Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Memos discussing guests to teach during summer quarter, 1927

 

 

Apparently the 1926 summer quarter course planning at the Chicago department of political economy in 1926 was so wild that the head of the department, Leon C. Marshall, decided to start the discussion for 1927 on the second day of Summer, 1926. Four of the seven colleagues responded with quite a few suggestions.

This post provides the first+middle names where needed in square brackets. Also links to webpages with further information about the suggested guests have been added.

______________________

Copy of memo from
Leon Carroll Marshall

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Economics

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall. June 22, 1926

To: C. W. Wright, J. A. Field, H. A. Millis, J. Viner, L. W. Mints, P. H. Douglas, W. H. Spencer

We really must break through the morass we are in with respect to our summer quarter. Partly because of delayed action and partly because of an interminable debating society in such matters we finally get a patched up program which is not as attractive as it should be.

I shall proceed on the basis of the homely philosophy that the way to do something is to do something. I shall try to secure from every member of the group a statement of his best judgment concerning the appropriate course of action for the summer of 1927 and then move at once toward rounding out a program.

Won’t you be good enough to turn in to E57 within the next few days your suggestions and comments with respect to the following issues.

  1. Do you yourself expect to be in residence the summer quarter of 1927?
  2. If you do, what courses do you prefer to teach? Please list more than two courses placing all of the courses in your order of preference. In answering this question, please keep in mind the problem of guiding research. Should you offer a research course?
  3. What are your preferences with respect to hours? Please state them rather fully and give some alternatives so that a schedule may be pieced together.
  4. What courses or subject matter should we be certain to include in the summer of 1927?
  5. What men from outside do you recommend for these courses which we should be certain to include? Please rank them in the order of your preference.
  6. Quite aside from the subject matter which you have recommended above, what persons from the outside ought we try to make contact with if our funds permit? This gives an opportunity to aid in making up the personnel of the summer quarter in all fields.
  7. Please give any other comments or suggestions which occur to you.

Yours very sincerely,

LCM:G

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Jacob Viner

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

July 1, 1926

Dear Mr. Marshall

I will want to offer 301 (Neo-class Ec.) & 353 (Int Ec. Pol) as usual next summer, though if we have a good outside theorist to give 301, I would like to give a course on Theory of Int Trade in addition to 353. I think we need someone especially in Banking, next in theory. Beyond these we should offer work in some of the following, if we can get first rankers: statistics, private finance, transportation, economic history of Europe & ec. Hist. of U.S.

I suggest the following from which selections could be made:

Banking

Theory Statistics Transportation

Ec. Hist.

[Eugene E.]
Agger

 

[Benjamin Haggott] Beckhart

 

[Allyn Abbott]
A.A. Young

 

[Chester Arthur]
C. A. Phillips

 

[Oliver Mitchell Wentworth]
Sprague

 

[James Harvey] Rogers

 

[Ernest Minor] E.M. Patterson

[Allyn Abbott]
Young

 

[Jacob Harry]
Hollander[Frank Hyneman] Knight

 

[Albert Benedict] Wolfe

 

[Herbert Joseph] Davenport

[Henry Roscoe] Trumbower

 

[Homer Bews] Vanderblue

[Melvin Moses] M.M. Knight

 

[Abbott Payson] A.P. Usher

As other possibilities I suggest [George Ernest] Barnett, [James Cummings] Bonbright, [Edward Dana] Durand, [Edwin Griswold] Nourse, [Sumner Huber] Slichter, John D. [Donald] Black, Holbrook Working, [Alvin Harvey] Hansen.

[signed]
J Viner

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Paul Howard Douglas

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

June 29, 1926

Professor L. C. Marshall
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Marshall:

You have hit the nail on the head in your proposal to get under way for next summer, and I am very much pleased at your action. Answering your questions specifically may I say—

  1. That I do not expect to be in residence for the summer quarter of 1927.
  2. &3. Since I shall not be in residence no answers to these questions are, I take it, necessary.

 

  1. We should, I think, be certain to include adequate work in the following fields (a) Economic theory, (b) Monetary and banking theory, (c) Labor problems, (d) Statistics and quantitative economics, (e) Taxation and Public finance, (f) Economic history.
  2. As regards men from outside, I would recommend the following in each field: (a) Economic theory—[Herbert Joseph] H. J. Davenport, [John Rogers] J. R. Commons, [Frank Hyneman] F. H. Knight; (b) Monetary and banking theory—[Allyn Abbott] A. A. Young, [Oliver Mitchell Wentworth] O.M.W. Sprague, [James Waterhouse] James W. Angell; (c) Labor problems—Selig Perlman, Alvin [Harvey] H. Hansen; (d) Statistics and quantitative economics—[Frederick Cecil] F. C. Mills, [Robert Emmet] R. E. Chaddock, [William Leonard] W. L. Crum; (e) Taxation and public finance—[Harley Leist] H. L. Lutz, [William John] William J. Shultz; (f) Economic history—[Norbert Scott Brien] N. S. B. Gras.
  3. As people from outside to try for, might it not be possible to secure some one from England, such as [John Atkinson] John A. Hobson, Henry Clay, or [Dennis Holme] D. H. Robertson? Might it not also be possible to get Charles Rist from France or [Werner] Sombart from Germany?

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Douglas

P.S. The news that [Henry] Schultz and [Melchior] Palyi are to be with us next year is certainly welcome. Should we not let everyone know that they are coming, and should not a news note to this effect be sent on to the American Economic Review? [Handwritten note here: “Mr. Wright doing this”]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Lloyd Wynn Mints

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

July 16, 1926

Memorandum to L. C. Marshall from L. W. Mints, concerning the work of the summer quarter, 1927.

  1. It is my present intention not to be in residence during the summer quarter, 1927, although I will be in the city, I suppose.
  2. It appears to me that we should attempt to get men from the outside who would represent some of the newer points of view rather than the orthodox fields. I should suppose that it would be desirable to have a man in statistics and, if he could be found, somebody to do something with quantitative economics. For the statistics I would suggest [William Leonard] Crum, [Frederick Cecil] Mills, [Frederick Robertson] Macaulay, [Willford Isbell] King, [Bruce D.] Mudgett, [Robert] Riegel. I am ignorant of the particular bents of some of the statistical men, but I should suppose that in quantitative economics [Holbrook] Working, [Alvin Harvey] Hansen, or [William Leonard] Crum might do something. Perhaps [Edmund Ezra] Day should be added to the men in Statistics.
    In economic history, as I remember it, we have had no outside help for a long time. I should like to see either [Noman Scott Brien] Gras or Max [Sylvius] Handman give some work here in the summer.
    Particular men who represent somewhat new points of view, and who might be had for the summer, I would suggest as follows: [Lionel Danforth] Edie, [Oswald Fred] Boucke, [Morris Albert] Copeland, [Sumner Huber] Slichter.
    In addition I should like very much to see either [Edwin Robert Anderson] Seligman or [John Rogers] Commons here for a summer.

[signed]
L.W.M.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Harry Alvin Millis

Answers to questions re Summer Teaching, 1927

  1. Yes, I feel that I must teach next summer unless that plan you have been interested in goes through.
  2. 342 [The State in Relation to Labor] and 440 [Research].
  3. 342 at 8; 440 hour to be arranged.
  4. 5. 6.: Should get a better rounded program than we have had. Should have an outstanding man in economic theory and another in Finance. For the former I would mention [John] Maurice Clark, [John Rogers] Commons, and [Frank Hyneman] Knight—in order named. For the latter I would mention [Allyn Abbott] Young, [James Harvey] Rogers. If we can get the money I should like to see [George Ernest] Barnett brought on for statistics and a trade union course.

 

  1. Would it be possible to have a seminar which would bring together the outside men and some of the inside men and our mature graduate students—these hand-picked? It might be made very stimulating.

[Signed]
H. A. Millis

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Chester Whitney Wright

The University of Chicago
The Department of Political Economy

Memorandum to Marshall from Wright

Summer 1927
First term some aspects of economic history
1:30 or 2:30
May have to teach the whole summer but hope I can confine it to first term.
Can teach any phases of subjects in any fields suitable for term.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
James Alfred Field

[No written answer in the folder: however L. C. Marshall noted that Field would not be teaching in the summer term of 1927]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
William Homer Spencer

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration
Office of the Dean

July 12, 1926

Mr. L. C. Marshall
The Department of Political Economy

My dear Mr. Marshall:

As Mr. [Garfield Vestal] Cox does not wish to teach during the Summer Quarter of 1927, I wish the Department of Political Economy would try to get Mr. [Edmund Ezra] Day of Wisconsin [sic, Michigan is correct] who could give both a course in statistics and a course in forecasting. Forecasting is not given this summer and unless we get someone from the outside to give it, I presume it will not be given next summer.

Why does not the Department of Political Economy for the coming summer get someone like Mr. [Leverett Samuel] Lyon to give an advanced course in economics of the market for graduate students? The Department of Political Economy could handle half of his time and I perhaps could handle the other half for market management

Now that it appears that the Department of Political Economy cannot get any promising young men in the Field of Finance, why do you not try for [Chester Arthur] Phillips of Iowa? He will give good courses and will draw a great many students from the middle west to the University.

So far as my own program is concerned, I have not made much progress. I tried to get [Roy Bernard] Kester of Columbia, but he turned me down. I am placing a similar proposition before [William Andrew] Paton of Michigan. In the Field of Marketing, I am trying for [Frederic Arthur] Russell of the University of Illinois to give a course in salesmanship primarily for teachers in secondary schools. Otherwise I have made no progress in getting outside men for next summer.

Yours sincerely,
[signed]
W. H. Spencer

WHS:DD

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 22, Folder 7.

