Tag: Chaddock

Columbia. Reform of the PhD dissertation printing requirement, 1936-1940

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-04-29

The following extracts from the minutes of Columbia’s Faculty of Political Science (an amalgam of the Departments of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science) provide milestones along the tortuous bureaucratic road taken to implement a fairly modest reform in the publication-of-the-dissertation requirement for the Ph.D. at Columbia University back in the 1930s. The reform initiated sometime in early 1936 only saw the light of day first with the printed Faculty announcement published at mid-year 1940.

See: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-1941 published in Columbia University Bulletin of Information, 40^th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 14.

______________________

April 17, 1936

Professor [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics] presented for consideration a Memorandum on the Printing Requirement for Ph.D. Dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science, signed by Professors [Robert Morrison] MacIver [Political Philosophy and Sociology], [Robert Livingston] Schuyler [History], [Robert Emmet] Chaddock [Statistics], [Carter] Goodrich [Economics], and [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics], a copy of which is attached to these minutes. He also presented, and moved the adoption of a resolution providing for a modification of the present printing requirement. After amendments, offered by Professors [Samuel McCune] Lindsay [Social Legislation] and [John Maurice] Clark [Economics], had been accepted, the resolution read as follows:

WHEREAS, the Faculty of Political Science believes that the University printing requirement for dissertations imposes a heavy financial burden on candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty; that the printing requirement as it actually works does not impose equivalent burdens on the candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in certain other parts of the University; that the printing requirement operates as a severe property qualification impeding the access of otherwise competent students to receipt of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, and that the printing requirement on occasion impels first-class graduate students, who apart from financial considerations would prefer to do their work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Columbia, to go elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, in 1932 the Committee on Publications of this Faculty made a Report to the Faculty, and recommended a reconsideration of the printing requirement with a view to its relaxation; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction, after considering this Report, went on record as it that time favoring retention of the printing requirement, and in the absence of any definite proposal by the Faculty of Political Science did not recommend any change; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science now records itself as desiring a modification of the printing requirement with respect to dissertations offered under the Faculty of Political Science, so that the requirement may be met in any one of three ways, at the option of the candidate, subject to the approval of the committee examining the dissertation, as follows:

(1) By publication of the original approved dissertation in full through a recognized publisher, or otherwise in a form approved by the Dean of the Faculty; or,

(2) By publication of an article, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a professional journal, or otherwise acceptable to the examining Committee; or,

(3) By publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a series of abstracts of dissertations to be published at intervals as volumes in the Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law. The abstracts should ordinarily not exceed 15 pages in length. The candidate will defray his pro rata share of the cost of publication.

Under the second and third alternatives, the candidate shall submit five copies of the proposed article or abstract at least three weeks in advance of the final examination in defense of the dissertation itself. Under such alterative, the requirements for the deposit of copies of the approved printed document and for its distribution to the members of the Faculty are those stated in the Graduate Announcement. In addition, if the dissertation is printed in abridged or abstracted form provision shall be made for preserving at least two legible copies of the original dissertation.

RESOLVED, further, that the foregoing Resolution be transmitted to the University Council, with the request that the Council take action permitting the Faculty of Political Science to realize its desire as above stated.

RESOLVED, further, that the attention of the University Council be also invited to the appended Memorandum on the Printing Requirement, prepared informally by certain members of the Faculty.

After a general discussion, in which fourteen members of the Faculty participated, Professor [Lindsay] Rogers [Public Law] moved that the following resolution be substituted for the resolution under consideration:

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science transit the pending resolution and the accompanying Memorandum prepared by certain or its members, to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction and request that the Joint Committee inquire into the results of the publication requirement at Columbia University and the results of differing requirements at other universities and make the findings of such inquiry available to the Faculty of Political Science for the farther consideration of the publication requirement at the Faculty’s regular meeting in the autumn.

The Faculty being evenly divided, President [Nicholas Murray] Butler cast the deciding vote in favor of the resolution presented by Professor Rogers and it was adopted.

[…]

Appendix to Minutes

To the members of the faculty of Political Science:

We enclose herewith a memorandum on the printing requirement for Ph.D. dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science. It contains proposals which will be advanced formally at the meeting of the Faculty on April 17th next. By signing the memorandum we desire to indicate our belief that the questions raised and the proposals made deserve to be brought before the attention of the whole Faculty, but do not express our concurrence on all points.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. L. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[April 17, 1936]

The question of prolonging or abolishing the present temporary arrangement, under which Ph.D. dissertations may be offered for examination in typescript, must be passed on by the Faculty of Political Science at its meeting on April 17th. This provides on appropriate occasion for examining the whole question of the printing requirement in the Faculty.

At the present time, the situation is broadly this. The Faculty will accept dissertations in typescript for the purposes of the defense examination, and if the defense is successful a certification is given the candidate, announcing that he has met all the requirements for the Ph.D. degree except that of actual publication of the dissertation.

The degree itself is not awarded, however, until the candidate has secured actual publication — “publication” having recently been defined to include in effect some, though not all, of the non-printing forms of reproduction, such as photostating, and provided that certain conditions are met.

Columbia University and the Catholic University of America are apparently the only two large institutions of higher learning which have retained in full the printing requirement, which was once wide-spread in this country. By enforcing the requirement, Columbia imposes on itself a prime facie impairment of its power to attract first-class graduate students who will become candidates for the Ph.D. degree, and who are free to choose between the several leading institutions. No University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. If retention of the printing requirement is to be justified, it must be shown to yield benefits which offset this disadvantage.

In addition, the requirement works unevenly as between different, sections of the University. In the Faculty of Political Science, as in that of Philosophy, the requirement is extremely burdensome in financial terms to the average Ph.D. candidate. For that large proportion of candidates whose means are limited, its fulfillment imposes genuine hardship. In the Faculty of Political Science the typical dissertation is essentially literary in character, runs to at least 250 to 300 printed pages in length, and even after allowance for royalties usually costs the candidate $600 to $800 to publish — often much more. The fact that perhaps a quarter of the dissertations are published in the Studies at a saving to the candidate of 20% of the price charged by the University Press, does not greatly alter the situation, nor does it operate to lighten the average financial burden very much. For many students, the sum involved is equivalent to their total living expenses for 6 to 8 months or more: the burden is real. In the Faculty of Pure Science and in the Medical School, on the other band, the typical dissertation is not more than 20 or 25 pages in length (often less than 10), and is published in one of the technical or professional journals at no cost at all to the candidate. Moreover, though this is not relevant for present purposes, the Pure Science dissertation is commonly a joint product of the candidate and the supervising Faculty member, and is published under both signatures.

In defense of the retention of the printing requirement by the faculty of Political Science, the most common contention is that its abolition would lead to a disastrous lowering of our standards for the Ph.D. degree. This contention, of course, cannot be tested directly except from future experience. It is significant, however, that apparently none of the other leading American universities which had abolished the printing requirement has restored it. Moreover, it seems highly improbable that the existence of the printing requirement and the maintenance of high standards are related to one another as cause is related to effect. It could not be contended seriously that merely enforcing a printing requirement would enable a faculty of inadequate scholarly competence to maintain high standards, nor that the existence of a printing requirement would ensure, in such circumstances, the production of distinguished dissertations. Equally it cannot be contended that the modification or withdrawal of the printing requirement will alone cause a faculty of high scholarly competence to deteriorate its standards, nor that modification or withdrawal will alone lead to the production of low-grade dissertations under such a faculty. Indeed, to assert that such results would ensue is to imply that the members of such a faulty maintain high standards only from fear of being “found out”, should they lower their standards, through the publication of discreditable Ph.D. dissertations.

It is also contended that publication is an advantage to the candidate, in that it brings his name and work to the attention of other scholars and also helps him to get a better position. This is undoubtedly true to many cases. But the same or better general results can be obtained in a different way, to be suggested in a moment, which entails relatively little cost to the candidate. As things now stand, most candidates apparently feel that they would gladly forego the not always unequivocal advantages of this type of advertising, in order to void the expense and sacrifice now imposed upon them.

Finally, it is contended that the typescript dissertations found in the libraries of other Universities are in general less finished and sometimes less scholarly products then those which have undergone publication; and that they are less accessible to the generality of scholars. This last is of course true. The contention would have granter force as an argument in favor of retaining the publication requirement, however, if there were any way of shifting the bulk of the financial burden of publication to those other scholars who would allegedly be such large beneficiaries from the act of publication itself. It would also here greater force If any substantial number of other universities had indicated, by retaining the requirement, that they felt the cogency of these considerations. In actuality, and from their very nature, many and perhaps most Ph.D. dissertations in Political Science are not of sufficiently broad interest to merit publication as books. Some suggestions for publishing their essential contents, however, will be outlined presently. It is believed that adoption of these suggestions will give the authors and their work rather wider publicity than is now obtained, in the average case, and will do so without impairing the dissemination of scholarly knowledge.

The principal positive arguments against the retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science have already been indicated, directly or by implication. They are two in number. One turns on the financial costs and other burdens placed on the candidate. The great bulk of our students are not well-to-do. In the majority of cases, financing the publication of the dissertation exacts a genuine and often a disproportionately large sacrifice from the candidate or his family. It is not easy to see that the candidate of the University receives a return commensurate with this sacrifice. However, as the present system works out in practice it frequently means that the actual receipt of the Ph.D. degree itself is delayed by one or more years after the completion of the work, while the candidate is accumulating enough money to pay for publication. To the extent that this happens, as it seems to in what is not far from a majority of the cases, one of the alleged advantages of the publication requirement — that it helps the candidate secure a better position — may turn into a positive disadvantage, because of the delay involved. The present practice of examining on typescript has helped this situation somewhat, but apparently not as greatly as had been hoped; and of course, it still leaves the candidate with a serious financial burden to carry into future years, before he can obtain the actual Ph.D. degree. The fact that so large a proportion of our candidates now elect to be examined on typescript is surely not wholly unrelated to the matter of their financial ability or inability, at the time of the examination, to defray the cost of printing.

There is also some evidence that the existence of the printing requirement influences candidates to select topics for the Ph.D. dissertation with a view to the probable popularity of the topics, rather than with a view to their scholarly merit and interest alone, in order to lighten the burden of the printing costs.

The second argument against retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science turns on the best interests of the University itself. What we are really doing is to enforce a fairly severe property qualification for the Ph.D. degree, and one which is in effect inoperative in certain parts of the University. It is a property qualification imposed by only one other large University. There is much evidence to indicate that — as seems natural enough — this property qualification drives elsewhere many first-class students who would prefer, except for financial considerations, to come to Columbia for their Ph.D. work in the Political Science field. To repent what was said before, no University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. A property qualification is surely the wrong basis on which to select our Ph.D. candidates.

In connection with the earlier discussion of standards, it should also be pointed out that such a modification of the printing requirement as would eliminate its more serious disadvantages to the student would presumably contribute to the actual raising of the general standards of scholarship and performance prevailing, rather than to their deterioration. This would happen to the extent that the modification increased the number of high-calibre through impecunious students who come to us for their training.

