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 Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), 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 we’ll look at Robert Bishop’s course, Economic Analysis (14.451), that covered the topics:
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium
Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry:
Monopoly and pure competition
Imperfect competition.
Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income.
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 Robert Bishop taught 14.121 in the four consecutive years surveyed. We also learn the names of the instructors who taught the recitation sections for Bishop’s course as well as those of several of the graduate assistant graders. Incidentally, two of his section leaders went on to win Nobel prizes in economics (Stiglitz and Engle)!
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 Bishop’s course.
____________________
Announcement in the Course Catalogues
14.121T Economic Analyis I (A)
[Bishop]
Prereq.: 14.03
Year: G (1) 4-0-8
14.122T Economic Analyis I (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.
Bishop (14.121), Samuelson (14.122).
MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 289.
page 219:
“ ‘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.”
M.I.T. Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T, p. 305
M.I.T. Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.121 changed to 14.04T, p. 310
M.I.T. Catalogue 1969-70: Prerequisite for 14.121 dropped ‘T’, p. 293.
____________________
Course staffing and enrollments 14.121
First term of 1966-1969
1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 50 regular students, 5 Listeners.
Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor J. Stiglitz and Teaching Assistant D. E. Black (grader)
1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 62 regular students, 0 Listeners.
Professor R. L. Bishop with Instructor C. D. MacRae
1968: Term I. 4 hours/week, 62 regular students, 0 Listeners
Professor R. L. Bishop with V. Snowberger (grader)
1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 47 regular students, 5 Listeners.
Professor R. L. Bishop with Assistant Professor R.F. Engle (recitation) and J. Herrero (grader)
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 22 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]
| Ec 121: | Economic background | Math | Coverage |
| Preliminary view of General Equilibrium | Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 4
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 1
Not deep enough: 4 |
| Revenue and cost equilibrium of the firm and industry: | |||
| Monopoly and pure competition | Too little: 11
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 14
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 4
Not deep enough: 5 |
| Imperfect competition | Too little: 5
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 8
Too much: 1 |
Too deep: 5
Not deep enough: 4 |
| Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income | Too little: 6
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 12
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 2
Not deep enough: 9 |
From the student comments
Each bullet point from a different student.
YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67
- Not enough emphasis on distribution theory.
YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68
- Need to emphasize modern production theory rather than Marshallian theory. Neither of the courses [121 nor 122] give any mention to the modern treatments (esp., set-theoretic approach) of this material.
- Both these courses [121 and 122] are excellent for covering the technical aspects of price theory—but both fail to provide a “total picture” of what price theory is about.
- 121 spends too much time working out the solution to particular cases and too little time developing tools of analysis more sophis. treated than simple calculus.
- more general equilibrium needed.
little or no attention given to disequil - In general, I thought both terms [121 and 122], despite their widely differing methods, were quite good.
- [note from secretary: “not in tabulation—she just gave it to me”]. Math in this part assumed we hardly knew a thing—could have assumed more.
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: [not deep enough checked with following comment:] but if this is going to be more thorough, shouldn’t be very first thing taught.
YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69
- Was tedious at times but is worth doing—in fact has to be done. Perhaps the disc. of externalities could be related to Samuelson on pubic goods. And the part on distortions to the HG Johnson-Bhagwati-Ramaswamy literature on this in trade theory.
Should have also included at least SOME reference to more modern theories of the firm (behavioral etc) and to more recent devs in other parts of micro theory (e.g. Becker on costs of time JPE 1966(?), Stigler et al on information and its costs and Lancaster on consumer theory.
Imperfect competition: too much on the oligopoly stuff, overly simplified Stackelberg warfare etc. - Bishop should make more use of the mathematical techniques applicable to the general case and less of the geometry and prose of special instances. This, I think, would clarify rather than obscure. As it is, one tends to get lost in a mass of detail. Still, however, the course was very useful.
- Monopoly and pure competition: slight shift of emphasis desirable.
- General Comment: While analysis of this kind (the entire course) is an enjoyable mental exercise, I feel that its actual practical use for anything but expository purposes is severely limited. At all stages, an attempt should be made to make economics more relevant. At the least, areas of realistic extension and limitations should be pointed out to the class as each topic is considered.
Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: done a little too quickly near the end more time should have been allotted.
Game theory à la Nash…What was presented here was obviously quite complicated, but given such a cursory treatment that it would have best been left out. I feel that more time should have been spent on more basic analyses such as min-max. and espec. an introduction to the practical aspects of game theory. - Preliminary view of General Equilibrium: excellent
Too much oligopoly theory, too much game theory. - Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: Fine in classic sense, yet more of income dist. needed.
- The last part of the course, that connecting the results of partial analysis of production and distribution with the simple general equilibrium model of the first lectures, seems to me very illuminating and I feel it should be given more emphasis. A posteriori, I would have suggested one lecture less on duopoly and one more on that cost part.
- I think a more thorough and rigorous treatment of the theory of partial welfare economics (consumers surplus etc) would be very helpful in 121.
Preliminary view of General Equilibrium:This material should be eliminated from the course, and covered in 122.
Revenue and Cost equilibrium: covered too slowly
Imperfect Competition: Never seemed clear. Either cut it down or spend more time on it.
Factor-employment equilibrium of the firm and distribution of income: More time should have been spent in this area.
YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70
- 121—A good course, not very enjoyable but worthwhile.
- 121 is an incredibly dull course. And irrelevant.
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: Robert Bishop obituary in MIT News, February 13, 2013.