Categories
Columbia Suggested Reading Syllabus

Columbia. New Seminar. Outline with readings, Economic Theory and Change. Mitchell and Ginzberg, 1937

 

Wesley Clair Mitchell left voluminous course lecture notes found with his other papers at the Columbia University Archives. On the whole his notes are very neatly written by hand so that any typed pages among his lecture notes immediately catch the attention of the tired eyes of this archival junkie working the boxes. My presumption was that this typed material was probably someone else’s work and the pencilled “Eli Ginzberg” on one of the course outlines provided an obvious lead. Ginzberg received his Ph.D. from Columbia in 1934 and held the rank of Lecturer in economics at Columbia at the time of this course. Chapter 2 (“The Education of an Economist”) in his book The Skeptical Economist (1987) provides the necessary back-story for the course materials transcribed for this post.

From Mitchell’s notes to the first session from the Winter session of the course in 1937-38, we learn that a dress rehearsal was held as a seminar during the Spring 1937 course for which we have the following list of participants. Definitely worth noting is that William Vickrey and Anna Jacobson Schwartz participated in that preliminary seminar.

____________________

Handwritten: Economics Seminar. March-May 1937
(Signatures of student participants. Note: “not complete”)

William Vickrey, Ruth Cleve [?], Pauline Arkus, Anna Jacobson [Note: this is Milton Friedman’s collaborator Anna Schwartz], [First name illegible] Louise Boggen, Konrad Bekker, Mark S. Massel, Eileen M. Conly, John I. Griffin, Alan Pope, Bela Gold, Burnham P. Beckwith, Herman Zap, Moore

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “3-5/37 A”.

____________________

Origin of the seminar

“In 1932-1933, a group of us brought about the first change in the curriculum: We persuaded Mitchell, Clark, and Angell to offer a seminar on economic theory. In the mid-1930s, when I had begun to teach as an assistant in the School of Business, I was instrumental in establishing several further reforms, largely through persuading its dean, Roswell C. McCrea, who also served as chairman of the Economics Department, to do the following: to reduce the number of subjects on which doctoral candidates were examined from seven to six, to invite Milton Friedman to give a course on ‘Neoclassical Economics,’ to have Wesley Mitchell substitute for his lectures on ‘Current Types of Economic Theory’ a new seminar on ‘Economic Theory and Economic Change,’ in which I would serve as his assistant. Furthermore, McCrea obtained the consent of the Committee on Instruction in the School of Business for me to offer a new course on ‘Economics and Group Behavior,’ which was cross-listed in the Department of Economics’ offerings. This was probably the first course in what later became known as ‘human resources.’”

 

Source: Eli Ginzberg, The Skeptical Economist (Westview Press, 1987), p. 16.

____________________

Secular and Structural Changes in a Modern Economy
From Mitchell’s handwritten notes for the first meeting
Sept. 28, 1937

An experimental course. 1st time given, aside from a brief trial run in seminar last spring.
Title not felicitous: perhaps it will prove not very accurate. Explanation of view[?] called for.

Past 2 generations have seen vigorous development of three or four different approaches to study of economic behavior.

Economic theory of several types ranging from mathematical economics on one flank to institutional economics on other flank.

Economic history of recent and more remote past

Economic statistics have multiplied in the leading commercial nations and technique of using them has been improved.

Relation of these approaches to one another

Difficult to find investigation in which one approach only is used.

Economic theorist seldom disregards wholly the historical setting of his problem, or quantitative importance of its components. Whether they recognize it or not, these factors count in their thinking.

Economic historians and statisticians cannot dispense wholly with qualitative analysis.

Their selection and arrangement of materials imply classification: they take materials that are pertinent and pass on others that are not. What is pertinent in their judgment is decided whether they realize it or not, by the organization of their ideas.

Can find many investigations in which an attempt is made to use all three approaches

Schmoller’s Allgemeine Vokswirtschaftslehre, Webbs’ History of British T. U.‘s and Industrial Democracy.Marshall’s Industry and Trade. Cassel’s Social Economics. Keynes‘ Theory of Money, Pigou’s Industrial Fluctuations, Sombart’s Moderne Kapitalismus. A brilliant older example Marx’s Capital; indeed Wealth of Nations except that Adam Smith had a poor opinion of ‘political arithmetic’.

 

But, to a large extent, the theoretical, historical, and statistical approaches have been developed by three groups of workers

Each of whom is especially adept in one approach and makes incidental rather than systematic and thorough use of the other approaches

And there are

Economic theorists
Economic historians
Economic statisticians

who seem not to realize the extent to which their thinking is influenced by elements derived from the other approaches.

In general we cannot claim that the three approaches have been perfectly blended

Schmoller a particularly good example because he tried as hard to use all three. He knew certain phases of economic history well: but not all the phases on which he touched. He was a slovenly theorist and a gullible statistician.

Hence one of the great tasks before the generation of economists to whom members of this class belong is to utilize the knowledge of economic processes provided by the 3 approaches more effectively than their predecessors have done.

Primary aim of the course is to aid in that effort.

Method is to take up certain economic processes that have been studied for both the theoretical angles and for the historical or statistical angles or for both and to inquire whether the realistic approaches call for modification of the theoretical analyses: quite as much

Whether the theoretical approach calls for modification of the realistic investigations.

How much we can get out of this experiment for the improvement of our own investigations remains to be seen.

Will depend not only upon the industry with which we are ready to devote to study of the materials assigned but also upon the ability to think we are able to develop.

 

Mode of conducting course

Dr. G. and I will select problems, at least at beginning, and assign readings. Members of class will present reports to the class Written or oral. Discussion in class.

As work goes on we may well turn up problems of which Dr. Ginzberg and I have not thought in advance.

Interest of the meetings and value of the work are necessarily conditioned by the clarity of the reports made by the members of the group.

Please try hard to get your notes[?] well organized and lucidly presented. So well presented that other members who listen once only can understand and expect questions of others as you present reports.

So much for the general aims of the course and how it will be conducted. Begin work with an attempt to characterize broadly the conceptions of economic change that are held by investigators.

Or rather, what types of movements occur in economic life.

 

1st assignment

Let each member of class consult one or more of the statistical treatises that deal with time-series analysis to find out what types of movements are recognized.

What is basis of classification used? In what are these movements all alike? In what do the types differ? Are all of these types recognized by economic theory? For what types do economic theorists offer explanations? What relation if any do the movements of the statisticians bear to the ‘disturbing circumstances’ of economic theory and to the movements by which economic equilibrium is restored after a disturbance, and maintained in the absence of further disturbances (equilibrating movements)? Are the criteria used by economic statisticians in classifying movement like those used by time-series analysts? Can we expect inductive testing of economic laws?

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “9/28/37 A”.

____________________

Handwritten draft of course announcement

December 19, 1936
Announced for 1936-37

Cumulative Changes in Economic Processes

A critical survey of realistic studies of population growth, natural resources, occupations, capacity to produce, standards of living, national income and its distribution, ownership of property, business organization and methods, labor conditions, capital accumulation, the role played by government in economic affairs, and national planning, accompanied by study of the relations of the findings to economic theory.

Readings, reports and class discussions. Limited to twenty students. Admission by permission of the instructor.

2 hours a week, both semesters.
4-6 Thursdays.

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “12/19/36 A”.

____________________

Course Announcement
1937-38

Economics 201-202—Secular and structural changes in a modern economy.  3 points each session. Professor Mitchell with the assistance of Dr. Ginzberg.

Tu., 4:10-6. 102 Low.

The theoretical, institutional, historical, and statistical approaches to the study of economic changes. Critical survey of investigations into recent changes in important factors. Relations of the findings to current economic theory.
Readings, reports, and class discussions.
Admission only with permission of the instructor.

Source: Columbia University. Bulletin of Information (July 23, 1938). Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions, 1937-1938, p. 30.

____________________

Course Announcement
1938-39

Economics 201-202—Economic changes and economic theory.  3 points each session. Professor Mitchell assisted by Dr. Ginzberg.

Tu., 4:10-6. 502 Business.

The theoretical, institutional, historical, and statistical approaches to the study of economic changes. Critical survey of investigations into recent changes in important factors. Relations of the findings to current economic theory. Readings, reports, and class discussions.

Admission only with permission of the instructor.

Source: Columbia University. Bulletin of Information (July 23, 1938). Courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions, 1938-1939, p. 31.

____________________

Jan. 14, 1937

TENTATIVE OUTLINE FOR COURSE ON CUMULATIVE CHANGES IN ECONOMIC PROCESSES

Introduction: The theoretical, the historical, and the statistical approaches to the study of Economic Changes.

  1. The concepts of economic ‘statics’ and economic ‘dynamics’ in the work of J. S. Mill, Marx, J. B. Clark, Alfred Marshall, Gustav Cassel.
    What ‘dynamic’ problems are treated by these writers? How far does the treatment build upon ‘static’ theory?
    Theoretical treatment of cumulative changes in institutions by Marx, Veblen and Commons.
  2. Historical accounts of economic changes.
    What ‘explanations’ are given of significant changes by such writers as Ashley, Schmoller, the Webbs, Sombart, Clapham?
  3. Time-series analysis
    Types of changes commonly recognized: seasonal variations, random perturbations, cyclical fluctuations, secular trends.
    The problem of ‘long cycles’. Kondratieff, Simiand, Kuznets, Burns.
    The problem of structural changes.
    What types of these changes have been explained theoretically?
    What relations have these explanations to economic theory at large?
    What relations exist between secular, cyclical, random, seasonal and structural changes?
  4. Relations among the three approaches
    The injunction to combine causal analysis with statistical description.
    Dangers of statistical work not guided by theoretical concepts.
    Dangers of theoretical speculation not checked by statistical observation
    Difficulties in fusing the two approaches
    Causal analysis of problems in which many variables are interrelated, and in which effects become causes in a process of cumulative change
    The theoretical uses of history.
    The historical applications of theory.
    Statistics and history.

