The economic theory core courses at M.I.T. during the four academic years 1966/67 through 1969/70 consisted of two terms of microeconomic theory (“Economic Analysis”, 14.121 and 14.122) and two terms of macroeconomic theory (“Theory of Income and Employment”, 14.451, and “Economic Growth and Fluctuations”, 14.452). The instructors for the course by academic year were:
|
|
14.121 (Term 1) | 14.122 (Term 2) | 14.451 (Term 1) | 14.452 (Term 2) |
| 1966/67 | Bishop | Samuelson | Eckaus |
Solow |
|
1967/68 |
Bishop | Samuelson | Domar | Solow |
| 1968/69 | Bishop | Samuelson | Domar |
Foley |
|
1969/70 |
Bishop | Samuelson | Domar |
Foley |
A retrospective evaluation survey of these four courses was conducted (probably) sometime in late-1970. The original student responses wound up in Evsey Domar’s files and can be found today in his papers in the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.
In other posts we have the responses for Robert Bishop’s Economic Analysis (14.121), Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451) and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).
In this post I’ll limit attention to the term in the core taught by Paul Samuelson, namely, course 14.122 that covered the topics of consumer theory, general equilibrium, capital theory and welfare economics.
First I provide the information about the course found in the announcement in the MIT course catalogues that essentially remained unchanged for the years from which the evaluations were solicited. The official course staffing and enrollment data that follow the course announcement confirm that Paul Samuelson taught 14.122 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the four instructors who taught the recitation sections for Samuelson’s course.
Next I include the cover letter for the questionnaire sent out along with a tabulation of responses to the qualitative questions regarding the amount of economics presumed, the amount of mathematics and the balance of the course among the topics nominally covered.
Finally, and very much worth reading!, the interested visitor will find transcriptions of the written student comments concerning Samuelson’s course. These reports of Samuelson’s teaching from the last half of the 1960s are consistent with my memory from the spring of 1975. The general laments about economic theory seen in some of the evaluations are not unfamiliar to those who have cared to listen to their students over the intervening decades.
____________________
Announcement in the Course Catalogues
14.121T Economic Analysis (A)
[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8
14.122T Economic Analysis (A)
[Samuelson]
Prereq.: 14.121
Year: G (2) 4-0-8
General theory of equilibrium under competition and monopoly. Theory of consumer choice, of demand, of the firm, of production and distribution, of welfare economics.
Source: MIT. Catalogue 1966-67, p. 289.
“ ‘T’ at the end of a subject number indicates that (1) a change has been made in the content or units of the subject or (2) the number was previously assigned to a different subject.
‘(A)’ following the name of a subject indicates that it is an approved subject for a graduate degree…
‘G’ is a graduate subject.
The time distribution of the subject, showing in sequence the units allotted to: recitation and lecture; laboratory, design, or field work; and preparation. Each unit represents 15 hours of work. The total unit credit for a subject is obtained by adding together all the units shown. One unit of recitation or lecture credit, and two units of laboratory or design credit, are each equivalent to one semester hour.”
Source: MIT. Catalogue 1966-67, p. 219.
MIT. Catalogue 1967-68: Same without T, p. 305.
MIT. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310.
MIT. Catalogue 1969-70: p. 293.
____________________
Course staffing and enrollments 14.122
Second term of 1967-1970
1967: Term II. 3 hours/week. 40 regular students, 0 Listeners.
Samuelson with Assistant Professor C. D. MacRae
1968: Term II. 3 hours/week. 53 regular students, 3 Listeners.
Samuelson with Instructor D. Jaffee [2 sections]
1969: Term II. 4 ½ hours/week. 49 regular students, 1 Listener
Samuelson with visiting Assistant Professor H.J.B. Rees.
1970: Term II. 3 Hours/week. 40 regular students, 0 Listeners.
Samuelson with Assistant Professor R. E. Grieson (1 hour per week recitation)
Source: M.I.T. Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 3, Folder “Teaching Assignments”
____________________
THEORY QUESTIONNAIRE
There are two problems that the theory sequence must continually face if it is going to be as useful as possible. The first of these is adjusting to the changing background of the incoming students. The second is adjusting to the changing needs of students who will use the theory course as background for other courses and research. This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information of the current state of the theory sequence relative to these two questions. The enclosed forms contain an outline of each of the theory courses and asks three questions.
These pertain to each heading in the course outline:
Does the course assume too much or too little economics background in this area?
Does the course use too much or too little mathematics in this area?
Given the overall constraint of time, is this area gone into too deeply or not deeply enough?
For each of the questions there is room to check too much or too little, no check at all to be given if the course is about right. Please put the year in which you took the theory courses at the top of each page. There is also room in each area for more detailed comment. Use this space to be specific on the changes in the given areas which you feel would be improvements—particularly in answer to question 3. Use the space at the bottom of each page to comment on topics that are not on the list, but should appear in the course; or to make other comments we haven’t thought to ask for.
Please return to 52-380 (Miss Pope) before Tuesday, October 21.
