Tag: Chamberlin

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory Uncategorized

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. April 1963

Edward Chamberlin was a member of the graduate examination committee of the Harvard economics department in the early 1960s and in his files I have found copies of the theory exams from 1961, 1962, and 1963 along with a few memos that  circulated among members of the committee that together provide a description of the procedures used for grading.

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
November 13, 1962

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Economic Theory Examination
April 8, 1963

You are to answer a total of 6 questions.

All three questions in Part A.
One question each in Parts B, C, and D.

Use a separate book for each question.

PART A: Answer all THREE

  1. Explain the phenomena of “external economies” and “external diseconomies.” Describe how they affect the efficiency of the competitive pricing mechanism, and discuss measures which have been proposed to improve welfare when external economies or diseconomies are present.
  2. State and explain several leading principles from the field of “non-price competition.” Comment on the problems that arise in combining this type of theory with the more orthodox “price competition.”
  3. Interpret the Marshallian concept of Consumers’ Surplus in terms of a theory of utility based solely on Indifference Lines.

PART B: Answer ONE of the two.

  1. Contrast the “liquidity preference” and the “loanable-funds” theories of interest. Discuss the implications of these two theories for monetary policies intended to maintain full employment.
  2. Discuss the purely theoretical proposition that if all prices everywhere were sufficiently responsive in both directions to supply and demand there would, in a free market economy, be no persistent unemployment. Be equally interested in pointing out what may be right and what may be wrong about the statement. State what assumptions you would want explicitly stated if you had to support the proposition.

PART C: Answer ONE of the two.

  1. Compare the main ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo about economic growth — its mechanism and its consequences.
  2. Formulate a simple, highly aggregated model of economic growth. Incorporate technological change in it by including an industry called Research with a production function of a specified shape. Its inputs are capital (stock) and labor (flow). It is up to you to give a definition of its output that is appropriate to your model.

PART D: Answer ONE of the two.

  1. Explain and compare some of the conclusions that economists have reached about the interest rate in a static or stationary state.
  2. Discuss the similarities and differences among the principles of economic choice that are applicable to the three following:
    1. an individual consumer;
    2. a trade union, producers’ cartel, or other interest group;
    3. society as a whole.

You may keep this question sheet when you hand in your exam books.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling
Raymond Vernon

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

April 23, 1963

From: T. C. Schelling
To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek

I enclose a sheet with the names and grades for your information.

The outcome of our regrading was as follows. You will recall that there were five students for whom we were rereading one or more books. You will also recall that we were to count the third reading as equal in weight to the other two. The results were:

Book 3, down from 1.4 to 1.2, Fail
Book 5, down from 1.4 to 1.1, Fail
Book 6, up from 1.5 to 1.6, Fair
Book 7, up from 1.25 to 1.4, Fair –
Book 10, down from 1.5 to 1.0, Fail

To recapitulate, three of these failed, and we had five clean failures, making a total of eight failures. On the rereading, three Fair minuses went down to Fail, one Fail went up to Fair -, one Fair – went up to Fair. I think this is about what we could have expected, and I am glad we did the rereading. Incidentally, two of the three who failed after the rereading had three books reread with two different readers involved, so I think we can feel they got fair treatment.

Next week I shall circulate to you my thoughts about a report to the Department and, if you wish, we can get together or alternatively you can add your comments. If it is convenient I should prefer to get together, but not until I have given you at least my thoughts on what we should report.

TCS: ac

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling
Raymond Vernon

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

June 4, 1963

From: T. C. Schelling
To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek
Subject:  Report to the Department on the Graduate Theory Examination

We promised the Department a report. And we had some things we wanted to report.

Some of our experiences we can communicate to next year’s committee over the lunch  table. Some really require the Department’s cognizance. I am listing below some of the points I think we should like to report. This is not a draft, but just a chance to check with you. If you agree, disagree, or want to add anything, I suggest you do so in writing with copies to each other. There is no great hurry, but next year’s committee will want some Departmental instruction by the time of the second Department meeting next fall. I would like to get this done before my memory fades, and submit it if possible to the Department as soon as everybody is back from the summer.