Both the material evidence available and the logical argument against retention of the present form of publication requirement in the Faculty of Political Science are thus extremely strong. We therefore make two suggestions:

(1) At the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science on April 17th, action should be taken looking to the immediate modification of the printing requirement, in its present form, for Ph.D. dissertations under the Faculty. At the same time, however, in the interests of the Ph.D. candidates, of other scholars elsewhere, and of the University as a whole, it seems desirable to retain something of the advantages of the present requirement. Outright abolition of the requirement is therefore not proposed. It is suggested that it be modified as follows:

(2) Action should be taken by the Faculty to provide that, the printing requirement, subject to confirmation by the University Council, may be met in any one of three ways: namely either by,

(a) Publication of the complete dissertation under the present regulations; or, by,

(b) Publication of an article, presenting the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in one of the recognized professional journals; or by,

(c) Publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting briefly the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in a new annual or semi-annual volume of Abstracts to be published as a regular part of or supplement to the present Studies; the costs of publication and distribution of the volume to be paid by the candidates pro rata. The abstracts would not exceed perhaps 15 pages each, and the average cost to the individual candidate would probably be under $50. The numerical majority of the dissertations would presumably be handled through these new Abstracts.

In each of the three options, the present requirement for the deposit of 75 copies — whether of book, article or abstract — would be retained; and in the last two cases deposit of two copies of the original dissertation would also be required. Dissertations would be defended on typescript, unless the candidate himself preferred to defend on galleys.

These alternatives leave candidates who have the funds, or who can secure commercial publication without a subsidy, free to publish as heretofore. The alternatives take the present severe burden off those candidates who have not sufficient funds, however; and at the same time retain for them most of the advantages, from getting their names and work more widely known, which they obtain under the present arrangements. Indeed, it seems probable that the publicity they thus receive, and the accessibility of the main content of their work to other scholars, will be substantially greater under the proposed arrangements than under those now prevailing. The average sale of the present full-length dissertation hardly exceeds 250 to 300 copies; the circulation of the better-known professional journals runs to several thousand.

In order to make it easier to secure publication in full of most of the best dissertations, without placing an undue burden on the candidates, we also suggest that the present Studies be made substantially more selective in character than they now are, with a diminution in the number of volumes issued per year and with a higher average standard of quality required for acceptance. To illustrate, we suggest that not more than one or two full-length dissertations a year should be published in the Studies from each Department, apart from the proposed new volumes of Abstracts. We believe that the resulting increase in the average quality of the Studies, by increasing the average sales per volume would enable the Studies to carry a much larger proportion of the costs of publication then at present, perhaps 50% or more. We also believe that the improvement in quality and the decrease in number of issues per year would raise the general standing of the Studies to a basis of comparability with the similar series published by various other leading Universities. Probably the most nearly ideal arrangement would be one under which the publication of a dissertation in the studies would be in the nature of a prize award, entailing no cost at all to the successful candidate. Since financial limitations make this impossible at present, we suggest the arrangement just outlined.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. E. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 759-775.

December 11, 1936

For the information of the Faculty the following memorandum was presented, concerning the action of the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction on the subject of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. At its April, 1936, meeting the Faculty of Political Science adopted a resolution transmitting to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction a memorandum by certain members of the Faculty urging modification of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. On May 19, following, the Joint Committee appointed a sub-committee to study and report on the subject.

The sub-committee submitted its report, accompanied by a digest of information, to the Joint Committee at its meeting on November 9, and on November 16, 1936, the Joint Committee adopted the sub-committee report and its opinions as follows:

“For the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction:

Your sub-committee empowered to consider the question of the printing of doctoral dissertations, composed of the undersigned as chairman and of Professors Angell, Gray, Patterson, Pegram, and Rogers, has duly elicited the information as to the practice in this matter in the leading American universities as well as the pertinent sentiment of three hundred and twenty-one of our own recipients of the doctoral degree in the decade from 1924 to 1933 inclusive. A digest of the information as elicited is now available for the members of the Joint Committee.

After full consideration of this digest and of all other aspects of the question, your sub-committee would submit the following opinions:

That the present requirement of printing should be maintained. Our vote on this recommendation stands four to two, Professors Angell and Patterson dissenting.
That we regret the hardship which the printing of the dissertation now entails on certain of the recipients of the degree.
That it is advisable to make due effort to relieve this hardship as much as possible by any reduction that may be feasible in the cost of printing, and in particular by the establishment, if possible, of a subsidy from University funds to aid in the cost of printing; and that the Joint Committee, or its chairman, should make due inquiry into this possibility.

The second and third opinions were unanimous.”

While opinion in the Joint Committee was not unanimous on point (1) of the adopted report, discussion on certain amendments that were offered and not carried led the Committee to agree as to the substance of two points of the rejected amendment. A sub-committee consisting of Professors Pegram, MacIver, Rogers, and Wright was appointed to rephrase these two points for communication to the Faculties, which they have done as follows:

“(a) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting date which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.

(b) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that the Dean has authority under the present regulations to accept dissertations printed in part or in whole by photo offset process or other manifolding process when there are special reasons, arising out of the nature of the dissertation (tabular and statistical matter, reproductions of texts, etc.), making such offset process appropriate.”

For the information of members of the Faculty of Political Science, it is to be noted that the problem of printing dissertations under the Faculty of Pure Science is rarely a serious one to students. Dissertations are short as compared to those in the other Faculties and are usually published in the professional Journals. In the Faculty of Philosophy the cost of printing dissertations is serious. That Faculty, at its November meeting, unanimously voted to place on record its opinion in favor of the three numbered paragraphs of the sub-committee report adopted by the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee will proceed further with inquiry into means of reducing the cost of printing dissertations and into the possibility of securing funds for aiding publication.

Respectfully submitted,
George B. Pegram,
Chairman
Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction

In connection with the proposal of the Joint Committee that an effort be made to establish a subsidy from University funds to aid graduate students in the printing of doctoral dissertations, the President pointed out some of the administrative problems involved in providing for the judicious and far allotment of such aid. He stated, however, that if a satisfactory administrative method could be devised, a revolving fund of $25,000 or $30,000 would go far toward lightening the financial burden which the present printing requirement imposes on certain candidates for the doctoral degree.

The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction presented a memorandum (a copy of which is appended to these Minutes) reminding the Faculty that at its meeting in April, 1986, it had neglected to provide for the dissertation examination on typescript beyond June 30, 1936, but that the privilege had been extended to candidates under the Faculty with the consent of the Dean’s office. After discussion of the memorandum Professor [Vladimir Gregorievitch] Simkhovitch [Economic History] moved that the motion concerning examination on typescript, which lapsed on June 30, 1938, be re-enacted and remain in effect for a term of one year. The motion was adopted, after Professor [Philip Caryl] Jessup’s [International Law] amendment substituting “until revoked by the Faculty” for the words “for a term of one year”, had been accepted. As re-enacted, the resolution then read:

“RESOLVED; that candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science, upon recommendation of the Department concerned, may be granted the privilege of examination on dissertations presented in typescript — five or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that the dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee require extensive revision shall be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision.”

Discussion of the resolution emphasized the fact that permission to be examined on typescript is granted only on recommendation by the department. It would appear, therefore, that a department may refuse to make any recommendation, require its candidates to stand examinations on galley proofs, or it may recommend in some cases and refuse to recommend in other cases.

[…]

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

At the meeting of the faculty of Political Science on December 9, 1932, Professor Schuyler, as chairman of the Committee on Publications, raised the question of substituting for the then requirement that the examination must be on galley proof, a requirement that dissertations must be presented in typescript. After discussion the Faculty amended Professor Schuyler’s proposal. The resolution as passed provided that for the remainder of the academic year, 1932-33, candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science could be granted, upon the recommendation of the department concerned, the privilege of examination upon typescript four or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee required extensive revision should not be accepted subject to such revision, but should be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision. (Minutes, p. 699)

At its April meetings in 1933, 1934, and 1935 the Faculty continued the provisions of this resolution in affect for the ensuing academic years.

At the November 1935 meeting of the Faculty the Dean called attention to the fact that the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction had discussed the desirability or requiring five typescript copies of dissertations. the Faculty thereupon amended its regulations to require five instead of four copies.

At the April 1936 meeting the Faculty discussed the modification of printing requirement for dissertations. By inadvertence the Faculty neglected to provide for the examination on typescript alternative. with the consent of the Dean’s office, however, candidates under the Faculty of Political Science have been permitted to present their dissertations in typescript even though technically this privilege lapsed as of June 30, 1936.

Earlier this month a question rose in respect of the period which shall elapse between the presentation of the typescript copies and the date of the final examination. Under the terms of the resolution adopted by the Faculty of Political Science the period was three weeks. Under the printed terms of the regulations of the Faculties of Philosophy and of Pure Science the period is three weeks. As a matter of fact, this regulation is not enforced. Two weeks is deemed a sufficient period.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 783-790.

April 21, 1939

The Chairman of the Committee on Publications further reported that, on the initiative of the Managing Editor of the Studies, the Committee had given consideration to the problem of reducing the financial burden upon doctoral candidates who publish their dissertations in the Studies. In consequence of this discussion, upon the recommendation of the Managing Editor, and in accordance with a unanimous resolution of his Committee, he offered the following resolution which was unanimously passed;

Be it RESOLVED; That in order to afford to doctoral candidates an alternative method of publishing dissertations in the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law at a lower cost than is possible under the existing requirements, these requirements be so modified as to permit, after October 1, 1939, at the option of the candidate,
1. the use of paper binding
2. the use of a double-column format, and of type smaller than that now employed, and
3. the relegation of footnotes to the end of each chapter.
Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to advance the sum of fifty dollars to each student publishing his dissertation in the Studies, said sum to be a first claim against the author’s royalties. In the event that said author’s royalties do not total fifty dollars within three years after the publication of the dissertation, the full receipts thereafter accruing to such volume shall be paid over to the University until such a time as the University is fully reimbursed for its advance.
Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to authorize the Library to pay to each doctoral candidate who had published his dissertation in the Studies, the sum of fifty dollars, upon his depositing with the Library one hundred copies of the said dissertation.

[…]

The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction reported that since receipt of the report of the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (of which Professor Woodbridge was Chairman) the Committee on Instruction had given further consideration to the printing requirements. He submitted the following motions which were passed:

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty favored such modification of the present requirement for the printing of the doctoral dissertation as would allow candidates certain options, as follows:
1. The dissertation may be printed from type and published in book form.
2. The dissertation may be published as an article or series of articles in a scholarly journal.
3. The dissertation may be reproduced by an offset process approved by the Dean of the Graduate Faculties.
BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the sense of the Faculty that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting data which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.
BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty, realizing that in the past insufficient attention has sometimes been paid to a student’s choice of subject, resulting in the necessity of the preparation of a manuscript of unreasonable length, calls attention to the need for considering the scope of the task when a topic for a dissertation receives its preliminary approval.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the next available edition of the Bulletin of the Faculty include the first resolution on this subject stated abo e, setting forth the three options, and that in the Bulletin this be followed by a paragraph substantially as follows:

The departmental approval mentioned above relates to both the content of the dissertation and to the form in which it is printed. Students are therefore advised to consult their departmental representatives before exercising the option.

