The Department of Economics at Columbia University was a constituent element of the Faculty of Political Science from its earliest days. The Columbia University Archives have a long series of bound, typed minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and some of its committee meetings [Research tip: these bound volumes run from 1897 to at least 1957, when I approached the end of my project’s historical window]. I have somewhat randomly selected today’s transcription. The meeting had four items directly relevant to the greater project of chronicling the education of economists (i.e., about four items above the mode) and a relatively descriptive account of presentation and debate. When the discussion turned to a motion to replace a foreign language with a math requirement, the secretary of the Faculty, Professor Barzun, threw in the towel as keeper of the minutes: “From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality.”
_____________________
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
April 27, 1951
The annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science was held on April 27, 1951, at 4:10 P.M. in the Trustees’ Room.
Roll Call
[p. 1035]
Present:
Vice President Kirk
Dean Krout
Professors Anderson, Angell, Barzun, Bergson, Bonbright, Burns (A.F.), Burns (A.R.), Clark, Dorfman, Davis, Evans, Florinsky, Fox, Goodrich (Carter), Goodrich (L.M.), Greenberg, Hunt, Lazarsfeld, Lerner, Mattingly, Mills, Miner, Merton, Macmahon, Nurkse, Orchard, Peffer, Scheffé, Shoup, Strong, Steward, Stigler, Vickrey, Wagley, Wallace, Wilbur, Wolfowitz, Wuorinen.
Absent:
Professors Abel, Aly, Barghoorn, Baron, Berle, Brebner, Brunner, Carman, Clough, Commager, Dowling, Einaudi, Gellhorn, Haig, Hart, Haas, Hazard, Ho, Holborn, Jessup, Kroeber, Lehmann, Lipset, Lissitzyn, Lynd, MacIver, McNeill, Malone, Millett, Moley, Morris, Mosely, Neumann, Niebuhr, Nevins, Odlozilik, Pearden, Pennock, Polanyi, Robinson, Rogers, Saulnier, Sayre, Schuyler, Shapiro, Szeftel, Tannenbaum, Thomson, Truman, Westermann, Wolman.
[…]
Re-admission of graduate students
[p. 1036]
Dean Krout proposed the resolution of the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction concerning the readmission of graduate students, as follows:
RESOLVED, That any former graduate student who seeks re-admission for work in residence at a date more than five years following his latest residence, must have his earlier academic work re-evaluated and his essay or dissertation subject reconsidered, either prior to readmission, or during the first semester of renewed residence. The credit which such students shall receive shall be determined by the Admissions Office on the recommendation of the Department concerned.
In the case of a former graduate student who makes application for the final examination in defense of his dissertation, at a date more than five years following his latest residence, the department concerned may require a similar re-evaluation.
It was passed unanimously without discussion.
[…]
Salary Report (of Committee of Six)
[p. 1038]
Speaking for the Committee of Six representing the three Graduate Faculties, Professor Stigler spoke briefly about the Report on University Salaries, copies of which had been previously sent to all members of the Faculty. He again stressed the fact that the role of the Committee was not to recommend a salary schedule, nor to cope with the difficulties of financing, but simply to report comparative findings. He pointed out the inadequacy of data for the period 1914-1930, but expressed confidence in the statistical results for the period 1930-1950. “We have now reached”, he said, “the lowest point of the entire stretch, and a remedial rise, to be significant, would have to be about 20% generally, and relatively higher for the lower ranks”.
Professor Carter Goodrich moved approval of the general thesis of the report, namely, that it is of the utmost importance to the academic standing of the University that our competitive position expressed through our salary scale be maintained.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Requirement of Graduate Record Examination for admission rescinded
[p. 1039]
Professor Carter Goodrich offered a resolution for the Committee on Instruction regarding the Graduate Record Examination. In discussion he gave a brief history of the requirement and referred to published survey showing that college grades offer a better means of predicting success in Graduate Studies than the examination. Moreover, the Examination costs the student $13.00 and three afternoons, which seems a lavish expenditure for an uncertain measure of prophecy. The Faculty unanimously voted to rescind the requirement.
Proposal of Dep’t. of Sociology to substitute Mathematics for one foreign language as a Ph.D. requirement
[pp. 1039-1040]
Professor Lazarsfeld offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.
Professor Evans opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three Faculties.
From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.
Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor ANGELL called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon and Shoup both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.
Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.
[…]
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
[signed]
Jacques Barzun
Secretary
Source: Columbia University Archive, Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962. pp.1035-1042.