Classification of investigations available for the study of economic changes

  1. Studies of recognized types of economic changes
    The abundant literature upon business cycles
    A few studies of seasonal variations
    A few studies of secular trends and of long cycles
    No systematic literature upon random perturbations; but many casual references in books on business cycles.
    Many studies of structural changes, particularly those produced by legislations—for example, the Independent Treasury system, tariff acts, etc. Also numberless discussions under next heading.
  2. Studies of changes in single economic factors
    A vast literature is available upon such subjects as
    Growth of population and its geographical distribution
    Developments of the arts of production: histories of industries
    Natural resources of different districts; their exploitation; problems of conservation
    Changes in business organization: rise of corporations, different forms of corporate organization, banking systems; histories of particular business enterprises, and so on.
    Organization of labor
    Shifting importance of agriculture, transportation, manufactures, trade, finance in the national economy.
    Changes in economic relations among nations:: commercial policies, international investments, shifts from debtor to creditor position.
    Changes in the system of prices: their relations to monetary laws and practices; the relative importance of competitive versus regulated prices, private versus public regulation; the degree of flexibility in prices
    Changes in standards of living
  3. Economic changes during certain periods
    Most of the books on economic history might be listed here, in so far as they do not belong under previous heading.
    Also a few studies primarily statistical in character, such as
    Recent Economic changes
    Recent Social Trends
    Social England—Booth’s survey and the recent many-volume study.
    Mills’ Economic Tendencies in the U.S.
  4. Work to be undertaken by the members of the course
    To read critically and report upon significant studies of recent economic changes.
    Avoid so far as feasible the subjects that are treated elaborately in other courses, for example money and banking, labor problems, business cycles, public utilities.
    Stress the effort to grasp the inter-relations among the changes studied.
    In each case consider in how far the changes are or can be ‘explained’, and what relation these explanations have or should have to economic ‘theory’.

Among the books to be consider for assignment the following are possibilities:

W. S. Thompson and P. K. Whelfton, Population Trends in the U.S. N.Y. 1933
R. D. McKenzie, The Metropolitan Community, N.Y., 1933
Carter Goodrich and others, Migration and Economic Opportunity, Philadelphia, 1936
Wyand, Economics of Consumption, N.Y., 1937
C. C. Chapman, Development of American Business and Banking Thought, 1913-1936. New York, 1937
Twentieth Century Fund, Big Business: Its Growth and its Place. N.Y., 1937
A. A. Berle and G. C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, N.Y., 1932
A. R. Burns, The Decline of Competition, N.Y., 1936
R. C. Epstein, Industrial Profits in the U.S., N.Y., 1934
Harry Jerome, Mechanization in Industry, N.Y., 1934
F. C. Mills, Prices in Recession and Recovery, N.Y., 1936
‘The Brookings Study’, Washington, 1934 and 1935

America’s Capacity to Produce
America’s Capacity to Consume
The Formation of Capital
Income and Economic Progress

H. G. Moulton and Associates, The American Transportation Problem, Washington, 1933
National Resources Board, Report December 1, 1934, Washington 1934.
W. I. King, The National Income and Its Purchasing Power, N.Y., 1930
(S. Kuznets), National Income, 1929-32, Washington, 1934
Our Natural Resources and their Conservation, A symposium edited by A. E. Parkins and J.R. Whitaker. N.Y., John Wiley & Sons, 1936
A. F. Burns, Production Trends in the U.S. Since 1870. N.Y. 1934. See review by F. A. Fetter JPE Feb. 1937
W. Sombart, Hochkapitalismus
W. H. Lough, High-Level Consumption, N.Y., 1935
W. V. Bingham. Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing, N.Y., 1937.

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “1/14/37 A”.

____________________

[Handwritten note at top of page: “Eli Ginzberg Jan 18 1937”]

CUMULATIVE CHANGES IN A MODERN ECONOMY

Introduction

  1. The Method of the Classicists

Ricardo—Chapter I ff.
Marshall—Book V

Supplementary:

Knight—Introduction to Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit—2d ed.
Ibid—The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays
Robbins—Nature and Significance of Economic Science
Clark, J. M. Preface to Social Economics (the essay on “Statics and Dynamics”)
Moore, H.L.—
Hotelling, H.—

  1. Historical-Statistical Approach

(a) Case study of: Industrial Revolution

Toynbee
Hammonds
Webbs
Lipson
Clapham

Supplementary: see

Mantoux—
Nef—in Economic History Review.
Reconstructions, in Economic History Review

(b) Case study of: Profits and Wages in the United States

    1. Profits

Epstein
Patten
Mills

Supplementary:

Knight—Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences—article on Profits
Knight—Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences—article on Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit
Reports of the S.E.C.
Senate Committee on Foreign Bonds

    1. Wages

Douglas—Recent Economic Changes
Wolman, L.—R.E.C. and 3 Bulletins Bureau of Labor Statistics

Supplementary:

Douglas—Theory of Wages
Beveridge—Unemployment
Clay, H.—Essays in Industrial Relations

  1. Institutional-Theoretical

Marx—Communist Manifesto
Ibid.—Capital—vol. I
Veblen—Theory of Business Enterprise
Mitchell—Business Cycles
Clark, J.M.—Economics of Overhead Costs

Supplementary:

Souter-Prolegomena to Relativity Economics
Hamilton—Encyclopedia of the Social sciences Article on “Competition”
Knight—Ethics of Competition, etc.
Clark, J. M.—Preface to Social Economics
American Economic Association—Round Tables

  1. Conclusion: Methodology

Cohen—Reason and Nature
Weber, Max—Wissenschaftslehre
Whitehead—Adventure in Ideas
Simkhovitch—Approaches
Sombart—Drei Nationalökomien
Carnap—Unity of Science
MacIver—Harvard Lecture

 

PART I—Cumulative Changes in Economic Institutions

(General aim to study changes in degree and kind in the institutional setting explicit and implicit in neo-classicists; to gauge interrelations in these changes).

  1. The Large Corporation

Berle and Means—The Modern Corporation
Twentieth Century Fund: Big Business
A. R. Burns—Decline of Competition

Supplementary:

Commons—Legal Foundations of Capitalism
Holmes, O. W.—Representative Opinion
Brandeis, L.—Social and Economic Views
Hamilton, W.—Industries affected with the Public Interest
Clark, J. M.—Social Control of Business
Handler—Trade Regulation

  1. The Credit System

Annual Reports of Federal Reserve Board
Moulton—The Formation of Capital
Brookings—The Recovery of Business
Hardy—Credit Policies of the F. R. S.
Keynes—The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.
Angell—The Behavior of Money
Reports of Senate Sub-committee on Banking
Reports of Senate Committee on S. E. C.
Reports of Senate Committee on Foreign Bonds
Clark, J. M.—Economic of Planning Public Works
Chapman, C. C.—American Business and Banking Thought
Currie, L.—The Supply of Money

Supplementary:

Articles in Economic Journal, Q.J.E., S.[sic, J.?] of P. E.

  1. The Problem of Consumption

(a) Numbers

Thompson and Whelfton—Population Trend
McKenzie—Metropolitan Community
Goodrich—Migration and Economic Opportunity
Recent Social Trends

(b) Psychology

Veblen—The Theory of the Leisure Class
Hearings on Pure Foods Drug Act
Reports of Federal Trade Commission
Bulletins of Consumers Research
Schlink—
Chase, Stuart—

(c) Economics

Brookings—America’s Capacity to Consumer
Brookings—Income and Economic Progress
Wyand—Economics of Consumption
Recent Social Trends
Seligman—Installment Selling
Keynes—Appendix to General Theory

 

PART II—Cumulative Changes in the Short-Run

(Contrast with equilibrium approach of neo-classicists).

Case Study: Post-War Expansion

  1. The automobile: building and new industries

(a) Source of capital
(b) Entrepreneurs’ expectations
(c) Exploitation of demand

  1. Secondary Results: Structural Changes

(a) Relocation of Industry
(b) Urbanization—suburbs
(c) Standard of living—mores—instalment credit
(d) Incidence of Transportation
(e) Complex of Industry—of steel, glass, gasoline

Literature

Recent Economic Changes
Recent Social Trends
Goodrich et al—
Epstein, R.—Automobile Industry
Facts and Figures—Automobile Industry-1919 ff.
Clark, J. M.—Strategic Factors in Business Cycles
Warburton, C.—In Mitchell volume
Moulton et al—The American Transportation Problem
National Resources Board—Report 12/1/34
Burns, A. F.—Production Trends
Trade Journals—Steel, distribution, etc.
Annalist

PART III: The Interrelations of Economic Institutions and Market Phenomena

How do the existing legal, banking, and distributive institutions help to condition—and how are they conditioned by the following?

1. Capital accumulation
2. Profitability of industry
3. National income—wages—agriculture
4. Behavior of prices and costs

Literature

Mills—Economic Tendencies
Mills—Prices in Recession and Recovery
King—National Income and its Purchasing Power
Kuznets, S.—National Income. 1929-32
Mitchell—Business Cycles
Clark, J. M.—Strategic Factors in Business Cycles
Keynes, J. M.—General Theory of Employment
Brookings—Recovery of Business
Brookings—N. R. A.

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “1/18/37 A”.

____________________

OUTLINE
Secular and Structural Changes in a Modern Economy

[Handwritten: Eli Ginzberg]

February 23, 1937

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

OUTLINE
Secular and Structural Changes in a Modern Economy.

INTRODUCTION: The theoretical, the historical, the institutional, and the statistical approaches to the study of economic changes.