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty authorize its Committee on Instruction to prepare a special leaflet for the benefit of candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, the leaflet to contain a full explanation of all the regulations on this subject.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 21, 1939) pp. 842-3, 845-846.

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

Tags AngellJW, Chaddock, ClarkJM, Goodrich, Simkhovitch

Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market Economists

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

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-12-23

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.

Do you yourself expect to be in residence the summer quarter of 1927?
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?
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.
What courses or subject matter should we be certain to include in the summer of 1927?
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.
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.
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—

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

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.
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.
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.

It is my present intention not to be in residence during the summer quarter, 1927, although I will be in the city, I suppose.
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

Yes, I feel that I must teach next summer unless that plan you have been interested in goes through.
342 [The State in Relation to Labor] and 440 [Research].
342 at 8; 440 hour to be arranged.
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.

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.

Tags Agger, Angell, Barnett, Beckhart, BlackJD, Bonbright, Boucke, Chaddock, ClarkJM, Clay, Commons, Copeland, CoxGV, Crum, CW Wright, Davenport, Day, Douglas, Durand, Edie, Elkington, Field, Gras, Handman, Hansen, Hobson, Hollander, Kester, Knight, KnightMM, LutzHL, Lyon, Macaulay, MarshallLC, Millis, MillsFC, Mints, Mudgett, Nourse, Palyi, Paton, PattersonEM, PerlmanS, Phillips, PhillipsCA, Riegel, Rist, RobertsonDH, RogersJH, RussellFA, Schultz, Seligman, ShultzWJ, Slichter, Sombart, Spencer, Sprague, Trumbower, Usher, Vanderblue, Viner, Wolfe, WorkingH, Young

Columbia Economists Pennsylvania Statistics

Columbia. Statistics PhD alumnus. Robert E. Chaddock, 1908

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2020-04-03

The post provides another life/career overview of a Ph.D. alum. Today’s Ph.D. went on to become professor of sociology and statistics at Columbia University, Robert Emmet Chaddock.

__________________________

Previous posts at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror
with Chaddock content…

Request for funding for his statistical laboratory in 1911 (with a newspaper account of his 1940 suicide).

E.R.A. Seligman’s recommendation for Chaddock’s promotion to Associate Professor in 1912.

__________________________

Chaddock obituaries by…

Frederick E. Croxton in Journal of the American Statistical Association 36:213 (March, 1941), pp. 116-119.

William F. Ogburn in American Journal of Sociology 46:4 (January, 1941), p. 595.

__________________________

Robert E. Chaddock (1879-1940)

1879 born April 16, in Minerva, Ohio

1900 A.B. Wooster College

1900-05. Taught at Wooster College

1906 M.A., Columbia University

1906-08. University Fellow in Sociology, Columbia University

1908 Worked with the boy’s club of the Union Settlement (New York City)

1907-09. Instructor, Columbia University

1908 Ph.D. Columbia University.

1909-11. Assistant Professor of Economics and Statistics. Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

1911-12. Assistant Professor of Statistics, Columbia University

1912-22. Associate Professor of Statistics, Columbia University

1917-24. Secretary-Treasurer of the American Statistical Association

1925 Publication of Principles and Methods of Statistics.

1922-40. Professor of Sociology and Statistics.

1925 President of the American Statistical Association

1925-1940. Member of the Joint Advisory Committee to the Director of the Census.

1928 Represented the Social Science Research Council as delegate to the International Conference on Population in Paris (July).

1929 LL.D. awarded by Wooster College

1933-36. Member of the Committee on Government Statistics and Informational Services (jointly established by the American Statistical Association and the Social Science Research Council)

1937 Chairman of the Joint Advisory Committee to the Director of the Census

1940 October 21. Death by suicide.

Other memberships

Member of the American Committee of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population Problems.

Chairman of the Research Committee, member of the Executive Committee of the Research Bureau of the Welfare Council of New York City.

Consultant statistician of the Commonwealth Fund

Member of the Advisory Council of the Milbank memorial Fund.

Member and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Research in Medical Economics. Member of the editorial board of the quarterly journal Medical Care.

Fellow of the American Public Health Association

Member of the International Statistical Institute

Member of the American Sociological Society

Member of the Century Club (New York)

Phi Beta Kappa.

__________________________

Political Science Faculty Memorial Minute
Columbia University

Dec. 13, 1940

Robert Emmet Chaddock

Professor Robert Emmet Chaddock served his University for over thirty years. Born at Minerva, Ohio, 1879, he took his A.B. at Wooster College in 1900. From the time he first came to Columbia as a graduate student in 1905, his association with the University was broken only for two years, during which he was Assistant Professor of Economics and Statistics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. At Columbia he was in turn University Fellow in Sociology, Instructor in Economics, Assistant Professor of Statistics, Associate Professor, and from 1922 until his death Professor of Sociology and Statistics. In these various capacities he fulfilled his duties with unsparing devotion, giving attention to his students, whole-heartedly cooperating with his colleagues, freely participating in various organizations for the advancement of public welfare, and contributing always to the improvement of statistical application to social problems, especially those connected with population and public health. He was the author of numerous articles and reports on these and other subjects, and his work on Principles and Methods of Statistics has given guidance to a large number of students throughout the country. His recognition as a leader in this field was shown by the many calls made upon his services, from the Bureau of the Census, the Milbank Foundation, the Welfare Council of New York City, the Cities Census Committee, and the International Statistical Institute, and other bodies. To these calls Professor Chaddock never failed to respond. He won the regard of all who knew him. His death removes a man who gave himself without limit and without afterthought, to his University, to his family, to the community. His colleagues tender their respectful sympathy to those who intimately mourn for him, his wife and daughter.

Robert M. MacIver
Carlton J. H. Hayes
Roswell C. McCrea

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1940-1949, p. 881.

Image Source: Robert Emmet Chaddock from Barnard College, Mortarboard, 1919.

Tags Chaddock

Columbia Economists NBER

Columbia Alumnus Arthur F. Burns applies to NBER for Research Associateship, 1930

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-08-20

Arthur F. Burns was twenty-five years old when he submitted the following application for a Research Associate position that provided 11 months funding at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Results from this project would be ultimately incorporated into Burns’ doctoral dissertation published as the NBER monograph Production Trends in the United States Since 1870 (1934).

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns’ late NBER application forwarded to Edwin Gay

National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

February 25, 1930

Dr. Edwin F. Gay
117 Widener Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Dr. Gay:

The attached application of Mr. Arthur Frank Burns has just been received. Athough the time limit has passed, you might wish to consider it, and I am therefore forwarding it to you.

Yours very truly,
[signed] G. R. Stahl
Executive Secretary

GRS:RD

[handwritten note]
[Frederick C.] Mills knows something about this man and regards him favorably.

_____________________

NBER Research Associate Application of Arthur F. Burns
(February, 1930)

National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

51 Madison Avenue
New York

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES’ APPLICATION FORM

Applications and accompanying documents should be sent by registered mail and must reach Directors of Research not later than February 1, 1930. Six typewritten copies (legible carbons) should accompany each formal application.

Candidates should have familiarized themselves with the main objects and work of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Candidates are expected to be in good health, free from physical or nervous troubles, and able to complete their work in New York without predictable interruption.

Research Associates will not accept other remunerative employment while connected with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Candidates’ names should be written plainly on each manuscript.

Title of Project

A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production

Name of Candidate

Arthur Frank Burns

Date of Application

February 21, 1930

THE CANDIDATE

PERSONAL HISTORY:

Name in full: Arthur Frank Burns
Home address: 34 Bethune St., New York City
Present occupation: University teaching
Place of birth: Stanislawow, Poland
Date of birth: April 27, 1904
If not a native-born citizen, date and place of naturalization: About 1920; Bayonne, New Jersey
Single, married: Married
Name and address of wife or husband: Helen, 34 Bethune Street
Name and address of nearest kin if unmarried: [blank]
Number, relationship, and ages of dependents: [blank]

Name the colleges and universities you have attended; length of residence in each; also major and minor studies pursued.

Columbia College, Sept. 1921-Feb. 1925. Majors—Economics, German. Minors—English, History
Columbia University, Feb. 1925-June 1927. Major—Economics. Minor—Statistics.

List the degrees you have received with the years in which they were conferred.

B.A.—Feb. 1925
M.A.—Oct. 1925

Give a list of scholarships or fellowships previously held or now held, stating in each case place and period of tenure, studies pursued and amount of stipend:

Columbia College Scholarship, 1921-1924. $250 per annum
Gilder Fellowship, Academic Year 1926-1927, Columbia University. Stipend $1200. Chief study pursued—Monetary Theory

What foreign languages are you able to use?

French and German

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Give a list of positions you have held—professional, teaching, scientific, administrative, business:

Name of Institution	Title of Position	Years of Tenure
Columbia University	Instructor in Extension	Feb. 1926-June 1927
Soc. Science Res. Co.	Report on Periodicals	Summer of 1927
Rutgers University	Instructor	1927 to date

Of what learned or scientific societies are you a member?

Phi Beta Kappa
American Statistical Society

Describe briefly the advanced work and research you have already done in this country or abroad, giving dates, subjects, and names of your principal teachers in these subjects:

Master’s essay on Employment Statistics, under Professors F.A. Ross and W.C. Mitchell, in 1925
Studies in the field of Business Cycles, under Professor W.C. Mitchell, 1926 to date
Studies in the field of Monetary Theory, under Professors Mitchell and Willis, 1926-1927
Work on Negro Migration, under Professor F.A. Ross, Summer of 1925
Work on Instalment Selling, under Professor E.R.A. Seligman, Summer of 1926
Report on Social Science Periodicals for the Social Science Research Council, under Professor F. Stuart Chapin, Summer of 1927.

Submit a list of your publications with exact titles, names of publishers and dates and places of publication:

See separate sheet on publications

THE PROJECT

PLANS FOR STUDY:

Submit a statement (six copies) giving detailed plans for the study you would pursue during your tenure of an Associateship. This statement should include:

(1) A description of the project including its character and scope, and the significance of its presumable contribution to knowledge. Describe how the inquiry is to be conducted, major expected sources of information, etc.
(2) The present state of the project, time of commencement, progress to date, and expectation as to completion.
(3) A proposed budget showing the amount of any assistance, whether of a statistical or clerical nature, or traveling expense that you would require to complete your project.

REFERENCES:

Submit a list of references

(1) from whom information may be obtained concerning your qualifications, and
(2) from whom expert opinion may be obtained as to the value and practicability of your proposed studies.

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns

THE PROJECT
A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production

Several years ago I embarked upon an inquiry into the broad problem “The Relationship between ‘Price’ and ‘Trade’ Fluctuations.” The study had two main purposes: (1) to provide a systematic description and analysis of one structural element of the “business cycle,” (2) to determine and appraise the empirical basis for the widely held view that “business stability” may be attained through the “stabilization of the price level.” But soon enough I found it difficult to adhere to the project that I had formulated. The task in the course of execution in the statistical laboratory loomed more formidable than in the “arm-chair” in which it found its inception. But another circumstance proved even more compelling in bring about a restriction of the area of the investigation: no sooner was a small segment of the plan that served as my procedural guide completed, but a host of new queries, not at all envisaged in the original plan, arose and pressed for an answer. Thus, impelled by considerations of a practical sort—working as I did single-handed, and by a growing curiosity, I subjected the project to successive reductions of scope. The present project, “A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production,” is the untouched, and perhaps an unrecognizable, remainder of the original inquiry. On this limited project I have been at work intermittently for about a year and a half.