[Summary from all 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]
|
Ec 122: |
Economic background | Math |
Coverage |
|
Consumer theory |
Too little: 0
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 1 |
Too deep: 3
Not deep enough: 1 |
|
General equilibrium |
Too little: 0
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 2
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 8 |
|
Capital theory |
Too little: 2
Too much: 2 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 12 |
|
Welfare economics |
Too little: 1
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 7 |
From the student comments,
Each bullet point from a different student.
YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68
- Neither of the courses [121/122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
- Needs much more [capital theory]
- For 121 and 122: Both these courses are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about”.
- General equilibrium: some of the new formulations should be discussed.
Capital theory: less classical, more current theory would be better. - OK [for assumed economics background, math, coverage].
Capital theory: need more and careful lectures—this hard to comprehend
Welfare economics: good. - Math in this part was not too much if it had been presented without assuming we already knew it all—could have had more careful explanation of mathematical concepts used without decreasing the amount or level of math used. [secretary wrote at top of page: not in tabulation—she just gave it to me]
- For 121 and 122:In general, I thought both terms, despite their widely differing methods, were quite good. I would like to see more problem sets in 122, however, if necessary, just simplified examples of the theorems proved in class. Specifically, there are too few problems in general equil, of 2 person, 2 good sort. Such problems could usefully illustrate gen. equil. and welfare econ. and the differences between the two types of analysis.
YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69
- Consumer theory: would have been better to start with the simplest case rather than with that rather horrific 1st lecture, which was not al all clear.
Capital theory: coverage was not clear
Welfare economics: would have liked more.
GENERAL exam questions in 14.122 re discrimination etc were very interesting + tested absorption of material much more than the standard “regurgitate” question. - While the noted professor who offers this course is a student of economic history [history of economics is what is clearly meant] par excellence, gifted with a dashing wit and a marvelous grasp of the anecdotal style, his comparative advantage most certainly lies in economic theory. His students have, no doubt, considered the stage as a possible career, and have universally rejected it in favor of Economics. It logically follow then that in any 90 minute period the teaching of Economics should occupy at least the majority of the time. Theatrics has its place, no doubt, to add flavor and wit to the otherwise Dismal Science, but balance is of the essence. In retrospect, we seem to have covered several major topics during the course of the term. The mind boggles at the thought of what we might have done with an hour and fifteen minutes of economics per period instead of the usual 20 minutes! (A little more care in the preparation of handouts would also have been highly appreciated).
On a more serious note, I would personal have appreciated a more thorough analysis of the normative branch of Economics. I feel that much more time should have been allotted to Welfare Economics, in particular, to the implications of economic theory to actually policy questions. I don’t believe, as Samuelson implied in his Chomsky “debate”, that normative considerations come only after the scientist has completed his appropriate (positive) tasks. The economist has a very definite social responsibility, to which all the theorizing in the world, taken by itself, contributes not in the least.
Comment on the Basic Theory (and, in fact, most of the courses taught at M.I.T.) The basic trend that Economics appears to be following, at least at the Ph.D. level, distresses me more and more with each consideration. High powered theory, while undoubtedly a great mental exercise, becomes merely a game when it seeks to find justification solely within itself. As young economists in an increasingly troubled world, we have a distinct obligation and a unique opportunity to aid society. Economics prides itself at its supposed superiority over its sister Social Sciences, yet it is letting its advantages, an in fact its raison d’être, slip away. Our students are far too complacent, and the course material we are taught helps perpetrate this disease. A far greater stress must be place on realism, applications and normative goals. A discipline that exists merely or mostly in professional journals and material that has as its only object the employment of economics professors is an anachronism and a decided mis-allocation of resources. - The topics are well chosen and worthwhile and the readings are valuable. But Prof. Samuelson should spend more time organizing his lectures and guiding his students through these unfamiliar fields and less time telling his fascinating, charming, and irrelevant stories. The lectures are the weakest part of the course.
- Samuelson wastes the opportunity. Too many anecdotes, not enough time on the actual material. Needs to be much more systematic and organized.
- Capital theory and welfare economics, particulary the former should have been gone over in more detail-excessive speed obscures the fact that the overall coverage may be good and satisfactorily deep.
- General equilibrium: The 2-factor, 2-good example would be helpful here as an illustration.
Capital theory: The treatment in this area seemed superficial. 122 would have been more enjoyable if I had had a prior course in the mathematical theory of optimizing with constraints. - 121-122-451-452 All four courses well taught: main difficulty with the theory sequence is the poor integration of the four parts. Less isolation, more cross-references would help.
- [on math] Hicks reading is too mathematical or too old (Hicks…).
[on coverage] reasonably good allocation [across topics]
Welfare economics. Repetitive. Need typed notes. The notes are good should be typed.
[In red marker:] Samuelson does not appear to want to teach 122.
Find some new victim.
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Evsey D. Domar Papers.Box 16, Folder “Student Evaluations (1 of 2)”.
Image Source: Samuelson Memorial Information Page/Photos from Memorial Service. Accessed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.