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), Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122), and Robert Solow’s/Duncan Foley’s Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452).
In this post we’ll look at Evsey Domar’s course, Theory of Income and Employment (14.451), that covered the topics:
national income,
general aggregative systems,
price flexibility and employment,
theory of interest and demand for money,
consumption and savings,
investment,
multiplier and accelerator,
employment and inflation.
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 Evsey Domar taught 14.122 in the last three years surveyed. We also learn the names of the two instructors who taught the recitation sections for Richard Eckaus and Evsey Domar.
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 Domar’s course.
____________________
Announcement in the Course Catalogues
14.451T Theory of Income and Employment(A)
[Eckaus]
Prereq.:14.05
Year:G (1) 4-0-8
Examination of principal determinants of aggregate levels of income and employment.
Source: MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 291.
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.”
Catalogue 1967-68: Course number drops T; Domar is the instructor, p. 307
Catalogue 1968-69: Prerequisite for 14.451 changed to 14.06T, p. 312
Catalogue 1969-70: no change, p. 294.
____________________
Course staffing and enrollments 14.451
First term of 1966-1969
1966: Term I. 3 hours/week. 44 regular students, 2 Listeners.
Professor Eckaus with Instructor J. R. Harris
1967: Term I. 3 hours/week 55 regular students, 4 Listeners.
Professor Domar with Instructor J. R. Harris
1968: Term I. 3 hours/week, 55 regular students, 3 Listeners
Professor Domar with Assistant S. Lewis (1 hour per week recitation)
1969: Term I. 3 Hours/week. 51 regular students, 2 Listeners.
Professor Domar with Assistant Professor J.R. Harris (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 20 student responses:
of which 8 from 1967-68; 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]
|
Ec 451: |
Economic background | Math |
Coverage |
| National Income | Too little: 4
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 1 |
Too deep: 10
Not deep enough: 2 |
| General Aggregative systems | Too little: 3
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 2
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 1
Not deep enough: 4 |
| Price Flexibility and employment | Too little: 2
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 3
Not deep enough: 4 |
| Theory of interest and demand for money | Too little: 2
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 1
Not deep enough: 7 |
| Consumption and savings | Too little: 3
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 2
Not deep enough: 5 |
| Investment | Too little: 2
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 9 |
| Multiplier and accelerator | Too little: 2
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 2
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 5 |
| Employment and inflation | Too little: 2
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 13 |
Note: the responses from Richard Eckaus’ time (first term, 1966-67) have been excluded from this table, so the above are solely for the three years Evsey Domar taught the theory of national income and employment.
From the student comments
[each bullet point from a different student]
YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68
- The Worst Course of the sequence, especially the section’s instructor. Applies to all these points. Tries to cover too much; being an authority in (almost) nothing. Applies to both instructors.
- I don’t remember 451 very well—it was an awfully unstructured course (+ remains so in my mind), mybe because of the variety and profuseness of the subject matter. Too little guidance from Professor Domar + Harris—i.e., their considered opinion should be given more often.
National income: Too much on statistics, tho I agree some is needed. That problem in class was a pile of crap—I can’t add anyway.
General aggregative systems: more tournaments needed.
Theory of interest and demand for money: more needed, and more guidance from profs.
Investment: more needed and more guidance from profs. - Price flexibility and employment: I thought the section of the course on Patinkin was extremely interesting and well done.
Consumption and saving: A unified treatment of the competing theories would be preferred to the n-th repetition of Duesenbery, Friedman, Modigliani.
[for both 451 and 452]: As these courses were taught two years ago there was too little integration of the two terms. Partly this reflects a real gap in macro theory itself; I would like to see an integration of the Patinkin-type of analysis into growth theory.
YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69
- National income: good that this is done, even if not very pleasant at the time
Price Flexibility and employment: Too much on Patinkin.
Employment and inflation: More important to cover this Phil curve., monet v. fiscal pol debate etc. than Patinkin
Perhaps 451 could have assumed more backgrd as it tended to be slow going sometimes. But that’s a minor point. And better that way than to blur over the material too fast. 14.451 exam questions tended to be well-set + testing e.g. the opera + arias. - National Income: The index no. prob. was discussed at too great length and too little depth.
General Aggregative systems/Price flexibility and employment: These two topics were covered fairly well.
Theory of interest and demand for money: coverage sketchy
Consumption and savings: very well discussed
Investment: All I know about investment I learned in other courses—14.452, monetary, econometrics.
Multiplier and accelerator: The Samuelson multiplier-accelerator article is read in 14.452; all of the items covered in 14.451 under this heading are silly.
Employment and inflation: no coherent coverage at all. - Multiplier and accelerator: Difference equations ought to be specifically covered, with some applications.
- National Income “+index numbers”: Time should have been more carefully allocated in order to include appropriately the last part of the course.
- National Income and General aggregative systems: too much, need new, simpler national income.
Pretty good presentation of money topics.
No coverage of Investment/Multiplier+Accelerator/employment and inflation at the end. - National income: Although this certainly should be covered—too much time is spent on this topic.
General aggregative systems: Nothing is done in the course on modern macro-static models & e.g.—the Correspondence Principle. The course must assume a complete background in standard macro—because this is hardly covered.
Much too much time is spent on Patinkin—which could be sued for covering Modern Macro-Static models. - Price flexibility and employment: the basics of Keynes should be discussed more.
Employment and inflation: inflation models of newer sort should be included. - I don’t want N.I. removed from 451, just reduced!
[comment for all topics besides national income]: I realize that this is an impossible preference [to have more depth in all the other topics of 451], maybe the answer is another course in macro theory! or less of other things in 452. - [For both 451 and 452]: I do not like the Socratic method, especially when applied to solving differential equations. All courses tend to move too slowly at the beginning.
- National income: It was a mistake to spend so much time on this + none on inflation—change priorities.
Investment: Treated a little superficially
Multiplier and accelerator: Use difference equation techniques.
Employment and inflation: This was not covered at all unfortunately.
In general 452 was good, 451 seemed weak.
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: MIT Museum website