  1. “Statics and Dynamics” in the works of:
    J. S. Mill, J. B. Clark, Alfred Marshall, Gustav Cassel.
  2. “Explanation” of economic changes by:
    Ashley, Schmoller, Webbs, Sombart, Clapham
  3. Cumulative changes in institutions:
    Marx, Veblen, Commons.
  4. Time-Series Analysis: seasonal variations, cyclical fluctuations, secular trends and random perturbations. “Long cycles”:
    Kondratieff, Simiand, Kuznets, Burns.

Summary: The limitations of isolated techniques and the difficulties of fusion

  1. Theory and statistics; history and theory; statistics and theory
  2. Multiple variables in a process of cumulative change.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Secular changes in the industrial unit, the financial system, the organization of labor, and the ideology of the public during the periods:

1870-1890
1890-1914
1914-1937

 

  1. The Industrial Unit: The changing pattern of competition
    1. Economic aspects
      1. Adjustment to technology and to a national market
      2. Location of plant and transportation
      3. Integration: to raw materials; to distribution; to finance
    2. Law and Social Control
      1. Trademarks and Patents
      2. Governmental Regulation: License, taxes, etc.
      3. Trade Associations
      4. Management vs. Ownership

*Emphasis to be placed upon changing relative positions of the industrial unit to the total economy; upon the influence of size to competitive behavior; upon economic implications of individual vs. corporate forms.

  1. Financial System—The rôle of money in a modern economy.
    1. The Changing Structure of Banking
      1. Loans and investments
      2. Active money
    2. The Problems of Debt and Liquidity
      1. Private vs. Public Debt
      2. Collateral for private debt
      3. Insurance—private and public
    3. Implications: Economic and Social
      1. Economic: The interrelations of interest rates, savings, and the formation of capital.
      2. Social: The political control over the creation of money and the use of this control for the eradication of the business cycle.
  1. Labor: not solely a commodity
    1. Unionization
      1. Members
      2. Objectives
      3. Potential threats and consequences
    2. Supply
      1. Changes in requirements of skill
      2. The relative shrinkage in agriculture
      3. The additions from women of the middle class
      4. Mobility
    3. Rôle of the Government
      1. Free Services
      2. Enforcement of minimum standards
      3. Relief payments and work creation
      4. Re Bargaining between Labor and Capital

*Emphasis: Implication of these changes for

    1. Rate of wages
    2. Total wages—cf. monopoly analysis
    3. Class-struggle analysis
  1. The Changing Ideology: The influence of money making upon the attitudes of people—
    Upon their behavior in

    1. Spending: price vs. quality; advertising; women as buyers
    2. Accumulating: liquid vs. fixed assets; speculation; insurance; goods vs. family
    3. Playing: The esoteric vs. the stable; Wanderlust; the shift from church and home to club and movie.
    4. Occupational adjustment: sensitivity to monetary stimuli; civil service; money and the arts.

Conclusions: An approach to isolating and treating the strategi9c factors in a dynamic economy—

    1. The emergence of profitability
    2. The cumulative process and the breakdown
    3. The absorption of technological developments and the tendency towards retardation of growth.
    4. The closely allied patterns of change; their interaction with the economic. 1. Political/2. Legal/3. Ideological

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “2/23/37 A”.

____________________

[Pencil: “April 1937”]

SECULAR AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES
IN A
MODERN ECONOMY

OUTLINE

    1. The Study of Economic Change
    2. Population
    3. Migration and Location
    4. The Business Unit
    5. Psychology and Social Classes
    6. Technology
    7. The Legal Framework
    8. Government
    9. Dynamics of the Market
    10. Cumulative Factors

 

I

THE STUDY OF ECONOMIC CHANGE

  1. Introduction
  2. The Classicists and the Institutionalists

*Preface to First and 8th editions of Marshall’s Principles and Bk. V—Chapter XV
*Marx—Communist Manifesto—Part I

    1. The Classicists

J. S. Mill—Principles of Political Economy—Bk IV
J. B. Clark—Essentials of Economic Theory—Preface, Chapters XII, XIII, XIV, XV, and XXX
Marshall—Principles—Bk I—Chap. III; Bk V—Chaps. I, II, III, V, and XV
Cassel—Social Economy—Bk I, Chaps. I #5,6; Bk. IV

    1. The Institutionalists

Marx—Communist Manifesto—Part I
Veblen—Business Enterprise—Chpas. II, VII, IX, X
Commons—Legal Foundations of Capitalism—Chapters I, II, III, VII, IX, vi

  1. The Historians and the Statisticians

*Heckscher, Eli—“Aspects of Economic History” in Essays in Honor of Gustav Cassel
*Mitchell—“Business Cycles”—Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

    1. The Historians

Webbs—History of Trade Unionism—Chapters II, III
Clapham—Economic History of Modern Britain—Vol I, Chapter XIV
Sombart—Der Moderne Kapitalismus—Vol. III, Part I—Chapters 22-25

    1. The Statisticians

Simiand—La Crise Mondiale—pages 1-14; pages 114-35
Burns, A. F.—Production Trends—Foreword; Chapters III;ii, iii; IV: iv; V:v, vi.
Mitchell—“Business Cycles”—Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences
Kuznets—Seasonal Variations in Industry and Trade—Chapter I, Concluding Notes—pp. 355 ff.

  1. Theory, History, and Statistics
    *J. M. Clark—“Statics and Dynamics” in Preface to Social Economy
    *F. H. Knight—New Introduction to Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit
    *W. C. Mitchell—“Quantitative Measurement” in Backward Art of Spending Money and Other Essays
    1. Cohen and Nagel—Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method Bk II: Chaps. X, XI, XVI, XVII, XIX sec. 3
    2. Robbins—Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Chapters II 4,5; III 4,5; IV; VI 5,6
    3. J. M. Clark—“Socializing Theoretical Economics” in Preface to Social Economics

 

II

POPULATION

  1. The Data, Method, and Deductions about population in economic theory
    *Malthus—Population—Chapters I, II
    *Marshall—Bk IV, Chapters IV, V

    1. Ricardo—Principles II, V, XXXII
    2. J. S. Mill—Principles—Chapter X, 2, 3
    3. Pigou—Economics of Welfare—Part I, chapters IX, X
  2. The Contemporary Data, Methods, Deductions as to Trends
    *“Population”—Encyclopedia of Social Sciences

    1. Thompson and Whelpton—Population Trends in U. S.—Chapters I: pp. 2267;257-61;288-91; IX, X, and XI
    2. Carr-Saunders—World Population (1936)—Chapters I, II, XVI, XVII, XXII, Note on Overpopulation
    3. Kucyznski—Births and Death, Vol I. Chaps. I, II, III, IV; II. Chaps. I, VI
  3. The Economic Implications of the Population Problem
    *Myrdal—“Industrialization and Population” in Essays in Honor of Gustav Cassel

    1. On Unemployment
      Beveridge—Unemployment—Chapter XVII
    2. On Imperialism
      W. S. Thompson—Danger Spots in World Politics—Chapters X, XII, XIII, XIV
    3. On Consumption
      Lynd—Middletown—Chapters V, XI
      J. M. Keynes. Economic Consequences of a Declining Population. Eugenics Review, April 1937, vol. XXIX, 13-17.

 

III

MIGRATION AND LOCATION OF PEOPLE AND INDUSTRY

*Marshall—Principles—pp. 199-203, Book IV—Chapter X, Appendix A-#13
*Weber, A.—Theory of Location of Industries

Editor’s Introduction
Author’s Introduction
Chapters I, VII

*Semple—American History, its Geographic Conditions—Chapters XV, XVI, XVII

    1. Goodrich—Migration and Economic Opportunity—Introduction: Chapters I, VI, VII, IX, XII
    2. Mackenzie—The Metropolitan Community—Chapters I, III, V, VI, XII, XVII, XXIII

 

IV

THE BUSINESS UNIT

*Marshall—Principles—Bk IV—Chapter XII
*Twentieth Century Fund—Big Business—Summary

    1. Distribution of the Working Population

The National Income in the United States (1929-35). Department of Commerce

    1. The Problem of Control: Private

Berle and Means—Modern Corporation and Private Property, Bks I, VI
Twentieth Century Fund—Big Business Summary, Chaps. I, VIII
Laidler—Concentration of Control in American Industry, Parts I, VI.

    1. The Problem of Control: Public

Jones and Bingham—Principles of Public Utilities—Chapters I, II, and XII
Moulton Associates—American Transportation Problem—Report of Committee—Chapters I, II, XII, XXI, XXIV, XXV, XXX, XXXI

    1. Planning

Parkins and Whitaker—Our Natural Resources and their Concentration—Chapters I, II, IX, X, XI, XVI, XVIII
National Resources Board—1934—Part I—Sec. I, Sec. V.

 

V

PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL CLASSES

*Marshall—Principles—Bk I—Chapter II
*Weber—General Economic History—Chapter XXX

    1. The Spirit of the Capitalist

M. Weber—The Protestant Ethic—Foreword, Introduction, Chapters II, III, V

    1. Modern Psychology and Aggression

Abrahams, K.—Selected Essays on Psycho-Analysis—Chapters XXIII, XXIV, XXV
Horney, K.—The Neurotic Personality of Our Times—Chapters [blank]
Mead, M.—Competition and Cooperation in Primitive Societies. Interpretive Statement.