  1. I would propose that individual questions be graded not Excellent, Good, Fair, and Fail, but either numerically on the base one-hundred or with letter grades A, B, C, with the committee to decide — subject to any advice the Department wishes to make explicit — what kind of average or combination of grades should qualify a person as a “pass.” The Department should either make clear that the committee may do as it pleases or express itself on such things as how many failures on individual questions make a failing exam in spite of the average. The Department might also express itself on how large or how small the failing fraction might be without being considered “abnormal.” Just to get a proposal in the works, I would propose that questions be graded A, B, C, and Fail, with a B- required for passing, but with the committee empowered to make individual exceptions in either direction on the basis of the whole exam, and that the committee expect to fail somewhere from one-tenth to one-fourth without considering a “policy issue” being involved.
  2. I would strongly recommend that we experiment next fall with typewritten examinations. This raises a number of technical questions, ranging from who provides the typewriter to how noisy the room is, and it surely discriminates somewhat according to typing skill. The present scheme also discriminates according to longhand skill. Students who cannot type, or choose not to type, should have their examinations transcribed, either at their own expense or at the Department’s expense. This seems to me the one exam that, because it is for graduates and because it interferes with no individual’s course, lends itself to the experiment. I feel quite sure that the reading of examinations will be much more reliable if the material is typed, and that disputed grades could be discussed more readily if the exams can be easily and quickly read. The number of students taking the exam in the fall is usually small, and that is therefore a good time to try it out.
  3. I am surely persuaded that anonymous examination books make a real difference and the difference is a good one. I think the committee should avoid as far as possible putting students in special categories like the few who this year were offered the option of presenting to the oral exam with a re-examination in theory. At the same time, the committee cannot avoid having an opinion (or opinions) about the success of its own examinations; and the committee may, as I think we did, have some doubts after the examination about its reliability. If these are strong doubts, they should, as we did, consider special treatment of a few individual cases.
  4. Especially if we go in for typed exams, the Department should consider making this a six-hour exam rather than a three-hour exam, just to increase its reliability. Reading time, I believe, would be sufficiently cut by having a typed examination to make the six-hour exam feasible for the committee.
  5. The questions are also up to the committee but I would pass along the advice that the questions be as concrete and as problem-oriented as possible in contrast to general essay or discussions of what economists have said, proposed, etc. I think I say this not out of a priori prejudice but because I have felt more confident of the grade I gave when the student was responding to a very direct question or problem with little scope for inadvertent or deliberate evasion and with the obligation to give his own answer and not to repeat [what]others have [said]. This kind of advice surely is not suitable for Departmental action, but, if we share some experience we might try to articulate it for the next committee.

TCS: ac

_________________________________

Schelling’s Memo to Dunlop
and the Exam Committee

TO: CHAIRMAN [John Dunlop], DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

FROM: THOMAS C. SCHELLING, CHAIRMAN

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE GRADUATE THEORY EXAMINATION

RE: WRITTEN THEORY EXAMINATION

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1963

Last year’s committee, consisting of Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek, and me, reached several conclusions we would like to report for the benefit of the new committee that follows us. Most of the observations we want to pass along arose out of our dissatisfaction, not our contentment, with the examination process. We would like this report to go to the whole Department, or the Executive Committee, or whatever part of the Department is appropriate; if you want to postpone this a month while your new committee decides what it would like to do, if anything, about these recommendations, that is agreeable to us.

