there is somewhat more concerned over the problem of training the graduate student then I have noticed thus far. The lack of regimentation, the freedom given at Columbia to each faculty member to go his own way, is a fine thing in we must of course be careful not to decrease it much, if at all. It is a prerequisite for outstanding work in research. The group action that I have particularly primarily in mind is designed rather (1) to provoke in each of us a greater feeling of individual responsibility for (a) ascertaining what our shortcomings are with respect to the training of graduate students and (b) using our imagination to devise improvements; and (2) to create the mechanism for cooperative effort where cooperative effort is deemed essential to making the improvements. But if the group action – in the form of the group discussions we are now engaged in – turns out not to have the effect described in objective (1) above, it would be dangerous to try to move on rapidly to objective (2). A widespread and fairly strong sense of dissatisfaction with our present degree of achievement in training graduate students is a prerequisite to the success of any thoroughgoing change. It remains to be seen whether such a feeling exists. If the current discussions show that it does not, we must conclude either that after all there is no real ground for substantial change or that the change must start elsewhere.
(B) I do not get the impression that competition with or imitation of the programs of other institutions have lowered our standards or over-extended our efforts. Rather, we have probably failed to learn as much as we should about what other institutions are doing.
(C) There is now – in contrast to the situation some years ago, as noted above – ample opportunity for the general discussion of educational matters.
(D) The faculty members’ participation in outside work has benefited the University. It is essential that a considerable amount of outside work be allowed. Such work has however, in my opinion, been carried well of beyond the optimum point in many cases (including my own). In the accompanying mimeographed memorandum I discuss this problem in some detail. My present opinion is that the University should create “research professorships”. Such professorships would not call for any lowering of the teaching schedule beyond the four hours a week now prevailing in the graduate department (but would call for a change in the School of Business’ minimum of eight hours). Anyone accepting such a professorship would agree to engage in no outside work for pay to himself except, say, during one year out of seven. He would be free to undertake any other outside paid work, but the fees would be paid into the University. Such professorships would carry his salary substantially higher than at present obtain – perhaps 75 per cent to 100 per cent higher at the lower salary levels, and 50 per cent higher at the higher salary levels. (I understand that the University of Chicago is offering, or may shortly offer, contracts on the basis something like that suggested for these “research professorships”).
(3) Comment on the facilities for research.
(A) the School of Business library, through which I work, is, in my opinion, doing an excellent job. My only reservation for the library as a whole has to do with the availability of works in foreign languages. We may need to develop a better system for guarding against gaps here and there, after the war, for I have found some omissions that have hampered my work a little. I am not yet, however, prepared to make any recommendations.
(B) I have not encountered any of the resources of the metropolitan area that were not open to me.
(C) I have had limited experience, especially in recent years, with undergraduate teaching, so had little to say on this subject. My impression is that undergraduate teaching, while not incompatible with research, is not exactly conducive to it.
(D) Probably the most important steps that could be taken to increase the research accomplishment of the University staff are:
(a) Slightly lighter teaching schedules (in the School of Business not the Department of Economics).
(b) The introduction of research professorships as suggested in 2 (D) above.
(c) Full pay for the entire sabbatical year with an understanding of the faculty member will use the time in study or in some activity, paid or not (unless he is on one of the research professorships) of direct importance to his long-term product program of self-development. The present system of granting full pay for a half-year’s leave induces almost everyone to take a half-year leave. In most cases this cost the university more money than the full-year half-paid leave, and results in less uninterrupted time for research.
(E) As to sources of financial support I have no suggestions (aside from the fees that would come to the University under the research professors’ outside work (2 (D) above), which would be needed to pay the higher salaries) except the general and perhaps impractical one that the University seek mass support from thousands of middle-class sponsors would contribute regularly say $5 to $25 a year and would receive in exchange reports on the progress of the University, special seating privileges at Commencement, exclusive attendance privileges at occasional special lectures by members of the faculty, and any other marks of attention that could make them feel a sense of part ownership in, and pride in, a great University.
Sincerely yours,
Carl Shoup
Source: Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Carl Shoup Materials, Box 10, Folder “Columbia University—General”.
Image Source: The Columbia Spectator Archive. March 8, 1967.