    1. The American Scene

Veblen—Absentee Ownership—chapters VI, VII I, ii, iii
Parker—The Casual Laborer and Other Essays—Recent Social Trends—Chapter VIII
Taussig and Joslyn—American Business Leaders—Chapters X, XI, XVI, XVII, XIX, XX

 

VI

TECHNOLOGY

*Marshall—Principles—Bk IV—Chapter IX
*Veblen—Theory of Business Enterprise—Chapter IX

    1. America’s Capacity to Produce—Introduction, Chapters VI, XIV, XV, XVI, XIX, XX

Jerome—Mechanization in Industry—Introduction, Summary, Chapters III, IV

    1. –Recent Social Trends—Volume I—Chapter III

Weintraub and Posner—Technological Tendencies and their Social Implications
Jerome—Mechanization—Chapters IX, X

 

VII

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

*J. S. Mill—Principles of Political Economy—Bk II—Chapter II
*Veblen—Theory of Business Enterprise—Chapter VIII

    1. Commons—Legal Foundations of Capitalism. Chaps. I, II, III, VII, IX
    2. Handler—Trade Regulation, Chapters I, II
    3. Bonbright—The Valuation of Property—Chapters I, II, III, IV, V, XXX, XXXII

 

VIII

THE GOVERNMENT

*J. S. Mill—Principles of Political Economy—Bk V—Chapter XI
*H. Laski—The State—Chapter IV

    1. Re Taxes

Shoup—Facing the Tax Burden—Chaps 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
Recent Social Trends—Volume II—Chapters XXV, XXVI

    1. Re Banking

Willis—Central Banking—Part I, Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII, XXVI
Hardy—Credit Policies of the Federal Reserve System—Part I

    1. Re Labor

Commons and Associates—History of Labor in the U.S.

Volume III, Section I, Chapters XI, XII, Labor legislation
Volume IV, Chapters I, II, XVI, XXXII, XXXVIII, XLIV, XLV

Epstein—Insecurity—Parts I, X, XI

 

IX

DYNAMICS OF THE MARKET

*Marshall—Principles—Book V
*J. M. Clark—Economics of Overhead Costs—Chapters XXIII, XXIV

    1. Production: 1922-36

Mills—Economic Tendencies—Chapters VI, X

    1. Prices: 1922-36

Mills—Economic Tendencies—Chapter VII
Prices in Recession and Recovery—Chapters I, III, V, VI, IX

    1. Wages: 1922-36

Douglas—Real Wages in the United States—Chapters XXII, XXVI, XXX, XXXI
Recent Economic Changes—Volume II—Chapter VI
Wolman—N.B.E.R. Bulletins #46, 54, 63

    1. Profits: 1922-36

Epstein—Industrial Profits in the United States—Introduction, Book I, Book IV

    1. Money: 1922-36

Currie—The Supply and Control of Money in the United States—Chapter III
Fed. Res. Board—Annual Reports. 1934, 1935, 1936

 

X

CUMULATIVE FACTORS

*Marshall—Principles—Book VI—Chapters XI, XII, XIII
*J. M. Clark—Strategic Factors in Business Cycles—Parts I and VI

    1. The War, Changing Attitudes, and the Economy
    2. The Automobile and the Economy
    3. The Creation and Destruction of Bank Deposits and the Economy

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Papers of Wesley Clair Mitchell. Box 3, Folder “4/?/37 A”.

Image Source: From the cover of Eli Ginzberg’s book The Eye of Illusion (Transactions Publishers, 1993).

 

 

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Salaries Teaching

Columbia. Due to exploding graduate economics enrollments, Stigler hired as visiting professor, 1946

 

 

The graduate economics courses at Columbia University were swamped by registrations one year after the end of the Second World War. Over 160 students were registered for the two graduate economic theory courses offered by A.G. Hart and William S. Vickrey. The executive officer of the economics department, Carter Goodrich, requested the central university allow the department to hire a visitor to ease the burden on Hart and Vickrey. That victory won with the visiting appointment for George Stigler (then a professor at Brown), Goodrich next pushed for an increase in the general budget for teaching assistants as well as for hiring Dorothy Fox assist him in his U.S. economic history class.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

September 30, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal
Acting President, Columbia University
Low Memorial Library

Dear Mr. President:

The extremely heavy enrollment for the graduate work in economics raises serious questions for the future staffing of the Economics Department. I should very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these with you when the final figures are in, and when we can assess the situation more fully.

Meanwhile, however, there is one question on which emergency action at once seems essential. We advise the great majority of our students to take a general, systematic course in economic theory or economic analysis. We offer this year two such courses: Economics 153-4, given by Prof. A.G. Hart; and Economics 159-60, given by Mr. William S. Vickrey. Prof. Hart and Mr. Vickrey have between them over one hundred and sixty students registered. The work in these courses cannot be given on a mass lecture basis in a way that would meet the standards of any first-rate institution. It would not serve the purpose for which the Department intends it if there were not at least some degree of individual instruction.

I wish, therefore, to request an additional man to take one section of this basic course. I should like authority to approach Prof. Arthur Smithies, who taught Economic Theory at the University of Michigan, but who is at present in the Bureau of the Budget, at Washington. The proposal would be that the class should meet for two hours one day a week. I suggest $2500 for the year as the appropriate compensation. If preferred, $500 of this might properly be described as traveling expenses.

The money is available in the present budget, partly from the salary allotted for the professor of international economics on which only a half-time appointment was made for the present year, and from the money available for the unfilled position on economic history. Both these salaries, I should add, will be needed next year.

I should be most grateful if you would give me a decision on this at once, since the step must be taken immediately if it is to bring effective relief.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich

CG:jg

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 14, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

This time the report is not wholly negative. Following our conversation of Thursday afternoon, I invited Prof. George J. Stigler, of Brown University, to come to help us in the emergency situation in Economic Theory. Prof. Stigler has agreed to come for the first semester, but is not as yet prepared to commit himself for the entire year. I am therefore enclosing a form for his appointment for the Winter Session on the terms agreed. The salary for the first semester is available from the unused portion of the salary of Professor A.F. Burns.

I hope that we may be able to persuade Prof. Stigler to continue the work throughout the year. If not, there is a possibility that Prof. Smithies may be able to come for the second semester.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich

______________________

[Carbon Copy]

October 18, 1946

Professor Carter Goodrich
Fayerweather

Dear Professor Goodrich

I have your letter of October 14 in regard to the appointment of Stigler as Visiting Professor and will see that the appointment goes through the next meeting of the Trustees.

Maybe I had better point out that there is no money available in Prof. Burns’ position. In addition to his own half pay, the salaries of Vickrey ($2000) and Alexander ($1700) have already charged against that. However, we will make the appointment against the balance remaining in the vacant professorship.

Very truly yours

Frank D. Fackenthal
Acting President

VS

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 22, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library.

Dear Mr. President:

I very much appreciate your action on the Stigler appointment.

The second paragraph of your letter of October 18 puzzled me, since I had never heard of Alexander. We have tracked the matter down and it appears to be an appointment in Contemporary Civilization, chargeable to a budget of Dean Carman’s. It should not be a charge on the Department of Economics.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer, Department of Economics.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

October 24, 1946

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
213 Low Memorial Library,
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

In my letter of September 30th I spoke of the problems raised for the Economics Department by the extremely heavy enrollment in the graduate school. Now that the final enrollment is in, I wish to recommend two further measures, in addition to the emergency adjustment in Theory which you have been good enough to authorize. The total registration in the graduate courses borne on the budget of the Department of Economics for this session is double that for the Spring Session of 1946, which in turn was very much larger than that for the Winter Session of 1945. In 22 courses last spring there were 788 registrations; in 24 courses this session there are 1578. 7 of these courses have enrollments of more than 100 students (Angell, 112; A. R. Burns, 127, 153; Bergson, 142; Goodrich, 141; Nurkse, 130; Wolman, 140.)

To meet this situation I request, first, that the appropriation for Assistance be raised from $1,000-$1,500. Prof. Taylor estimates the needs of the College department, which has in the past used the greater part of the Assistance fund, as $500. Professors Angell, Bergson, A.R. Burns, Nurkse, and Wolman have all asked this year for reading assistance and will certainly need it in these courses.

Second, I request the appointment of Mrs. Dorothy G. Fox as an assistant in Economics to aid in my own course Economic history of the United States, so that a part of the time may be given to discussion in sections of a reasonable size. Mrs. Fox is at present an instructor in Economic principles in University Extension. I propose a salary of $700 for the academic year.

Money for these adjustments may be taken, if necessary, from what remains in the salary allotted to the vacant professorship. I should add, however, that these adjustments are made necessary solely by the extraordinary enrollment and that making them would not in any way diminish the long-run needs of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer of the Department of Economics.

______________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
(New York 27, N.Y.)

Faculty of Political Science

January 15, 1947

Dr. Frank D. Fackenthal, Acting President,
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

I beg to request the appointment of Dr. Moses Abramovitz as Visiting Lecturer in Economics for the Spring Session, at a compensation of $1,000. This is a further adjustment to meet the emergency situation in economic theory. As indicated in my letter of October 14th, 1946, Professor Stigler, of Brown University, agreed to come for the first semester, but was not prepared to commit himself for the entire year. He has informed us, much to our regret, that he cannot continue and I am therefore proposing a substitute. Dr. Abramovitz is one of the very best of the recent Ph.D.’s in this Department and holds a responsible research position with the National Bureau of Economic Research. He taught the same course in this Department during 1940-1941 and 1941-1942.

The total compensation for Professor Stigler, as you recall, was $1,250, of which $250 was counted as traveling expenses. The $1,000 requested for Dr. Abramovitz is available, $500 from the unused portion of the salary of Professor Arthur F. Burns and $500 from the funds for the vacant professorship.

I am enclosing the form for Dr. Abramovitz’ appointment and I very much hope you will be able to make it.

Respectfully yours,
[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Executive Officer, Department of Economics.

