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.
Previous posts provided the responses for Robert Bishop’s Economic Analysis (14.121), Paul Samuelson’s term of Economic Analysis (14.122) and Evsey Domar’s National Income and Employment (14.451).
In this post we’ll have a look at Robert M. Solow and Duncan Foley’s course, Economic Growth and Fluctuations (14.452) covering the topics:
Growth theory
Empirical Aspects of growth
Cycle theory
Empirical aspects of cycles
Monetary aspects of growth.
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. From the departmental course staffing reports in the M.I.T. archives, we discover that the course announcements for 1968/69 and 1969/1970 incorrectly listed Miguel Sidrauski and Solow as instructors of 14.45. Duncan Foley replaced Solow as instructor of this course in those two years. Here is an example where having the ex post staffing reports allows us to identify some inaccuracies found in the catalogues.
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 the course. Of the four courses that together made up the economic theory core at M.I.T. in the late 1960’s, students were clearly the most satisfied with their Economic Growth and Fluctuations course.
____________________
Announcement in the Course Catalogues
14.452T Economic Growth and Fluctuations (A)
[Solow]
Prereq.: 14.451
Year: G (2) 4-0-8
Application of theory of income and employment to analysis and measurement of changes in level of economic activity over time, and to study of inflation. Solow
MIT. Catalogue 1966-67: p. 292.
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, p. 307
Catalogue 1968-69: course instructor listed as Sidrauski [Note: Duncan Foley actually taught the course, see below], p. 312
Catalogue 1969-70: course instructor listed as Solow [Note: Duncan Foley actually taught the course, see below],p. 294.
____________________
Course staffing and enrollments 14.452
Second terms of 1966/67 through 1969/70
1967: Term II. 3 hours/week. 39 regular students, 1 Listeners.
Professor R. M. Solow with Instructor M. Sidrauski
1968: Term II. 3 hours/week 52 regular students, 2 Listeners.
Professor R. M. Solow with Instructor M. Sidrauski
1969: Term II. 3½ hours/week, 49 regular students, 1 Listeners
Assistant Professor D. K. Foley with Michael Rothschild
1970: Term II. 3 Hours/week. 43 regular students, 0 Listeners.
Associate Professor D. K. Foley with Instructor S. Kennedy (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 for Robert Solow from 10 student responses:
of which 2 from 1966-67; 8 from 1967-68]
|
Ec 452: |
Economic background | Math |
Coverage |
|
Growth theory |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 1
Not deep enough: 1 |
|
Empirical Aspects of growth |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 0 |
|
Cycle theory |
Too little: 1
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 0 |
|
Empirical aspects of cycles |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 0 |
|
Monetary aspects of growth |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 2 |
From the student comments on Solow’s course
Each bullet point from a different student
YEAR TAKEN: 1966-67
- Cycle theory: Should be dropped.
Monetary aspects of growth: Needs to be intensified.
YEAR TAKEN: 1967-68
- An excellent course.
- This course is very adequate—except more could be done perhaps by going faster with no loss of comprehension.
- Well-done course.
- 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.
[Summary for Duncan Foley from 12 student responses:
of which 10 from 1968-69; 2 from 1969-70]
|
Ec 452: |
Economic background | Math |
Coverage |
|
Growth theory |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 1 |
Too deep: 3
Not deep enough: 1 |
|
Empirical Aspects of growth |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 4 |
|
Cycle theory |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 4 |
|
Empirical aspects of cycles |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 0 |
Too deep: 0
Not deep enough: 5 |
|
Monetary aspects of growth |
Too little: 0
Too much: 1 |
Too little: 0
Too much: 2 |
Too deep: 1
Not deep enough: 3 |
From the student comments on Foley’s course
Each bullet point from a different student
YEAR TAKEN: 1968-69
- Cycle theory and Empirical aspects of cycles: little done but that’s probably a good think.
- 452 is, by and large, a very good course
Growth theory: very good
Empirical aspects of growth: good
Cycle theory: We covered difference eq. cycle models in one day which is what they deserve. Some other approach might be worthwhile.
Empirical aspects of cycles: Not covered at all
Monetary aspects of growth: very good - Growth theory: course devoted almost solely to this topic.
Difference equations ought to be specifically covered, with some applications [noted for both 14.451 “multiplier and accelerator” topic and 14.452 “Cycle theory”. - General comment: Heuristic “proofs” and extensive examples to tie in reality would have been most useful.
The course was not as satisfying as it undoubtedly could have been. This was an obvious case of the teacher trying too hard in a new course. Too much of the Socratic method was employed. - Foley let students ask irrelevant questions.
- Empirical aspects of growth: data was almost nonexistent!
Cycle theory: difference equations in 2 days! Monetary aspects of growth: This was covered but a little more would have suited my personal taste only. - In general 452 was good; 451 seemed weak.
YEAR TAKEN: 1969-70
- I do not like the Socratic method, especially when applied to solving differential equations.
Monetary aspects of growth: good.
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 Sources: Duncan Foley from his homepage. Robert Solow from the website MIT Museum.