The object of the present project is to study the “secular changes” in “general production” in the United States, and thereby throw light on one important constituent aspect of the trend of “economic welfare.” The establishment of a theory of secular change in general production calls, in the main, for the performance of two tasks. In the first place, the rate of growth of the physical volume of production and its variation have to be determined. In the second place, the empirical generalizations so arrived at have to be interpreted. The general plan of the investigation is built around these two problems; but to perform these tasks adequately, a host of subsidiary problems have to be met.

Some details of the organization of the project, as well as the point to which work on the project has been carried thus far, may best be indicated by setting forth the extent to which the tentative individual chapters have been completed. The first chapter treats of the contents of the concept “economic welfare,” and traces, analytically and historically, problems in the measurement thereof; this chapter is practically finished. The materials for the second chapter, which is devoted to the history of production indexes, have, for the greater part, already been collected; and a preliminary draft of the chapter has been completed. Much of the third chapter, which is concerned with an analysis of a conceptually ideal measure of the physical volume of production, and the special bearing of this analysis on long-time indexes of production, is written; this chapter is to be but an extension of the paper on “The Measurement of the Physical Volume of Production,” which was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1930. In the fourth chapter, an analysis of the available long-time indexes of production is made; this chapter covers a much more extensive area than the brief reference to it may lead one to suppose; and though several months of continuous work have already been devoted to it, considerable literary research and statistical routine remain. The fifth and six chapters will present the results of the computations on the rate of secular change in physical production; though much ground has been covered (over one hundred trends have already been determined), even more remains to be done. Of the next and final two chapters, in which an interpretation of the computed results is to be offered, very little has been put into written form; but a substantial body of literature has been abstracted; and a preliminary outline of some portions of the theory to be presented, now that many of the calculations are completed, has been worked out.

It will be apparent from this statement of the work already done on the project that it has reached a point where completion by the middle of 1931 may well be expected. In fact, the freedom to pursue the investigation unencumbered by academic duties may make possible a more intensive cultivation of the demarcated field than is presently contemplated; or, if it be deemed advisable, an extension of the investigation, now confined to the United States, to several other countries for which what appear to be reasonably satisfactory materials have of late become available.

Needless to say, the above statement of the project constitutes no more than a report on its present status. There probably will be modifications of some importance. One change, in fact, is now being seriously considered: the replacement of Chapters II and III by a brief section, to be worked into the introductory chapter, to the end that a nicer balance between the divisions on, what may be described as, “data and method” and “results” be achieved.

In continuing with this study there will be no travelling expenses to speak of. At the most, there will be a trip or two to Washington. It goes without saying that the study will proceed more rapidly if clerical assistance is had. Only a single statistical clerk would be needed, and a halftime clerk might suffice.

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns

References

Group I

Professor Robert E. Chaddock, Columbia University
Professor Wesley C. Mitchell, Columbia University
Professor H. Parker Willis, Columbia University
Professor Eugene E. Agger, Rutgers University
Professor Frank W. Taussig, Harvard University

Group II

Professor Wesley C. Mitchell, Columbia University
Professor Wilford I. King, New York University
Mr. Carl Snyder, New York Federal Reserve Bank
Dr. Edmund E. Day, Social Science Research Council
Dr. Simon Kuznets, National Bureau of Economic Research

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns

Publications

A Note on Comparative Costs, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1928

The Duration of Business Cycles, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1929

The Geometric Mean of Percentages, Journal of the American Statistical Association, September, 1929

The Ideology of Businessmen and Presidential Elections, Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly, September, 1929.

Thus Spake the Professor of Statistics, Social Science, November, 1929

The Quantity Theory and Price Stabilization, American Economic Review, December, 1929

The Relative Importance of Check and Cash Payments in the United States: 1919-1928, Journal of the American Statistical Association, December, 1929

The Measurement of the Physical Volume of Production, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1930

_____________________

Reference Letter: H. P. Willis

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Business

February 27, 1930.

Mr. G. R. Stahl,
Executive Secretary,
National Bureau of Economic Research,
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City.

My dear Mr. Stahl:

I have received your letter of February 26. Mr. Arthur F. Burns, whom you mention, was a student here some years ago, passed his doctorate examination with money and banking as one of his topics. I had general supervision of his work in money and banking and also came into contact with him individually now and then. I thought him a specially acute and capable student of the subject and it seemed to me that he had rather unusual research ability. He has been teaching, I believe, at Rutgers University for a couple of years past and during that time he has occasionally written articles in the scientific magazines and has sent me copies. I have read them with substantial interest and have thought that they showed steady growth in the grasp of the subject and in ability to present it.

I do not know exactly what kind of work you would be disposed to assign him in your bureau were you to appoint him, and hence it is difficult for me to give specific opinion of his “strong and weak points”, for strength and weakness are relative to the work to be done. I should suppose that in a statistical research relating to monetary and banking questions, and particularly to the price problem, Mr. Burns would be decidedly capable. I do not think of any elements of corresponding weakness that need to be emphasized, but perhaps you might find him less devoted to the necessary routine work that has to done in every statistical office, than you would to the planning of investigation and the initiation of inquiries in it. Put in another was this might be equivalent to saying that Mr. Burns is perhaps stronger in conception and planning than he is in execution and yet I do not know that he is in any way to be criticized for his power of execution. I simply mean that he does not seem to be as outstanding in that direction as he is in the other.

I, however, commend him unreservedly to you as a capable man in connection with price, banking and credit research.

Yours very truly,
[signed] H. P. Willis

HPW:S

_____________________

Reference Letter: Willford I. King

AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION

Secretary-Treasurer
Willford I. King
530 Commerce Building, New York Univ.
236 Wooster Street, New York City

February 27, 1930.

Mr. G. R. Stahl,
National Bureau of Economic Research,
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City.

Dear Mr. Stahl:

I have met Mr. Arthur F. Burns two or three times but do not know very much about his record. One thing, however, stands out strongly in his favor. He recently published in the AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW a very fine piece of work on the equation of exchange. This indicates to me that he is competent to do research work of high quality.

Cordially yours,
Willford I. King.

WIK:RW

_____________________

Reference Letter: F. W. Taussig

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts
February 28, 1930

Dear Mr. Stahl:

I have a high opinion of A. F. Burns. I have watched his published work, and some I have examined with care. As will be noted, he has an article in the current issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics which I consider first-rate. He is a keen critic, and handles figures well. He writes more than acceptably, and in my judgment gives promise of very good work in the future. You will have to go far to find a man clearly better.

Very truly yours,
[signed] F. W. Taussig

Mr. G. R. Stahl
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue
New York City

_____________________

Reference Letter: E. E. Agger

Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Department of Economics

March 5, 1930

Mr. G. R. Stahl,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City

Dear Mr. Stahl:

Replying to your letter of February 26^thI may say that I have known Mr. Arthur F. Burns ever since his undergraduate days. He was one of my honor students when I was at Columbia and when he finished his graduate work I brought him to Rutgers as an Instructor. I think that he will be promoted to an Assistant Professorship next year.

He has been a specialist in the field of Statistics and Economic Theory and would therefore, in my judgment, be ideally equipped for the post of Research Associate. He is meticulously careful and most painstaking. You are doubtless familiar with some of his writings during the past year or so. They have seemed to me excellent pieces of work. We shall sorely miss him should he ask for leave to accept possible appointment under you, but on the other hand, I believe that in the end it will add to his value to us, at the same time that you are getting the use of his services. In short, I recommend him without qualification.

Sincerely yours,
[Signed] E.E. Agger

EEA:H

_____________________

Reference Letter: Carl Snyder

COPY
Thirty Three Liberty Street
New York

March 5, 1930

Dear Mr. Stahl:

I have followed the work of Arthur F. Burns, of whom you wrote, with a great deal of interest. It seems to me careful, conscientious, well-planned work. He has the inquisitive mind, and that is the great thing. His ideas seem to me sound and his statistical methods well grounded.

The problem in which he is interested is one in which we have done a great deal of work here, and I know of nothing of greater importance. I wish very cordially to endorse the recommendation for his appointment as a Research Associate.

Please believe me, with very best regards,

Sincerely yours,
Carl Snyder

Gustav R. Stahl, Esq.,
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue, New York City

_____________________

Reference Letter: Simon Kuznets

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
51 Madison Avenue, New York

March 3, 1930

Committee on Selection,
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City

Gentlemen:

Arthur F. Burns who is applying for appointment as a Research Associate is my former classmate from Columbia University, and has always impressed me by his keen powers of observation and analysis. His work speaks for itself, for he has had opportunity to publish some of the by-products of his doctor’s thesis in the form of articles.

He has a thorough statistical training, both in theory and in technique, for he has studied statistics, taught it, and applied its principles. He is also thoroughly versed in economic theory, having studied it under Professors W. C. Mitchell and H. L. Moore.

On the whole, Mr. Burns is a candidate of high promise. He is still quite young in years, but is quite experienced in research work. He ought to prove equal to the opportunities which an appointment as a research associate will provide for him.

Yours respectfully
[signed] Simon Kuznets
[Research Staff member, NBER]

_____________________

Reference Letter: Robert E. Chaddock

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

March 3, 1930.

Mr. G. R. Stahl, Executive Secretary
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue, New York City

Dear Mr. Stahl,

I have expressed my opinion as to the qualifications of Cowden, Gayzer and Leong as candidates for Research Associate. Mr. Arthur F. Burns is superior to any of these in qualifications for research, in my opinion. All his inclinations and his critical attitude toward his own and the results of others point to research as his field. He has unusual technical preparation in Statistics and does not lose sight of the logical tests of his knowledge. He has been publishing articles constantly since entering upon his teaching at Rutgers University where he is successful as a teacher so far as I know. I would not rate him ahead of the candidates I have described before in matters of personality and personal contact, but I do regard him as a very superior candidate in respect to qualifications for research and scholarly productivity.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Robert E. Chaddock

REC:CT

_____________________

Letter: Edwin F. Gay to Arthur F. Burns

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
51 Madison Avenue, New York

June 25, 1930

Mr. A. F. Burns
34 Bethune Street
New York City

My dear Mr. Burns:

At a recent meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Bureau it was decided that since all the members of the regular staff are not available until the end of September, the Research Associates should be asked to report here on October 1, 1930, instead of September 15. You may, of course, come earlier but full provision for your work cannot conveniently be made before the date indicated. The stipends of the Research Associates are to run from October 1, and also the salaries of such statistical assistants as are designated for the service of the Research Associates.

Upon your arrival you are to report to Dr. Frederick C. Mills, who will have direct responsibility as your adviser. You will be free, of course, to consult with any of the members of the staff.

In regard to arrangements for statistical and other assistance, you will consult with Mr. Pierce Williams, the Executive Director.