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Central Files 1890-. Box 406, Folder “Goodrich, Carter. 1/1”.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. Appointment of Marcus Fleming as Visiting Professor, Spring 1951

 

I have transcribed the following paper-trail regarding the appointment of Marcus Fleming for a one term visiting Professor appointment because of the biographical information of this important economist included in the letter requesting formal approval from the provost of Columbia University as well as its providing an example of the minimal paperwork apparently required for a visiting position in 1950 compared to what is required in most universities at the present time.

________________

COMMITTEE ON INSTRUCTION
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

MINUTES OF MEETING: October 3, 1950

Present: Professors A.R. Burns, Goodrich, Malone, Peffer, Strong
Absent: Professor Abel
Present by Invitation: Professor Lazarsfeld

[…]

Approval of new appointments

Economics

  1. Marcus Fleming, recent Deputy Director of the British Cabinet Secretariat, as Visiting Professor of Economics (European Institute), for the Spring Session at a salary of $4,500 plus a travelling allowance. (The hope of the Department is to extend this appointment during the period for which funds for the European Institute are at present provided.
  2. Evsey Domar, Associate Professor of Economics at The Johns Hopkins University, as Visiting Associate Professor of Economics 146 while Professor Bergson in on part-time leave.

[…]

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.

________________

Letter from Department Head Professor James W. Angell
to Vice-President and Provost Dr. Grayson L. Kirk

October 10, 1950

Dr. Grayson L. Kirk,
Vice President and Provost
of Columbia University,
Low Memorial Library.

Dear Dr. Kirk:

I enclose herewith a Nomination for Appointment, requesting the appointment of John Marcus Fleming to the position of Visiting Professor of Economics (European Institute.) I believe this appointment has already been acted upon favorably by the Committee of Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science.

Mr. Fleming, who is married and has several children, is a little past forty. He received the degree of Master of Arts, with Honours in History (1932), and in Economics (1934), at Edinburgh University. He studied Economics further at the London School of Economics, 1934-35. He then became a member of the Secretariat of the League of Nations in Geneva, 1935-38, and in the latter part of that period was a member of the Economic Intelligence Service. He spent 1938-39 in the United States as a Rockefeller Fellowship. Since 1939 he has held a series of posts I the service of the British government, combined with extensive teaching at the University College in London. Beginning with the latter part of the war, and down to this past summer, he has been Deputy Director of the Economic Section in the British Cabinet Secretariat. He has served as a British representative to the Organization for European Cooperation in Paris, and to the United Nations at Lake Success. His written work includes a large study of American business cycles, prepared for the League of Nations just before the war, as a working document, but not formally published, and some half dozen important articles in leading professional journals, on problems of economic theory and international trade.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
James W. Angell
Executive Officer
Department of Economics

[Penciled note in margin: OK/GK]

Source:   Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 409, Folder “Angell, James W. 7/1950-6/1953”

________________

Carbon copy of response of Dean John A. Krout to Professor James W. Angell

16 October 1950

Professor James W. Angell
Executive Officer
Department of Economics
Fayerweather

Dear Professor Angell:

I have your letter to Provost Kirk about the nomination for appointment of John Marcus Fleming to the position of Visiting Professor of Economics (European Institute) during the period from February 5, 1951 to June 30, 1951. Since this nomination has the approval of the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science, I am sending through the appropriate authorization.

Cordially yours,

John A. Krout
Dean

mp
cc: Miss Mullen

Source:   Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 409, Folder “Angell, James W. 7/1950-6/1953”

Image Source:  Marcus Fleming (1911-1976) page at Policonomics.com

Categories
Columbia Regulations Research Tip Salaries

Columbia. Excerpts from annual faculty meeting. GRE’s, Math, Salaries discussed, 1951

 

 

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.

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard Michigan Salaries

Columbia. Appointment of James Waterhouse Angell, 1924

 

The head of the Columbia University economics department, Edwin R. A. Seligman, invested considerable effort in recruiting James Waterhouse Angell in 1924. The items below come from central administration files. There are also several letters back-and-forth between Seligman and Angell in Seligman’s papers (saved for a later posting). Clearly Angell was a red-hot prospect with “a very charming little woman” spouse.

____________________

Columbia University
in the city of New York
Faculty of Political Science

March 20, 1924.

Dean F. J. E. Woodbridge,
University Hall.

My dear Dean Woodbridge:

Following up the recommendations in my budget letter for the new Professorship in the Department of Economics, I beg to state that after much investigation and consideration the Department of Economics has come to the unanimous conclusion to recommend Dr. James Waterhouse Angell Jr. [sic, “ Jr.” is incorrect], of Harvard University, the son of President Angell of Yale University and the grandson of President Angell of the University of Michigan. Dr. Angell is a younger man, but in our opinion an abler man, than any of the others that we have considered. He is at present instructor in Harvard University, and has been offered a promotion there for next year and he has also been offered a full Professorship at the University of Michigan. On account of his comparative youth, however, we preferred to offer him, in a tentative way, only a Lectureship, at a salary of three thousand dollars, although with the distinct understanding that if he made good, he would be recommended for promotion, first in salary, and then in rank. Dr. Angell will make a distinct sacrifice—and as compared with the Michigan offer a very considerable sacrifice—in accepting our offer; but he would be very glad to accept such an offer from us because of the opportunities for research and advanced work.

Dr. Angell has had an interesting career. He has an A. B. from Harvard in 1918 and has since then received the degree of both A.M. and Ph.D. He was also Kirkland Fellow at Harvard and the incumbent of the Sheldon Traveling Fellowship at Harvard. He was assistant at the University of Chicago, 1918-1920, tutor in the Division of History, Government, and Economics at Harvard, 1921-22, and is at present instructor in Economics. Professors Young and Ripley agree in saying that Dr. Angell is the ablest student in Economics that they have ever had, and Professor Taussig and his other colleagues have an equally high opinion of him. Dr. Angell has written several articles of a very high order of merit in the Journal of Political Economy [“The Illinois Blue Sky Law”] and the Quarterly Journal of Economics [“International Trade under Inconvertible Paper”], and his Doctor’s thesis is entitled “The Theory of International Prices and its History”.

If Dr. Angell comes to us he proposes to devote his energies to the general subjects of International Trade and International Investments, which are precisely the topics mentioned in my budget letter as constituting the most serious gap now existing in the University. It is the judgment of the Department of Economics that there is no one in the country better calculated to do good work in this subject than Dr. Angell and I may add that the recommendation of the Department has already been unanimously approved by the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty of Political Science. Dr. Angell has a very pleasing personality and has recently married, as we are informed, a very charming wife.

I should like to urge favorable action on our recommendation, not only because we shall thus be filling a long-felt gap in the Department, but because, with the impending absence next year of Professor Seager, an additional instructor in the Department of Economics becomes imperatively necessary.

Now that Professor Chaddock is to go over to the Department of Sociology, — a transfer that is being made with the full assent of the Department of Economics, it will become absolutely impossible for Professor Mitchell, Professor Simkhovitch, and myself to attend next year to the administrative work of the Department and the needs of our graduate students. At no time in the past few decades have we felt the pressure of work as we are feeling it now and unless this addition is made to our forces, either our scientific work or the carrying on of our academic duties will be seriously jeopardized.

I venture, therefore, to hope that the recommendation of the Department will be approved. If the approval can take place speedily there will yet be time to insert the announcement of the new courses in the forthcoming bulletin, which will be of considerable advantage in attracting students who are interested in that particular field of international economic relations.

Respectfully,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

__________________________

 

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

April 16, 1924

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University.

My dear Mr. President:

I have received word from Dean Woodbridge of the approval of the Angell proposition by the committee on education and the committee of finance of the Trustees. I want to thank you personally for your kindness in this entire matter and I want to express the confident expectation that young Angell will make good. His wife is a very charming little woman and took tea with us the other day.

With kind regards,

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

__________________________

May 14, 1924

Professor E.R.A. Seligman

Department of Economics

Dear Professor Seligman:

I beg to advise you that at the meeting of the trustees held on May 5, the Budget for the Department of Economics for the next academic year was amended by inserting provision for a Lecturer in Economics at $3,000, and that Dr. James Waterhouse Angell, Jr. [sic, “ Jr.” is incorrect] was appointed to this post for the academic year 1924-25.

Very truly yours,

Frank D. Fackenthal

Source: Columbia University Archives. Central Files. Box 338; Folder 16, “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson”

Image Source: College Photo of James Waterhouse Angell in Harvard Class of 1918, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. Cambridge: 1943.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Fields

Columbia. J. M. Clark on Teaching “modern tools of economic thinking”, 1942

In my examination of department archives I have been somwhat surprised at the relative scarcity of paper traffic with regard to curriculum reform. Here a short note from Maurice Clark to the executive officer of the economics department (i.e. chairman) Robert M. Haig about Columbia’s hiring strategy and whether two “math. Ec’ist[s]” aren’t enough for the task of teaching the “modern tools of economic thinking.” Looking at the faculty list for that year, I presume Clark meant Harold Hotelling and Abraham Wald. The note sounds as though Clark is looking for a way to get out of the “Current types of economic theory” course that he had taken over from Wesley Clair Mitchell and to teach instead a core theory course again.

_____________________________________

 

COPY

January 9, 1942

Dear Bob [R. M. Haig]:

I heard Lange’s paper. Impressions very favorable per se: but he’s one more high-power mathematical economist, and with three, wouldn’t we be unbalanced? And if it takes a math. Ec’ist to do the job of “modern tools of economic thinking” we had in mind, aren’t two enough?