  1. Our grading scheme, which we accepted without much thought, was to grade each question excellent, good, fair, or fail, with plus and minus, then to convert these to a numerical scale to facilitate averaging, and then to grade the whole examination. This procedure led to an anomaly that in turn produced some real misunderstanding among the graders. The anomaly was that, after collecting all of the books together and looking at the distribution of grades, the committee might wish to fail people whose average grade was “fair” or to give an “excellent” to a man whose average grade was “good.” This can lead to disputed interpretations of what the grades meant as well as what the grading standards should be. I doubt whether any committee would want, either in principle or in practice, to rely on a straight forward averaging to determine good, fair, fail, etc. I strongly recommend — and this may sound trivial but it is not — that the initial grading be on some arbitrary numerical scale with the final determination of over-all grades from fair to excellent being determined afterward. My committee agrees with this. I personally do not see that a matter of principle is involved here that ought to go to the Department, but I foresee that some eventual controversy may be forestalled if the Department is apprised of this problem and of the new committee’s intentions.
  2. The committee is bound to have some notion of what proportion of those taking the examination might normally be expected to fail it. Different members of the committee may have very different notions. I believe this is meant to be a hard examination, and that the fraction failing it might be comparable to Written Theory Examination the fraction of students who fail their Generals. It is, I believe, also meant to weed out students who would likely fail their Generals. And it is an examination in which the committee ought to feel that anywhere from one-tenth to one-quarter of the candidates might be failed without the result seeming to be abnormal. It might be helpful if the Department would at least discuss the matter briefly so the committee would have a pretty good idea how much leeway it had in grading. It is not quite enough to say that this is completely within the committee’s competence; the philosophy of the examination derives somewhat from the Department’s notion of how strict this examination ought to be and how great a variation in outcomes needs to be expected.
  3. We recommend that the committee experiment in the fall term with typewritten examinations. There are some practical questions here, such as who provides the typewriter, how noisy the room will be, and so forth. Typewritten exams will discriminate according to typing skill; but the present exam discriminates according to long-hand skill. Students who cannot type, or who choose not to type, should have their examinations transcribed, either at their expense or at the Department’s expense. Because this exam is for graduates, and because it interferes with no individual course, it lends itself to experiment; in particular, the small group in the fall term presents an opportunity on a small scale. All of us on the committee believe that the grading will be more reliable if the material is typed, and that disputed grades can be discussed better, and reread more easily, if they are typed. We, therefore, strongly urge that the experiment be made this year.
  4. We are quite persuaded that anonymous examination books (books from which student names have been removed) make a real difference and that the difference is a good one. In case of borderline grades, it is hard to resist the temptation, after the exam has been graded, to get out the student’s record and see whether or not he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We did this, and we believed it was right to do so, but maybe as a matter of principle it should not be done. Let me point out that an awful lot hinges on a single examination if one does not fall back on the student’s theory record in borderline cases. In the oral examination I think it is fair to say that the student’s course background does count in the examiner’s evaluation of him. If the Department really does not want the written theory exam to be anything but an anonymous exam graded solely on its merits, a flat rule would relieve the committee of a philosophical problem that can be quite a nuisance. If the Department wishes the committee to use its own judgment, it will probably help the committee to have it understood in advance that the committee may decide this one. We recommend that the committee be free to use the additional information after the books have once been graded but that the committee avoid this expedient if possible.
  5. If the typed examination is adopted, there is much to be said for making this a six-hour examination to increase its reliability. Reading time will be cut by the typing enough to compensate the greater number of books read.
  6. Our final recommendation involves something that cannot be legislated. It is that the questions be as concrete and as problem-oriented as possible, in contrast to general essays or discussions of what economists have written about a subject. Our impression was that grading was much more reliable on the more direct questions and problems. There was both deliberate and inadvertent evasion on the more general questions, as well as more ambiguity on the committee itself as to what the question called for. The common occurrence of a bluebook that was a decent essay on a question that wasn’t asked might be averted by using questions that are fairly direct and unambiguous. Another common occurrence was the bluebook that indiscriminately gave the positions of various writers without the student’s accepting responsibility for his own analysis or evaluation. Our feeling was that these rather indirect questions provided quite unreliable evidence on which to grade students.