It gives me great pleasure, in behalf of the directors and staff of the National Bureau, to welcome you as a research associate. We trust that you will find the eleven months with us not only scientifically profitable but personally enjoyable.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Edwin F. Gay]
Director of Research

[handwritten note] P.S In looking over your application, I [word illegible] certain [items?] which I think should be filled out. These are: the date of arrival in this country, precise date of naturalization; pre-college education.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Arthur F. Burns Papers, Box 2, Folder “Correspondence/NBER, 1930”. IMG_8329.JPG

Image Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Arthur F. Burns Papers, Box 6. Folder “Photographs, B&W I”. Note: “1930s” written on back of photograph.

Tags Agger, BurnsAF, Chaddock, Day, Gay, HP Willis, KingWI, Kuznets, MillsFC, Mitchell, Moore, Ross, Seligman, SnyderC, Taussig

Columbia Computing Statistics

Columbia. Statistician Robert Chaddock and his Statistical Laboratory, 1912

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2018-04-11

The Statistical Laboratory at Columbia University in the second decade of the 20th century was run by the young assistant/associate professor, Robert E. Chaddock. An earlier post provided Chaddock’s 1911 request for equipment and literature for the Statistical Laboratory along with information about the calculating machines being considered and included a newspaper account of his suicide in 1940. From Professor Seligman’s papers I include today a recommendation for a promotion in rank for Robert E. Chaddock and his 1912 request for more equipment and literature. It is interesting to read that a Mannheim slide rule cost $10 in 1912. Finally from a letter from 1913, we can see that Brunsviga electric “Millionaire” must have been ordered for the Statistical Laboratory (cost $520).

_______________

Recommendation of promotion to rank of associate professor for Robert E. Chaddock
[Copy of letter to President Butler from Professor E.R.A. Seligman]

March 30, 1912

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.,
President, Columbia University,
New York.

My dear President Butler:-

Referring to our conversation of the other day, I should like to bring before you more formally the matter of Professor Chaddock.

Professor Chaddock is at present assistant professor of Statistics on the Barnard Foundation, at a salary of $2,500. His work during the year as head of the Statistical Laboratory has been exceedingly fine. The Laboratory has now become a busy hive of industry at almost any time of the day or night, and Professor Chaddock has been no less successful a teacher than he has been a director.

So successful has his work been as to have attracted attention in various quarters. The New York School of Philanthropy, together with the Sage Foundation, proposes to start a comprehensive scheme of statistical investigation into social problems and on looking over the whole country decided on Professor Chaddock as by all means the best man. They have, therefore, offered him the position of head of that investigation at a salary of $1,500 in advance of what he is getting at Columbia and with all the assistance and possibilities of European travel that might be needed. After carefully considering this proposition he has finally decided to remain at Columbia on the understanding that his salary would be increased to $3,000 and with no further obligation on the part of the Department or of anyone else, except the general understanding that he will take his chance of gradual promotion with the other members of the Department as opportunity offers.

The $500 addition to his salary has been made possible by the School of Journalism. Professor Chaddock will give a one-term course in Statistics to the third year men, for which the budget in the School of Journalism appropriates the sum of $500.

The Department deems itself exceedingly fortunate in being able to keep Professor Chaddock on these terms. But precisely because he made no other conditions and because of the fine spirit manifested by him, as a married man with a family, in being willing to make this considerable financial sacrifice, we feel that we ought to do our utmost possible for him. Our proposition is that his title be changed from assistant professor to associate professor.

When Professor Chaddock was called to Columbia he was offered a full professorship at the University of Pennsylvania, but he preferred to come to Columbia. He would naturally have been given an associate professorship, which he fully deserved, but unfortunately the financial adjustments which were made by Barnard College on the resignation of Professor Clark left only $2,500 available for his salary, and under the circumstances we were compelled to offer him an assistant professorship. Now that this financial difficulty has been removed, we respectfully suggest that the spirit rather than the letter of the rule be observed and that Professor Chaddock be given the title which he would surely have received originally had it not been for this financial complication. The Department feels that not only from every point of view is Professor Chaddock worthy of an associate professorship but wishes especially to emphasize the desirability of rewarding his loyalty and the fine spirit that he has displayed in staying by us. We feel that with Professor Moore to represent the theoretical side and Professor Chaddock to represent the sound, common sense, practical side, there is no reason why the Statistical Laboratory of Columbia should not very soon become a unique institution of its kind in this country. If for no other reason than that, Professor Chaddock, as the director of the Laboratory, ought to have a title corresponding to the dignity of his position.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

[presumably E.R.A. Seligman]

_______________

Chaddock’s Additional Budgetary Request for his Statistical Laboratory

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

April 19, 1912

Professor E. R. A. Seligman
Columbia University

My dear Professor Seligman:-

At your suggestion I am describing the most pressing needs for our statistical laboratory for the coming year. As you know, the equipment has been in pretty constant use during the past year and the effort has been made to divide the group into laboratory sections of from 6 to 10 persons in order that all might have a chance to learn the use of the mechanical devices by which the statistician makes his work possible, i.e., the Burroughs Adding Machines, the Brunsviga Calculating Machines, the graphic devices of various sorts, and the calculating tables.

With the added courses in the School of Journalism and the School of Commerce which we are undertaking for next year and the increasing use of our equipment by our graduate students, it has seemed to me that our numbers using the laboratory at one time will be larger and our present equipment will be quite inadequate.

We have one set each of tables of squares and cubes and tables (Crelle’s) for multiplication. We have no drawing set, no drawing crayon, and only 2 slide rules. I suggest the following additions, in order that a group may be kept working at the same time to better advantage.

10 copies Barlow’s tables of squares, etc. @ $2.50	$25.00
10 copies J. Peters’ Neue Rechentafeln for multiplication—English introduction–@15 m.	$30.00
1 Drawing set,	$20.00
Drawing crayons for graphic and map work	$10.00
3 Mannheim slide rules for calculating	$30.00

In addition, I am very anxious to see one more calculating machine added to our equipment which will do all four operations. Thus, adding one machine at a time we shall be able gradually to build up such a mechanical equipment as will enable our students to do their statistical calculations with facility and put their thesis and other statistical work in the best possible form. We have now 3 Brunsviga Machines which do all the operations but there are machines that do multiplication and division with more facility. I suggest an electric “Ensign” machine at $450. or the long tested “Millionaire” at $375. or electric “Millionaire” at $520. The selection of one of these three would be only after careful testing in our laboratory for our particular needs, altho the “Millionaire” is widely used in statistical laboratories, government offices, and insurance companies, and the “Ensign” is a Boston machine meeting with rapid adoption.

I make these suggestions only after the most careful consideration and information by correspondence with other laboratories and persons doing statistical training work, and in view of the added burdens to be placed next year upon the laboratory facilities.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Rob’t E. Chaddock.

_______________

Approval of Chaddock’s Budgetary Increase

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

May 6, 1912

Dear Prof. Seligman:

Thank you for sending me President Butler’s letter. It pleases me more than I can say to have our laboratory work thus recognized. It is due to your untiring interest in every detail of our whole department’s work, and for your care over my end of the work I wish to thank you very cordially.

I shall try to see that the added appropriation is well spent.

With best wishes for all your plans, I am

Sincerely
[signed]
Robt. E. Chaddock

Prof. E.R.A. Seligman
Kent Hall, Columbia U.

_______________

Regarding a Bill to the Statistical Laboratory for $520

February 3, 1913

Mr. Charles S. Danielson,
Columbia University.

My dear Mr. Danielson:-

Professor Chaddock advises me that a refund of $90.00 made by W. A. Morschhauser on bill of October 31^st, 1912 has been turned over to your office. This $90.00 covers the import duty which had been included in the bill of $520.00.

Will you therefore please apply this $90.00 to the account “Special Appropriation for Statistical Laboratory,” and recharge to the same account $22.00 of the $29.20 overdraft charged to the “Economics” appropriation at the end of last year? When these entries and transfers have been made the “Economics” appropriation balance should show an increase of $22.00 and the balance of the “Special Appropriation for Statistical Laboratory” should be $68.00.

If this is not correct, kindly let me know.

Very sincerely yours.
[presumably E.R.A. Seligman]

Source: Columbia University Archives. E.R.A. Seligman Collection. Box 98A [now in Box 36], Folder “Columbia (A-Z), 1911-1913”.

Image Source: Robert Emmet Chaddock from Barnard College, Mortarboard, 1919.

Tags Chaddock, Seligman

Amherst Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. John Maurice Clark. Autobiographical notes, 1949

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-11-25

The following recollections of John Maurice Clark of his earliest contacts with economic problems is found in a folder of his papers containing notes about his father, John Bates Clark. The hand-written notes are fairly clear until we come to a clear addition on the final page. Abbreviations are used there and the handwriting is not always clear. Still the pages together provide a few nice stories and short lists of J.M. Clark’s teachers and students.

______________________

June 8, 1949

J.M.C.’s recollections of his earliest contacts with economic problems.

I think my earliest contact with an economic problem came on learning that the carpenter who sometimes came to do odd jobs for us at 23 Round Hill got $2.00 a day. I had a special interest in that carpenter. He was a tall man, with a full, dark beard; and it had been my imprudent interest in his operation with the kitchen double-windows (putting on? taking off?) that led me to lean out of a hammock and over the low rail of our second-story porch, to watch him (I was between two and three at the time). Mechanical consequences—I descended rapidly, landing on my head, but apparently suffering no injury except biting my tongue. Subjective consequences – maybe it pounded a little caution into me at an early age; but the present point is that it fixed that carpenter in my memory as “the man who picked me up.” It was some time later I learned that he got $2.00 a day.

I don’t remember whether I took the initiative and asked, or not. The cost of things was often discussed in our house, and my mother often talked of the difficulty of making both ends meet. I knew my father’s salary, though I can’t be sure now whether it was $3,500 or less. Anyhow, it was maybe eight or ten times the carpenter’s pay; and I began wondering how he made both ends meet, and remarked to my father that $2.00 a day wasn’t much to live on. He answered that it was pretty good pay for that kind of work. So I learned there were two ways of looking at a daily stipend—as income to live on and as the price of the service you gave your employer. Or perhaps simply the standpoints of the recipient and the payer. But especially I learned there were people who had to adjust their ideas of what they could live on, to a fraction of the income we found skimpy for the things we thought of as necessary. In short, I had a lesson in classes and their multiple standards to ponder over; without reaching any very enlightening conclusions.

I don’t think I connected this with our friends the Willistons (of the family connected with Williston seminary in Easthampton) who lived in the big house above us and from whom we rented ours. They were evidently much richer than we. They had gone to Europe (and been shipwrecked on the way, and had to transfer at sea to a lumber-schooner, which threw its deckload of lumber overboard to enable it to take on the people from the helpless steamship. — but that’s another story.)

To return to the carpenter. I suppose today he’d get perhaps $16, more?, and a Smith College salary, for a full professor, might be $7,000 or $8,000. The discrepancy has shrunk to maybe 2/5—certainly less than half—of what it was then. That puzzling discrepancy was my first lesson in economics—the first I remember.