Another unmatured impression: that part of the gap we’re thinking of would be met by a development and more up-to-date and adequate treatment of the sort of thing I used to do in the course I quit giving when I took Mitchell’s “Types” course:–more specifically, the second half-year where I dealt with the concepts of demand, supply and cost curves in an attempt to relate them to actual behavior. I adumbrated the possibility of treating the distinction between competition and monopoly in terms of slopes of “individual demand schedules” (before Chamberlin’s book). Had ‘em read Foster & Catchings to get the “Income-flow” approach, before Keynes’ books appeared. (I note Neisser of Penn. still finds use for F. & C. in teaching.) Suggested the discrepancy between saving and investment (without, I freely admit, seeing the significances that Keynes developed). And of course I had played with “multipliers”.

A course in which I ruthlessly condensed what used to be my first half-year into two or three lectures, and developed the other kind of material more adequately and systematically, might be considered, while we’re considering things.

Yours,

J. M. Clark

_____________________________________

 

January 13, 1942

Professor John Maurice Clark,
Fayerweather Hall.

Dear Maurice:

Many thanks for your note of January 9th. I am assuming that you have no objection to my showing it to Mitchell, Angell, and Goodrich.

Faithfully yours,

[R.M. Haig]

_____________________________________

January 13, 1942

Memorandum to Professors Angell, Goodrich and Mitchell
from Professor R. M. Haig:

You will be interested in the enclosed comments from Maurice Clark

_____________________________________

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries. Manuscript Collections. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Faculty. Box 2. Folder “Department of Economics—Faculty Beginning January 1, 1944 (sic)”.

Image Source:  John Maurice Clark at The History of Economic Thought Website.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Mathematics Satisfies Second Foreign Language Reqt for Economics PhDs, 1950

In the spirit of the J. Willard Gibbs quote, known by generations of economists from the title page of Paul A. Samuelson’s Foundations of Economic Analysis, i.e., “Mathematics is a Language”, the economics department at Columbia University changed its foreign language requirement in the Spring of 1950 to allow the substitution of mathematics “at a prescribed level” for one of two foreign languages it required of Ph.D. candidates. The Executive Officer of the Department at the time was James W. Angell.

_____________________________

Faculty of Political Science

April 21, 1950

[…]

            Professor [James W.]Angell presented a proposal of the Dept. of Economics to modify the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree so that Mathematics at a prescribed level may be substituted for one of the two required foreign languages. He moved the adoption of the following resolution:

The paragraph entitled “Languages” in the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science be amended by adding the following sentence:

Prospective candidates in the Department of Economics may under certain circumstances and with the permission of the Executive Officer of that Department offer Mathematics and one foreign language instead of two foreign languages.

The motion was seconded and passed.

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Archives, Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962. pp. 1026-1027.

_____________________________

 

ANGELL, James Waterhouse, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1924) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1898; A.B., 1918, M.A., 1921, Ph.D., 1924, Harvard; 1919-20, Chicago. Fields 6 [Business Fluctuations], 10 [International Economics], 7 [Money and Banking; Short-term Credit; Consumer Finance]. Doc. dis. Theory of international prices (Harvard Univ. Press, 1926). Pub. Recovery of Germany (Yale Univ. Press, 1929; 2nd ed., 1932; German trans., 1930); Behavior of money (1936), Investment and business cycles (1941) (McGraw-Hill). Dir. W.W. in Amer.

Source: The 1948 Directory of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan., 1949), p. 6.

_____________________________

New York Times’ obituary: “James Angell, 87; Leading Economist Taught At Columbia,” April 1, 1986.

 

Image Source: James Waterhouse Angell. Harvard Class of 1918, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report. Cambridge: 1943.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Invitations for guest lectures by Schumpeter and Rathgen, 1913

This exchange of letters between Frank Taussig and President Lowell of Harvard involves two pieces of business. The first is Taussig’s request for approval to use department lecture funds to invite Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Rathgen, who were both visiting Columbia University, to give lectures at Harvard. The second piece of business concerns a recommendation of two men to be considered for the presidency of the University of Washington, one of whom (L. C. Marshall who was the Dean of the University of Chicago Business School) the other, James Rowland Angell who would go on to become President of Yale and who also happened to be the father of the Columbia University economist James Waterhouse Angell.

__________________________________

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
October 22, 1913.

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
Q. E. Rappard
E. E. Day
B. M. Anderson, Jr.
H. L. Gray
Dear Lawrence:

Two Germans are in this country, both at the present moment lecturing at Columbia, to whom we might appropriately show a little attention. One is J. Schumpeter, an Austrian with whom I have had correspondence, and a very well-known and highly respected scholar; the other is K. Rathgen of Hamburg, also well-known in the profession. Our friends at Columbia write that these men would be glad to look at this institution, and we are more than willing to show them a little civility. Would you authorize us to ask each of them to give a lecture, possibly more than one, the fee to be charged to the fund for lectures on Political Economy? Schumpeter speaks excellent English, and could certainly give an acceptable lecture. Rathgen might possibly have to speak in German, in which case we should ask him simply to talk to our Seminary.

You remember our talk about the presidency of the University of Washington. I enclose a letter from L. C. Marshall of Chicago about young Angell, the psychologist, who deserves to be considered among the possibilities. I enclose also a memorandum of my own about Marshall himself, who seems to me at least the equal of Angell. Make such use of these papers as you can, either for this opening or for others that may appear in the future. When inquiring of Marshall about Angell, I gave no intimation of the reason for asking him.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
F. W. Taussig

President A. Lawrence Lowell.

 

__________________________________

October 23, 1913.

Dear Professor Taussig:—

We should certainly be very glad to have either Schumpeter or Rathgen, or both, speak to the students in economics, at the expense of the fund for lectures in political economy. I do not know whether you want an appointment by the Corporation for this purpose, or merely an invitation by the department.

Thank you for the suggestions of presidents of Washington University. I am transmitting them.

Very truly yours,
[stamped]
A. Lawrence Lowell

Professor F. W. Taussig
2 Scott Street,
Cambridge, Mass.

__________________________________

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers, 1909-1914 (UAI.5.160), Box 15, Folder 413 “1909-14”.

Image Source: Karl Rathgen: Fotosammlung des Geographischen Institutes der Humboldt-Universität Berlin.    Schumpeter: Ulrich Hedtke, Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Archive.

 

 

Categories
Columbia Salaries

Columbia. 1931-50 graduate economics alumni survey 1950

Robert M. Haig was a public finance economist at Columbia University, the successor to Edwin R. A. Seligman as McVickar Professor of Political Economy. In Haig’s papers is the following memo from James Angell (the “Executive Officer”, i.e. chairperson, of the department of economics within Columbia’s faculty of political science) reporting the results of a 1950 survey of former graduate students in the department. Just under 1,200 questionnaires were sent out. The response rate was about one-third. Duration data for different stages of graduate study, occupations/salaries in 1950 by final completed stage of graduate study were tabulated.

A gender breakdown for occupation/salaries is also provided. It is interesting to note that the 1950 gender gap between men and women for people with economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) who were teaching was 7.2%.

In current prices, the average 1950 salaries of the economics Ph.D.’s from Columbia (1931-50) were: $59,000 (teaching); $88,500 (government); $94,000 (other economics related work); $108,000 (all non-economic-research related work).

Note: The urban CPI has increased by a factor of 9.9 since then: (CPI July 1950 24.1, July 2015 238.7).

_____________________________

June 20, 1951

To: The Members of the Department of Economics
From: James W. Angell
Subject: Occupations and Salaries of Our Former Graduate Students

Last summer, in order to improve our records on former graduate students in the Department, brief questionnaires were sent out to the 1,182 students who had received the M.A. degree, or passed the Ph.D. oral examination, or received the Ph.D. degree, in the twenty years 1931-1950. We were primarily concerned to obtain their present addresses and occupations, but we also asked for the dates when the several academic standings had been achieved, and for the latest (1950) salary.

We received only 377 replies, or 32 per cent of the number of questionnaires sent out. Of the total sent, 84 questionnaires, or 7 per cent, were returned because the Post Office could not locate the addresses.

It is probably that the replies received do not constitute a representative sample, especially with respect to salaries: in the main, the less successful students are presumably those who are less likely to reply to such inquiries. But a partial check of the names of those who did not reply shows that this was not always so. A number of the group who did not reply are known to be holding good positions.

An analysis of the replies has been made by our colleague, Frank W. Schiff chiefly with respect to (1) the time intervals between the dates of achievement of the several academic standings, (2) present (1950) occupation, and (3) present (1950) salary. Not all those who replied answered all the questions, and the several group totals are hence not always consistent. The various results are summarized in the following tables.

 

  1. Number of Replies, Grouped by Half-Decade When Highest Academic Standing Achieved by Student Was Attained: 1931-1950

 

Highest Standing Attained
Years

Total Replies

M.A. Passed Orals

Ph.D.

1931-35

39 18 4 17

1936-40

60 26 11

23

1941-45

68 26 12

30

1946-50

210 126 48

36

1931-1950 377 196 75

106

 

Table 2 shows the arithmetic average of the number of years which were required to move from one level of academic standing to another. Because the number of observations is small, extreme values have considerable influence. It was felt that eliminating a few extreme values would hence give a more representative result; but the unadjusted totals are also shown, for comparison. The retarding effect of the war is conspicuous in most cases. Table 3 shows the distribution for each stage, over the period as a whole, of the numbers of years required; and the median values to the nearest whole year (these values in some cases differ markedly from the arithmetic averages shown in Table 2).

 

  1. Average (Arithmetic) Number of Years Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing: 1931-1950 (Extreme Values Omitted)

Years

A.B. to M.A.  A.B. to Orals A.B. to Ph.D. M.A. to Orals M.A. to Ph.D.

Orals to Ph.D.