_________________________________

Chamberlin’s Memo
to the Exam Committee

This letter was “in the works” when Tom’s report to John Dunlop of September 18, 1963, came in the mail. It is now sent as a supplement to Tom’s report.

FROM: E. H. CHAMBERLIN
TO: MESSERS. SCHELLING, LEONTIEF, VANEK

SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE GRADUATE THEORY EXAMINATION (letter from Tom Schelling, June 4)

                  First I should admit that I was against the written theory examination when it was first proposed, but without any question the experience this year has made me more opposed than ever. In my letter to the other members of this committee on April twenty-fourth (?), I urged that the attempt to shake some more failures out of the group of eight between the figures of 1.2 and 1.5 had been a “fiasco” and that we should simply allow all of them (i.e., everyone excepting [name deleted], [name deleted], and [name deleted]) to take the orals, with the decision whether to pass or fail to be made at that time. As a compromise, we finally settled on three students: [name deleted], [name deleted], and [name deleted], and offered them the opportunity of taking the oral examination, in which  they might do well enough to pass, even though they had “failed” theory. (The fact that no one of them accepted was certainly not surprising, since they had all been told already that they had failed theory and therefore had two strikes against them if they risked the orals.)

Although we all concurred in the decisions, I feel that I was mainly responsible for the matter coming up at all. As certainly evident in my letter of April twenty-fourth, I was extremely critical of the attempt to fail people who had already been graded at or near the good- to fair+ line merely because we “needed” more failures. In this respect especially I think the policy worked badly this year. The whole matter is probably one for the Executive Committee, rather than for this one. I hope it is understood that from many years of examining in economic theory I have the matter very much at heart. Certainly the treatment of our graduate students at the end of the second year is of the first importance, and I think the Executive Committee should devote some time to reconsidering the whole problem.

I still hope that this group may issue a unanimous report to the Department although as will be seen from the following comments there are son important differences between Tom and me. Perhaps we ought to have a meeting. Comments:

  1. Questions of grading.
    1. The approach of failing a certain percentage of those who take the exam (“one-tenth” to “one fourth”) must absolutely be dropped. It is contrary to the practice , both of this Department and of Harvard University, for as far back as I can remember. One only needs to recall the recent principle that “all (undergraduate) students are potential honors candidates” and to consider the grading processes with respect to these latter, to realise how far astray the concept of “failing or passing a certain percentage” is from the general practice at Harvard, and, in the past, in this Department. In any event, it is clearly unjustifiable with a group as small as we normally expect in the written theory examination — this year 37, of whom we failed, by a great effort, 8, or more than 20 per cent. I think it was the obsession that 3 was not enough failures and that we ought to increase the number, that led to a compounding of arbitrary decisions at the “margin”, and to results which, as I think I demonstrated in my earlier letter, made passing or failure for the group of 8 to which it was applied, almost a matter of pure chance. It was a witch’s brew if there ever was one. However, it was described in some detail in my earlier letter, and I refrain from another lengthy demonstration here.

Only one example from later developments: there were three books at the same grade of 1.25, (a Fair+ by the first reading). Two of them, having no questions eligible for re-reading by our rules, were below the new line of 1.4, and left as “failures”; a third, however, qualified for having two questions re-read (the intervals of discrepancy being 4 and 5 in the two cases), was converted into a pass and finished with a “Good” in the Generals. Why should he have had the opportunity to take Generals while two at the same grade had to wait six months? The conclusions: 1. I think we should admit that the methods we used to make distinctions within this “marginal” group were at fault (to put it mildly) and were future committees against them. 2. We should revert to an “absolute”, not a “relative”” or percentage, standard of quality for passing, and for the several grades of Excellent, Good and Fair, rather than trying to fail a particular number or percentage of people. 3. We should recommend to the Executive Committee that they reconsider whether we really want to “raise standards” in the Economic Theory part of the General examination as much as we appear to have done.