There was another lesson—if you could call it that—the summer we spent a while at the Stanley House (now gone) in Southwest Harbor, on Mt. Desert. The rich people went to Bar Harbor. At Southwest, there was Mr. Brierly who had a yacht. We took our outings in a rowboat, sometimes with the help of a spritsail. One time we were going up Somes Sound, and were passed by one of the biggest ocean-going steam yachts—the “Sultana”. It was a very impressive sight, in those narrow waters, and looked about as big as the “Queen Mary” would to me now. I don’t remember anybody doing any moralizing; but if they did, the impression it left was that we, in our fashion, were doing the same kind of thing they were.

My first contact with economic literature (not counting the subversive economics of Robin Hood, which we boys knew by heart, in the Howard Pyle version) was at 23 Round Hill, so I must have been less than nine. I found a little book on my father’s shelves that had pictures in it – queer pictures done in pen and ink, which puzzled me. There was a boy not much bigger than I was, in queer little knee-britches, acting as a teacher to a class of grown men (including I think a Professor Laughlin, under whom I later taught at the University of Chicago.) And there were classical females being maltreated by brutal men, and other queer things. I was curious enough to read some of the text, to find out about the pictures. It was “Coin’s Financial School,” the famous free-silver tract.

I read enough to become a convinced free-silverite. And then I had the shock of discovering that my beloved and respected father was on the wrong side of that question. I decided there must be more to it than I’d gotten out of the queer picture-book. I suppose that was my first lesson in the need of preserving an open mind and holding economic ideas subject to possible reconsideration. Davenport and Veblen gave me more extensive lessons, fifteen or twenty years later, only this second time it was my father’s ideas I had to rethink, after reluctantly admitting that these opposing ideas represented something real, that needed to be reckoned with. One had to do something about it, though the something didn’t mean substituting Veblen for my father. It was a more difficult and discriminating adjustment that was called for.

To return to my boyhood. It may have been about this time that I learned something about mechanical techniques, when my father took me to see the Springfield Arsenal. They had a museum, with broadswords that had been used in battle—one was so nicked up that its edge had disappeared in a continuous series of surprisingly deep nicks—but the mechanical process that impressed me was a pattern-lathe, rough-shaping the stocks of Krags. On one side was a metal model of the finished stock revolving, with a wheel revolving against it. On the other side was the wooden blank revolving, and a wheel like the one on the model, and linked to it so as to copy its movements, and armed with knives. So the machine could make complicated shapes following any model you put into it, and do it faster and more accurately that a hand worker.

Incidentally (and as a digression) that was our first military rifle with smokeless powder, more powerful than black; our first regular military magazine rifle of the modern kind with a bolt action and a box magazine. The regulars were just getting them. The militia still had the black-powder 45-70 Springfields at the time of the Spanish War, and a Massachusetts regiment had to be ordered off the firing-line at El Caney because their smoke made too good a target. Teddy Roosevelt had pull enough to get Krag carbines for his Rough Riders plus the privilege of using their own Winchesters if individuals preferred, and, if they had the 30-40-220, which took the Krag cartridge.

But my regular education in economic theory began at the age of 9 or 10, in our first year at Amherst, when we lived on Amity Street, opposite Sunset Ave. My father had in mind James Mill’s training of his son, John Stuart Mill, and he copied the techniques of explaining something during a walk, but he didn’t follow James Mill’s example by making me submit a written report for criticism and revision. All he did was to explain about diminishing utility and marginal utility—using the illustration of the oranges. And he was satisfied that I understood it, and concluded that the simple fundamentals of economics could be taught to secondary school or “grammar-school” students. Later, my friend and former graduate student, Leverett Lyon, pithily remarked that I probably understood it better then than I ever had since. Maybe he was right. I know when I met Professor Fetter, the year the Ec. Ass. met in Princeton, he told me I didn’t understand the theory, because I had said (in print, I think) that there were some dangers about the concept of “psychic income.” I didn’t say it was wrong, but I did think it was likely to be misleading to use a term that was associated with accountants’ arithmetic. So I did probably understand the theory “better” at the age of 9 or 10. Twenty ears later, it didn’t look so simple. This was long before I disagreed with Fetter about basing-point pricing and the rightness of the uniform FOB mill price, as the price “true” competition would bring about.

______________________

J.M.C. later history.

Amherst, C in Ec tho 85 on exam, & written work not credited. (cf French A from Wilkins, C from [William Stuart] Symington (father of present (1951) W. Stuart Symington, head of nat security Resources Board). Symie sized my attitude up as that of a gentleman & gave me a gentleman’s mark)ache Crook said he “didn’t get hold” of me. He was correct.

Columbia: Giddings, A. S. Johnson, H.L. Moore, Seligman, Seager, Hawkins [?], Chaddock, Agger, Jacobstein. indoctrinated: J. B. C. orthodoxy modified by overhead costs (catalogued as “dynamics”) Dynamics (defined as) everything statics leaves out. & much induction. Take “Essentials” on slow dictation.

Veblen: slow infiltration of its logical & progre[?] rel. to the abstractions of J.B.C.: reverse normalizing might make[?] an arguable claim to equal legitimacy.

1912 ed. of Control of Trusts

“Contribution to theory of competive price” [QJE, August 1914] forerunner of “mon-comp”, largely empirical basis.

Germs of social & inst. ec. Rich-poor, Freedom as val in ec.[??] B. M. Anderson cf. Cooley

Revs of Hobson?, Pigou, Davenport Economics of Enterprise [Political Science Quarterly, Vol 29, no. 2]

To Chi. 1915 Changing basis of economic responsibility [JPE, March 1916] on moving to Chi. open declar[ation] of non-Laughlinism: backfire to an Atlantic article of Laughlin’s.

Modern Psych.

1917-18. War-ec. (“basis of war-time collectivism.”)

Students: Garver oral. Slichter, Lyon, Innis, Martin [?], Goodrich, Copeland, O’Grady [John O’Grady ?]

Ayres, Knight on faculty.

Ov. C. [Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs]

Social Control [of Business]

Columbia. Students, Friedman, Ginzberg, Salera, Kuznets’ oral

Source: Columbia University Archives. John M. Clark Collection. History of Economic Thought. Box 37, Folder “J. B. Clark, 1847-1938”.

Image Source: John Maurcie Clark. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-0171. Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Tags Agger, Anderson, Chaddock, ClarkJB, ClarkJM, Copeland, Friedman, Garver, Giddings, Goodrich, Innis, Jacobstein, JohnsonA, Knight, Kuznets, Laughlin, Lyon, Moore, Seager, Seligman, Slichter, Veblen

Columbia Economists Harvard Michigan Salaries

Columbia. Appointment of James Waterhouse Angell, 1924

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-11-24

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.

Tags Angell, Chaddock, Seligman

Barnard Columbia Economists

Columbia. Budgeting John Bates Clark’s Salary After His Retirement, ca. 1911

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-01-16

The following undated memorandum comes from Prof. E.R.A. Seligman’s papers in a folder of Columbia related material for 1911-1913. From the Bulletin of the Faculty of Political Science we know that Prof. Simkhovitch took over Clark’s course on socialism in 1908 (Seligman below writes that Simkhovitch gave a similar course “at Columbia for the last two or three years”). Robert E. Chaddock took up the statistics assistant professorship mentioned in the memo in 1911. So it is pretty clear that this memorandum was written to motivate the economics department decision not to seek a senior professor with the funds released by Clark’s retirement but instead divided the funds between hiring someone for statistics, additional compensation for Henry Roger Seager to continue his teaching a labor course at Barnard and additional compensation for Professor Vladimir Simkhovitch to take over Clark’s course on Socialism at Barnard.

_____________________________

MEMORANDUM in reference to PROFESSOR CLARK’S RETIREMENT.

Professor Clark’s retirement is a serious loss to the Department of Economics and to Barnard College. Ordinarily the withdrawal of such a distinguished member of the faculty should lead to the appointment of a successor of equal prominence. In this case, however, there is no one of equal distinction available, and after making a thorough and impartial survey of the field, the department is convinced that it will be wiser to call the most promising younger man to be found as assistant professor then to call in a full professor who might prove disappointing. This plan has the advantage, moreover, of permitting a readjustment of the courses in economics to be open to Barnard students that would be highly advantageous for the College.

It will be remembered that when the original arrangement was entered into the trustees of Barnard agreed to provide the sum of $5,000 toward the higher or university work in economics at Columbia, on condition that certain courses at Columbia be open to women graduates, and on the further understanding that the Department of Economics should provide six hours a week of lectures in economics to Barnard Seniors at Barnard College. Later on, by special arrangement with Dean Gill, as ratified by the trustees, it was provided that two of these six hours might be given at Columbia instead of Barnard. It is now proposed to readjust the courses so as to provide ampler opportunities for Barnard students.

In considering the interests of Barnard, three facts should be held in view. First, experience has shown that merely throwing open courses given at Columbia to Barnard students fails adequately to meet their needs. The plan adopted when Professor Clark was called here of having six hours advanced work in economics given at Barnard ought to be reintroduced. Second, the number of students desiring to take advanced work in economics is steadily increasing and for their benefit every opportunity should be seized which will open to them additional courses at Columbia. Third, the most important field of economics study not now covered by the courses offered at Barnard is that of economic and social statistics. Not only does the ordinary student need a knowledge of statistical methods to apply economic theories to the facts of every day life, but Barnard graduates are concerned to an ever increasing extent with different forms of social service. Some become the paid agents of settlement, charitable societies or municipal departments concerned with social work. Others become officers in reform and charitable organizations. For both classes, training in the manipulation and interpretation of statistics would be of great value.

Having regard to these three facts the plan which the Department of Economics recommends is as follows: –

(1) that $2,500 of the $5,000 released by Professor Clark’s withdrawal be used to pay the salary of an assistant professor, who shall give a course on social and economic statistics to Barnard Seniors. While this professor under the terms of the original agreement, is to be primarily a graduate professor, he may, if so desired, be asked temporarily to relieve Professor Mussey of one of the Junior sections in Economics A1–A2 in exchange for a university course by Professor Mussey. It is also proposed that in further recognition of a similar course to be given by the new instructor at Columbia and of supervising work in the statistical laboratory at Columbia, which might be open to Barnard students for research work, the Department of Economics should admit Barnard Seniors to Columbia courses given by Professors Seligman, Giddings, Seager, and Mussey, that is, Sociology 151-152, Economics 101-2, Economics 107-108, Economics 106, and Economics 104.

(2) That Professor Seager be asked to continue his course on the Labor Problem at Barnard and that a contribution of $1,500 towards his salary be paid out of the $5,000 released. Professor Clark’s withdrawal will add to Professor Seager’s burdens at Columbia and his natural inclination would be to meet the situation by discontinuing his course at Barnard. If he continues his course it seems but fair that a contribution toward his salary should be paid out of Barnard funds.

(3) That Professor Simkhovitch be asked to give at Barnard the course on Socialism and Social Reform formerly given by Professor Clark and that the remaining $1,000 of the $5,000 fund be contributed to his salary. Fortunately Professor Simkhovitch is specially qualified to give such a course acceptably, having given a similar course at Columbia for the last two or three years.