1931-35

2.8 6.2 9.4 3.7 6.3 2.5

1936-40

2.4 5.2 10.8 3.1 7.6 3.1
1941-45 2.3 4.7 9.8 2.9 7.1

3.7

1946-50 3.6 6.6 11.7 2.2 9.3

5.6

1931-1950a

 

3.0

 

5.8 10.6 2.8 7.8

4.1

Number of observations before adjustment

324

155 98 145 87

78

Number omitted

20

6 3 9 2

3

1931-50: unadjusted averagesa

3.8

6.4 11.2 3.5 8.4

4.5

 

aArithmentc averages for the whole period, not of the averages for the sub-periods.

 

  1. Distribution, by Numbers of Years, of Periods Elapsed Between Dates of Attainment of Levels of Academic Standing, 1931-1950

Number of Years Elapsed

A.B. to M.A. A.B. to Orals A.B. to Ph.D. M.A. to Orals M.A. to Ph.D.

Orals to Ph.D.

1-2

179 31 0 78 3 28

3-4

56 32 2 31 12 18

5-6

36 28 11 12 19 15
7-8 19 26 19 13 18

8

9-10

11 13 15 2 16 3
11-12 5 11 21 5 8

4

13-14

6 7 13 3 3 1
15-16 7 2 7 0 5

0

17-19

2 2 4 0 0 1
20-29 2 2 4 1 2

0

30-40 1 1 2 0 1

0

Totals

 

324 155 98 145 87

78

Medians

2 6 11 2 8

4

 

It is interesting to note that although the sum of the medians of the numbers of years elapsed between A.B. and M.A., plus M.A. to Orals, plus Orals to Ph.D. is only eight, the median for that relatively small number of students (less than one-third of the whole sample: Table 1.) who actually covered the whole course to the Ph.D. itself is 11 years. This is presumably due in largest part to the fact that relatively few students had the financial means to go straight through from A.B. to Ph.D. without interruption. Most of them had to take time out to earn more money.

Table 4, taken from a study by Professor Stigler, compares data for Harvard and Columbia.1 The Harvard students may or may not be brighter; but the substantially greater financial assistance given to students at Harvard must also help to account for the conspicuous differences in most years and fields.

 

  1. Average Number of Years Elapsed Between A.B. and Ph.D. at Columbia and Harvard, 1900-1940

1900

1910 1930

1940

Natural Sciences

Columbia

7.6 8.0 9.4 9.2
Harvard 6.8 8.3 6.2

6.1

Social Sciences

Columbia

4.3 9.8 10.3 12.9
Harvard 4.8 4.5 10.5

8.7

Human-ities

Columbia

4.7 9.3 13.9 14.3
Harvard [6.3] [9.2] [7.9]

[8.8]

All Fields

Columbia

6.3 9.2 10.8 11.7
Harvard 6.2 8.4 8.0

7.8

1George J. Stigler, Employment and Compensation in Education (National Bureau of Economic Research, 1950), p. 37.

[Note to Table 4: I have added the figures for the row Humanities/Harvard from Stigler (1950). In the original memo this row was for some reason left blank.]

 

Table 5 shows the percentage distribution of students, by the highest academic standing achieved and by half-decades, according to their 1950 occupations. The category “Other Economic Work” includes those engaged in economic research and economic advisory work with business firms, banks and foundations, and those who are self-employed in such work. It excludes those who are in business management or operation. The absolute numbers in each group were given in Table 1, above.

 

  1. Occupations in 1950, Grouped by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950 (In Per Cents)

 

Occupation, and Highest Academic
Standing Attained
Entire Period 1931-
50
1931-
35
1936-40 1941-
45

1946-50

M.A.
Teaching

29.1

27.8 23.1 23.1

31.7

Govern-ment

24.5

11.1 46.2 34.6

19.8

Other economic work

25.5

33.3 11.5 34.6

25.4

All other

20.9

27.8 19.2 7.7

23.1

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

Passed Orals
Teaching

53.3

0 36.4 50.0

62.5

Govern-ment

21.3

50.0 27.2 50.0

10.4

Other economic work

22.7

50.0 36.4 0

22.9

All other

2.7

0 0 0

4.2

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

Ph.D.
Teaching

59.4

58.8 47.8 63.3

63.9

Govern-ment

17.9

11.8 26.2 16.7

16.7

Other economic work

17.0

17.6 21.7 20.0

11.1

All other

5.7

11.8 4.3 0

8.3

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

Totals
Teaching

42.4

38.5 35.0 45.6

44.3

Govern-ment

22.0

15.4 35.0 29.4

17.1

Other economic work

22.6

28.2 20.0 22.1

22.4

All other

13.0

17.9 10.0 2.9

16.2

100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

 

Finally, Table 6 shows the average sizes and distribution of salaries, by occupation and by highest academic standing attained, on the same general basis as Table 5. But not all the replies received contained data on salaries, so that this sample is 12 per cent smaller than that used for Table 5 (331 replies instead of 377). The omissions are fairly uniform by major groups, however, and to avoid complicating the Table, the absolute numbers of relies in each group are not given. The few groups in which high average salaries were reported each contain, regrettably, only 1 to 4 cases; even the $10,300 group (Ph.D.’s, Other Economic Work, 1936-40) has only 5 members. It should also be emphasized that the data cover salaries only, not total earnings. Royalties, lecture fees and the like are not included. Thirty-one, or 9.4 per cent of the total, reported salaries of $10,000 or more.

All figures are arithmetic averages for the relevant groups. Thus the first column shows the averages for the entire period, 1931-1950, not the averages of the sub-period averages. Since the lowest-paid group (1946-50) is also much the largest (Table 1), the averages for the period 1931-50 as a whole are in one sense heavily biased downward. For example, for the period as a whole the average salary as computed by averaging the sub-period figures is $6,579, not $5,714.

 

  1. Average Salaries in 1950, Grouped by occupations and by Half-Decades When Highest Academic Standing Was Attained: 1931-1950
 

Highest Academic
Standing Attained

Entire Period 1931-50

1931-
35
1936-
40
1941-
45

1946-
50

M.A.: aver-ages

$4,772

$6,709 $6,830 $5,534

$3,988

Teaching

3,891

5,294 5,525 3,980

3,503

Govern-ment

5,436

8,113 6,867 5,881

4,110

Other economic work

5,123

7,890 11,150 5,371

4,240

All other

4,660

4,625 4,900 12,000

3,935

Passed Orals: aver-ages  

5,862

 

11,375 7,055 6,738

4,709

Teaching

4,066

5,438 4,737

3,783

Govern-ment

6,993

7,250 6,450 8,340

5,760

Other economic work

7,887

15,500 8,975

5,711

All other

16,000

16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages  

7,175

8,593 7,719 6,691

6,622

Teaching

5,964

7,700 6,009 6,077

5,017

Govern-ment

8,936

8,350 8,900 9,360

8,808

Other economic work

9,494

17,250 10,300 6,480

11,167

All other

10,900

10,900

Totals: aver-ages  

5,714

 

8,089 7,240 6,306 4,679
Teaching

4,806

7,023 5,786 5,531

3,979

Govern-ment

6,523

7,904 7,358 7,628

5,331

Other economic work

6,592

10,495 9,973 5,833

5,031

All other

5,963

6,166 4,900 12,000

5,747

 

Table 6 makes no differentiation between men and women. Of the 377 replies received, 73 (19 per cent) were from women. Of these women, 49 were regularly employed in 1950 and reported their salaries. Of the remaining 24, most were apparently married (though information on marital status was not requested), and either not working for a salary or only working part-time.

Table 7 therefore shows the break-down for average salaries as between the 282 reporting men and the 49 reporting women who were regularly employed in 1950. There is no category for “unemployed;” no respondent, with one possible exception, reported difficulty in finding employment.

It is striking that although the average salaries for women usually run well below those for men in comparable brackets, the difference for teachers in the various categories is relatively small.1 The table also does not indicate the wide dispersions for the several groups of women. In 1950 2 women Ph.D.’s were earning $10,000 or more.

1No significance should be attached to the fact that the average salary for all women in teaching slightly exceeds the salary shown for men. These figures are not comparable because a much higher percentage of women teachers who reported were in the Ph.D. category than of men teachers.

For the group as a whole, 28 men and 3 women were earning $10,000 or more in 1950.

 

  1. Average Salaries in 1950 (Table 6), Grouped by Sex: for Entire Period, 1931-1950
 

 

Men

Women

All Graduates

 

Num-ber

Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

Aver-age Salar-ies

M.A.: aver-ages

134

$4,843 30 $4,455 164

$4,772

Teaching 43 3,923 7 3,695 50 3,891
Govern-ment 34 5,758 12 4,524 46 5,436
Other economic work 37 5,129 8 5,125 45 5,123
All other 20 4,734 3 4,173 23 4,660

Passed Orals: aver-ages

62 5,939 6 5,066 68

5,862

Teaching 37 4,066 37 4,066
Govern-ment 10 7,480 4 5,775 14 6,993
Other economic work 13 8,538 2 3,650 15 7,887
All other 2 16,000 2 16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages

86 7,368 13 5,892 99

7,175

Teaching 53 6,033 10 5,600 63 5,964
Govern-ment 18 8,936 18 8,936
Other economic work 13 10,100 3 6,666 16 9,494
All other 2 10,900 2 10,900

Totals: aver-ages

282

5,854 49 4,912 331

5,714

Teaching 133 4,803 17 4,816 150 4,805
Govern-ment 62 6,959 16 4,837 78 6,523
Other economic work 63 6,858 13 6,300 76 6,592
All other 24 6,186 3 4,173 27 5,963

 

Source: Robert M. Haig Papers, Columbia University Archives. Box 107, Folder: “Haig Correspondence A, 1949-1952”.

Image Source:Unveiling Alma Mater by Roberto Ferrari (July 15, 2014).