By carrying out this plan the Barnard trustees will not only secure a reintroduction of the six hours of advanced instruction in economics for the special benefit of Barnard Seniors, courses even better adapted to the present needs of such Seniors than those previously given, but will also secure admission for Barnard students to eight of the most valuable courses in economics and social science offered at Columbia, without any increase in the appropriation for economic instruction. Inasmuch as at the present time only four hours are given to Barnard Seniors, and only five Columbia courses are open to them, we believe that the plan is fair to all concerned and that it will prove highly advantageous to Barnard College.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson Collection. Box 98a, Folder “Columbia (A-Z) 1911-1913”.

Image Source: Barnard College student council. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

Tags Chaddock, ClarkJB, Giddings, Mussey, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch

Columbia Computing Economists

Columbia. Chaddock’s Request for Funding for his Statistical Laboratory, 1911.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-01-04

From time to time I like to add a little budgetary detail. For the year 1911-12 assistant professor Robert E. Chaddock’s salary was $2500 (the top professor salary in economics, $6000, went to Henry R. Seager). Today’s post is a request for $500 of additional funds for the 1911-12 budget for the statistical laboratory run by Chaddock. I add some biographical material for Chaddock (the photograph from the 1919 Barnard College yearbook is the only picture of him I have been able to find in my online search), including the Columbia Spectator’s report of his suicide in 1940.

Earlier posts at Economics in the Rear-View Mirror concerning the purchase of calculating equipment for economic research were: 1928 (Henry Schultz at Chicago) and 1948 (George Stigler at Columbia).

______________________________

Source: Barnard College, Mortarboard, 1919.

Memorial: Frederick E. Croxton, “Robert Emmet Chaddock, 1879-1940,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 36, No. 213 (March, 1941), pp. 116-119.

______________________________

Copy of letter by Seligman to Butler

December 18, 1911

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.,

President, Columbia University

New York.

Dear President Butler:-

I have asked Professor Chaddock, our new assistant professor of statistics, to give me a report of the work that has been done in the statistical laboratory this year. I take pleasure in sending a copy of his report herewith and with your permission I should like to amend the budget letter of the Department, if that is still practicable, to the extent of asking for a special appropriation of $500 for the statistical laboratory, the amount to be expended for the statistical machine and for such supplies, charts, atlases, etc. which would not properly come under the head of the library appropriation.

You will remember that two or three years ago you were kind enough to secure a special appropriation of $500 for some comptometers for the laboratory. That amount was not included in our budget letter. Perhaps this also could be taken care of in a similar way.

Respectfully,

[unsigned copy, E.R.A. Seligman]

SE-S

______________________________

Copy of letter by Chaddock to Seligman

C O P Y

December 18, 1911

Professor E. R. A. Seligman,

Columbia University.

Dear Professor Seligman:

As suggested, I am sending you this letter to describe the work and needs of the statistical laboratory. On the theory that the laboratory is a place for practice and a place where sources of information may be found, it has been our aim this year to keep the laboratory open between the hours of 9 A.M. and 6 P.M. Much of the time some men have been found there at its opening and closing hours.

The class in elementary statistics numbers about 45, of whom 40 are engaged in doing actual laboratory work in addition to the two hours of lectures weekly. Our plan has been to divide the lecture group into five sections for their laboratory work, meeting Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at nine o’clock and Monday and Wednesday at eleven o’clock, in addition to lectures Monday and Wednesday at ten o’clock. By this plan the groups are reduced to eight or ten men and scientific work is possible. The lecture work is made concrete to each individual through his own work and his misconceptions are checked and corrected by personal supervision. The student is thus enabled also to know and to use the mechanical aids without which the work of the statistician would be largely impossible today.

Besides the class in elementary statistics, there are students who, having had the lecture work, are engaged in writing their dissertation which involves statistical work. The laboratory offers facilities for work of this character and should aim to make it possible to turn out better digested statistical material in our dissertations.

An effort is being made to provide in the laboratory sources of information contained in Federal, State, and City reports and in reports of special investigations. Periodical document lists of the State and Federal governments are kept convenient for reference.

The effort has also been made to get into touch by correspondence and personal conference, with the practical statistical work being done in the city both by public and private agencies, with the view of impressing the student with the concrete problems of statistical work and with the importance of a working knowledge of how to use and judge supposed facts.

It would seem also to be important that the statistical laboratory at Columbia, by its equipment, demonstrate to all who see it and use it what the ordinary working equipment of a statistician ought to be, what the sources of information are, and how they may be handled.

In view of these aims we venture to set forth certain needs, the satisfaction of which conditions the complete efficiency of the laboratory:

(1) One calculating machine of “Millionaire” or “Ensign” type—probably $250 or $300. The present equipment of machines is not adequate to keep a group busy without loss of time.

(2) A Statistician’s working library to be kept on the laboratory shelves. Some appropriation toward this library which is to contain the chief works on theory and method as well as special sources, i.e., Webb, Dictionary of Statistics.

(3) 10 copies of Barlow’s tables of squares, cubes, etc., up to 10,000 @ 6 s. each—60 s.

(4) 10 copies of Peter’s Multiplication and division tables at 15 s. each—150 s.

(5) Provision for a card file in the laboratory itself of all the statistical material available in the library so that the student in statistics may have a ready reference. Also for the purpose of recording all documents and sources received and kept in the laboratory itself.

(6) Provision for securing portraits of certain men most prominent in the development of statistical science, for the laboratory walls, i.e. Pearson, Quetelet, Engel, La Place, etc.

Attempts have been made by correspondence and conference, and will be made, to find out the best equipment for a laboratory such as ours and we ask your cooperation.

Sincerely,

(signed) Robert E. Chaddock.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Papers of Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, Box 98A, Folder “Columbia (A-Z) 1911-1913”.

______________________________

Professor Chaddock Dies in Fall
Sociology Head, 61, Plunges from Roof; Believed a Suicide

Dr. Robert Emmet Chaddock. Professor of Statistics and head of the Columbia Department of Sociology, died yesterday morning at 11:20 after falling eleven stories from the roof of his apartment house at 39 Claremont Avenue. He was sixty-one years old.

It is believed that Dr. Chaddock’s death was a suicide.

Professor Chaddock left his apartment on the fifth floor at 10 A.M., the usual hour he left for his office, and walked to the roof of the building. He was dressed in an overcoat and hat, and carried a brief case and an umbrella.

Shortly after 11 A.M., a maid from an adjoining apartment, Ethel Anderson, discovered him sitting on the parapet on the west side of the building. She called the elevator boy, but before either could summon assistance, Dr. Chaddock jumped or fell to the courtyard below. He left his overcoat, hat, brief case and glasses along the edge of the roof.

Worried About Wife

Seemingly In good health and spirit prior to his death, it was learned on good authority yesterday that the 61-year old professor had been worried over the health of his wife, Mrs. Rose A. Chaddock, who survives him. Dr. Chaddock left no communication, but fatigue and overwork were some of the motives put forth as possible causes of his death.

A daughter, Mrs. Parker Soule of Roswell, New Mexico, is his only other survivor. She was in Roswell at the time of the accident.

Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, President of the University headed the list of bereaved faculty associates. In a statement to The Spectator yesterday, Dr. Butler stated:

“Our whole University family is stupefied and heartbroken at the tragic death of Professor Chaddock. Himself a scholar of outstanding importance and large influence in his chosen field, we all held him in affectionate friendship and looked forward to many years yet of continuing accomplishment. Our feeling at this sudden ending of his life is too deep to be put into words.”

Speaking for the entire Sociology Department of which he has been acting in the capacity of chairman for the past two weeks, Dr. Willard W. Waller, Associate Professor of Sociology, stated, “We have lost a sincere friend and a valued colleague. That is the sentiment of Fayerweather Hall.”

Dr. Chaddock was born in Minerva, Ohio on April 16, 1879. A member of the University faculty for thirty-one years, he was Professor of Sociology and Statistics since 1922.

Held Two Degrees

His degrees included A.B. Wooster College, Wooster, Ohio; LL.D. (Hon.) 1929. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa; Fellow of the American Statistical Association, American Public Health Association and the Population Association of America and a member of the American Sociological Society.

He was one of the founders of the Cities Census Committee which developed the “census tract” unit for enumeration and tabulation of population and other types of data in New York City. This “census tract” idea has now been adopted by many cities, following the lead of New York.

Dr. Chaddock’s book, “Principle and Methods in Statistics,” published in 1925, has long been accepted as the standard text in the field.

Source: Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume LXIV, Number 20, 22 October 1940.

______________________________

Comptometer

Comptometers were made by the Felt & Tarrant Manufacturing Company of Chicago, Illinois and the initial patent holder was Dorr E. Felt. This is a very unusual model in black paint and gold decorations. Almost all Comptometers are in copper patena or polished copper housings. While there are some very rare listing (printing) models, the ones most often found do not have printing capability as is the case with this particular one. The Comptometer was probably the most important adding machine or calculator ever made. The first one (model one) was made with an all wooden case (see the model one in our collection) and came out in 1887 and the last one was made with an cast aluminum case sometime in the early 1960s. The people who operated them (usually women) were also called comptometers and the modern term for the person in charge of an accounting department, Comptroller, is the evolution of the name comptometer (operators titles). The more modern term for the chief accountant, Controller, is also an evolution from Comptometer. The last listed patent date on this Comptometer is 1914 and that is most likely, or very close to, the year it was manufactured. This machine comes with its original tin case and the case is prlobably more rare than the machine. Both the machine and the case have an estimated condition rating of 2+, 2.

Source: Comptometer at Branford House Antiques Website.

______________________________

Millionaire Calculator

This lever-set, manually operated non-printing calculating machine has a brass mechanism and a metal case with lid. The lid and the flat plates that cover the mechanism are painted black. The carriage is entirely contained within the case. The machine carries out direct multiplication.
Ten German silver levers are pulled forward to set up numbers. A crank left of these may be set anywhere between 0 and 9 for direct multiplication and division. A lever right of the digit levers may be set at addition, multiplication, division, or subtraction. Right of it is the operating crank. A row of ten windows in front of the levers shows the number set on the levers. It is labeled DIVISOR.
In front of this is the carriage, with two other rows of windows. The row closest to the levers (further from the front) indicates the multiplier or quotient. The other row shows the result or the dividend. The result windows are labeled DIVIDEND and may be set with a dividend using thumbscrews. The carriage has zeroing knobs for both these registers. Holes for decimal markers are between the digits of all three registers. Between the front two registers, at left, is a button used to shift the carriage. A bell rings if the number in the result window changes sign (as when subtraction produces a negative number).
A paper sheet inside the lid gives instructions for operating the machine and related tables, along with a cleaning brush and key. The stand is stored separately.
A mark on the middle of the front of the machine reads: THE MILLIONAIRE. A metal tag on the right reads: Hans W. Egli (/) Ingenieur (/) Fabrikation von Rechenmaschinen (/) Pat. O. Steiger (/) ZURICH II. A metal tag on the left reads: W.A. Morschhauser (/) SOLE AGENT (/) 1 Madison Avenue (/) NEW YORK CITY. Just under this tag is stamped the serial number: No 2609. A mark on the carriage next to the result register reads: PTD MAY 7TH 1895. SEPT. 17TH 1895. Scratched in the middle of the front of the machine is the mark: FOR PARTS ONLY.
For related documentation see MA*319929.03 through MA*319929.07.
Daniel Lewin has estimated that Millionaire calculating machines with serial number 1600 date from 1905, and those with serial number 2800, from 1910. Hence the rough date of 1909 is assigned to the object.
This calculating machine was used by the physicist William F. Meggars of the United States National Bureau of Standards.

Source: Smithsonian. The National Museum of American History.

______________________________

Ensign Model 90 Calculating Machine

This full-keyboard direct multiplication non-printing electric calculating machine has an iron and steel case painted black, The nine columns of plastic black and white keys are colored according to the place values represented. Complementary digits are indicated on the keys. Keys for odd digits are concave, and those for even ones are flat. The keyboard is covered with green felt.

Right of the number keys is an addition bar. Considerably to the right of this is a key to be depressed in division and ten digit keys used to enter digits directly in multiplication. To the left of the keyboard is a key marked “C” that, when depressed, locks the keyboard. A row of seven number dials serves as a revolution counter. These dials are covered with glass.

On the left side is a handle for clearing the revolution counter and result register. Behind the keyboard and revolution counter, inside the machine, in a row of 16 number dials recording the result. These dials are also covered with glass. They are deep within the machine, and difficult to read. The result register may be divided to record two results simultaneously. The base of the case is open, with a cloth cover inside it. This example has no motor.

A mark on the front of the machine reads: The Ensign. A mark on the right side reads: ENSIGN (/) MANUFACTURING CO. (/) BOSTON, U.S.A. (/) PATENTED (/) NOV. 1, 1904. – JAN. 2, 1906. (/) JULY 9, 1907. – FEB. 18, 1908 (/) JUNE 2, 1908. (/) OTHER PATENTS PENDING.

The Ensign was an early example of an electrically operated calculating machine. The Ensign Manufacturing Company of Waltham, Massachusetts is listed in Thomas’ Register for 1909. The dates on the machine refer to dates of patents of Emory S. Ensign, who was president of the company. The Ensign Manufacturing Company of Boston, Massachusetts, is listed in Thomas’ Register for 1912, 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917. It was not listed in 1918. By this time, Ensign seems to have moved to Queens, New York. The machine was manufactured until about 1925.

Source: Smithsonian. The National Museum of American History.

______________________________

Image Source: Robert Emmet Chaddock from Barnard College, Mortarboard, 1919.

Tags Chaddock, Seligman

Columbia Courses Economists Syllabus

Columbia. Introductory Economics. First-term, 1912-13.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-08-02

According to the Columbia University Catalogue for 1912-13, Economics 1-2, Introduction to economics–Practical economic problems was a 3 hour course taught by Professors Seager, Mussey, Agger, and Dr. Anderson. According to this outline it would appear that these instructors taught the material in the assigned textbook readings listed and once a week, a professor from the graduate faculty of Political Science would hold a lecture. The printed copy of the lectures and assignments transcribed here was found in the Papers of John Bates Clark.

________________________

Columbia College

Lectures and Assignments, Economics I.
[1912-13]

SEPTEMBER
27	Introductory Lecture.	Professor H. R. Seager
30	ELY, Chapter I.—Nature and Scope of Economics.
OCTOBER
2	SELIGMAN, Chapter V.—The Economic Stages.
4	Lecture. The Accumulation of Economic Facts.	Prof. R. E. Chaddock.
7	SELIGMAN, CHAPTER IV.—The Historical Forms of Business Enterprise
9	SELIGMAN, CHAPTER IX.—Private Property
11	Lecture. Conservation as an Economic Movement.	Prof. R. E. Chaddock.
14	SELIGMAN, CHAPTER X.—Competition
16	SELIGMAN, CHAPTER XI.—Freedom
18	Lecture. A Method of Approaching and Testing Economic Reforms.	Prof. R. E. Chaddock.
21	ELY, Chapter VII.—Elementary Concepts. To page 101.
23	ELY, Chapter VIII.—Consumption. Pages 106 to 113 to “Luxury”
25	Lecture. Value and Price.	Dr. B. M. Anderson, Jr.
28	ELY, Chapter IX.—Production. Pages 121-131 incl. (omitting 132-145).
30	Written Quiz covering all the above.
NOVEMBER
1	Lecture. Normal Price.	Dr. B. M. Anderson, Jr.
4	ELY, Chapter XI.—Value and Price. Pages 156-163 to “Elasticity”. [corrected by hand from “Electricity”]
6	ELY, Chapter XI.— Value and Price. Pages 163-168 incl.
8	Lecture. Capitalization of Value.	Dr. B. M. Anderson, Jr.
11	ELY, Chapter XII.—Value and Price. Pages 170-177 to “The Surplus of Bargaining”.
13	ELY, Chapter XII.— Value and Price. Pages 177-186.
15	Lecture. The Size of the Population.	Prof. H. L. Moore.
18	ELY, Chapter XIII.—Monopoly. Pages 187-192 to “Classification” and page 197 “Monopoly Price” to page 201.
20	ELY, Chapter XIII.—Monopoly. Pages 201-208 to “Monopolies and the Distribution of Wealth”.
22	Lecture. The Quality of the Population.	Prof. H. L. Moore.
25	Review.
27	Written quiz.
29	Thanksgiving Holidays.
DECEMBER
2	ELY, Chapter XIX.—Distribution as an Economic Problem, Pages 315-325.
4	ELY, Chapter XIX.— Distribution as an Economic Problem, Pages 326-333.
6	Lecture. Efficiency and Income.	Prof. H. L. Moore.
9	SELIGMAN, Chapter XXIII.—Profits. Sections 152-154 incl.
11	SELIGMAN, Chapter XXIII.—Profits. Sections 155-157 incl.
13	Lecture. Profits.	Prof. J. B. Clark.
16	ELY, Chapter XXI.—Rent of Land. Pages 348-357 to “The Different Uses of Land”.
18	ELY, Chapter XXI.—Rent of Land. Pages 357-366.
20	Lecture. The Rent of Land and the Single Tax.	Prof. J. B. Clark.
	Christmas Holidays
JANUARY, 1913
6	ELY, Chapter XXII.—The Wages of Labor. Pages 367-376 to “Subsistence Theory.”
8	ELY, Chapter XXII.—The Wages of Labor. Pages 376-385.
10	Lecture. Wages of Labor.	Prof. J. B. Clark.
13	ELY, Chapter XXIV.—Interest. Pages 416-425 to “The Shifting of Investment”.
15	ELY, Chapter XXIV.—Interest. Pages 425 to 438 omitting fine print.
17	Lecture. Capital and Interest.	Prof. J. B. Clark.
20	Review

The text assignments are to the 1910 editions of Prof. E. R. A. Seligman’s Principles of Economics and to Prof. R. T. Ely’s Outlines of Economics.

COLLATERAL READING: (Pages to be assigned)

Bücher Industrial Evolution

Bullock Readings in Economics.

George Progress and Poverty. [Memorial Edition(1898): Vol. I, Vol. II.]

Source: John Bates Clark Papers, Series II.4. Box 9. Folder “Administrative Records and Course Material Undated”; Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University Library.

Tags Agger, Anderson, Bullock, Chaddock, ClarkJB, Ely, GeorgeH, Moore, Mussey, Seager, Seligman

April 17, 1936

Appendix to Minutes

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE [April 17, 1936]

December 11, 1936

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

April 21, 1939

Copy of memo from Leon Carroll Marshall

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Department of Economics

Response from Jacob Viner

The University of Chicago Department of Political Economy

Response from Paul Howard Douglas

The University of Chicago The School of Commerce and Administration

Response from Lloyd Wynn Mints

The University of Chicago The School of Commerce and Administration

Response from Harry Alvin Millis

Response from Chester Whitney Wright

The University of Chicago The Department of Political Economy

Response from James Alfred Field

Response from William Homer Spencer

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

Previous posts at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror with Chaddock content…

Chaddock obituaries by…

Robert E. Chaddock (1879-1940)

Other memberships

Political Science Faculty Memorial Minute Columbia University

Dec. 13, 1940

Robert Emmet Chaddock

Arthur F. Burns’ late NBER application forwarded to Edwin Gay

National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

NBER Research Associate Application of Arthur F. Burns (February, 1930)

National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES’ APPLICATION FORM

THE CANDIDATE

THE PROJECT

THE PROJECT A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production

References

Publications

Reference Letter: H. P. Willis

Columbia University in the City of New York School of Business

Reference Letter: Willford I. King

AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION

Secretary-Treasurer Willford I. King 530 Commerce Building, New York Univ. 236 Wooster Street, New York City

Reference Letter: F. W. Taussig

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Reference Letter: E. E. Agger

Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey Department of Economics

Reference Letter: Carl Snyder

COPY Thirty Three Liberty Street New York

Reference Letter: Simon Kuznets

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 51 Madison Avenue, New York

Reference Letter: Robert E. Chaddock

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

Letter: Edwin F. Gay to Arthur F. Burns

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 51 Madison Avenue, New York

Recommendation of promotion to rank of associate professor for Robert E. Chaddock [Copy of letter to President Butler from Professor E.R.A. Seligman]

Chaddock’s Additional Budgetary Request for his Statistical Laboratory

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

Approval of Chaddock’s Budgetary Increase

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

Regarding a Bill to the Statistical Laboratory for $520

J.M.C.’s recollections of his earliest contacts with economic problems.

J.M.C. later history.

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

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

MEMORANDUM in reference to PROFESSOR CLARK’S RETIREMENT.

Copy of letter by Seligman to Butler

Copy of letter by Chaddock to Seligman

Professor Chaddock Dies in Fall Sociology Head, 61, Plunges from Roof; Believed a Suicide

Comptometer

Millionaire Calculator

Ensign Model 90 Calculating Machine

Columbia College

Lectures and Assignments, Economics I. [1912-13]

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[April 17, 1936]

Copy of memo from
Leon Carroll Marshall

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Economics

Response from
Jacob Viner

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

Response from
Paul Howard Douglas

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

Response from
Lloyd Wynn Mints

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

Response from
Harry Alvin Millis

Response from
Chester Whitney Wright

The University of Chicago
The Department of Political Economy

Response from
James Alfred Field

Response from
William Homer Spencer

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

Previous posts at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror
with Chaddock content…

Political Science Faculty Memorial Minute
Columbia University

NBER Research Associate Application of Arthur F. Burns
(February, 1930)

THE PROJECT
A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Business

Secretary-Treasurer
Willford I. King
530 Commerce Building, New York Univ.
236 Wooster Street, New York City

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Department of Economics

COPY
Thirty Three Liberty Street
New York

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
51 Madison Avenue, New York

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
51 Madison Avenue, New York

Recommendation of promotion to rank of associate professor for Robert E. Chaddock
[Copy of letter to President Butler from Professor E.R.A. Seligman]

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

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

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

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

Professor Chaddock Dies in Fall
Sociology Head, 61, Plunges from Roof; Believed a Suicide

Lectures and Assignments, Economics I.
[1912-13]