As for the second point, my own conviction is that only those conspicuously deficient in Theory should be failed. It should be not only possible, but a goal of the Department that all who take the examination should be well enough prepared to pass. After all, this only means that the Admissions Committee has done its work well, that the student has been well-advised as to courses, and that he has not outrageously neglected his work. Realistically, of course, there will usually be a few failures, either in the Theory exam or in the Generals. But in my opinion, failures should be voted by the Executive Committee upon recommendation of the Committee on the examination. In all cases of recommended failures, the members of this latter committee should each read the entire book with full knowledge of the identity of the persons involved and decide upon the fate of the student only in consultation, (as at present after the general oral examination).

    1. As for grading terminology, this year it was Excellent, Good, Fair, and Fail, as we all know, and when numerical values were given to these categories later, the space between then was assumed to be equal: 6, 3, 0 (=Fair!) and -3. Tom has made another proposal in his letter (of June fourth). The important thing, it seems to me, is to put more space between Fair, which has always been a passing grade, and Failure. Indeed, one could easily explain the fact that 23 out of 37 books, approximately two-thirds, received a good- (2) in the first reading by the fact that 2 is mid-point between 6 and -3! Although these (good-) books were later broken down and distributed between the levels of “good” and “fair-”, this merely disguises the fact that the grades given actually had very little difference between them. In fact, with the exception of only four books, 33 of the 37 lay between the limits of 2.8 and 1.2, the former .2 below the good average, and the latter .2 above the fair+ average. Clearly the method of grading used this year, in spite of later adjustments, did a poor job of revealing the differences which must exist among the candidates who took the examination.

However, using the same figures, I experimented with breaking up the concentration at good- by introducing mechanically several considerations which ought to enter in anyway. Since this was actually done (out of the sheer fascination of the problem) I attach copies of the result for what they may be worth, perhaps only in suggesting the other ways in which the objective might be achieved. The 6, 3, 0, were kept for Excellent, Good, and Fair, but Fail became -9 (i.e., -6 more in every case of a -3). A more normal scale would evidently be: six questions with a value of 15 each; highest possible total grade a 90. Each question graded 15 = Excellent, 12 = Good, 9 = Fair, 0 a total failure. Also +3 whenever two different readers agreedthat an answer was a Good or better, and -3 whenever two readers both gave 0 (=Fair) or less. These several devices spread out the grades, [name deleted] actually got his Excellent, [name deleted] and [name deleted] showed up as clear failures instead of getting fairs, with [name deleted] such a low Fair that he might easily be added in, the number of Good’s was reduced to 15, etc., etc. (The applause is accepted). No re-readings, either.

To return to Tom’s letter:

  1. I do not think it is fair to require students to type-write their examinations or pay to have it done (I think it is optional now). But they should be warned to write legibly and told that if they do not, they will have to pay to have their written examinations transcribed.
  2. I agree that anonymous examination books are desirable up to a point. But no one should ever be failed without knowing the candidate’s identity and all we can about him.
  3. A three hour examination seems to me long enough, or four at the very most. We should not forget that each student has already been examined for three hours per semester in his courses.
  4. I think the questions should be of all kinds. Just as I refuse assent to the proposition that the scope of Economic theory should be limited to what can be treated in mathematical symbols, as I should not want an examination in theory to be cast in one particular mold.

_________________________________

Leontief Letter to Schelling

September 23, 1963

TO: T. C. Schelling

FROM: W. Leontief.

cc: B. H. Chamberlin, J. Vanek

I heartily approve of all recommendations contained in your memorandum on Written Theory Examinations dated September 18th.

The typing of all examinations — which, incidentally, I proposed at the very beginning before we started them — might not be easy to arrange since the secretaries in the Department offices have no less difficulty in reading the handwritten bluebooks than we do.

A six-hour examination might be rather hard on the students unless it is made quite clear that the additional two hours are allotted for preparing a clear typescript or readable long-hand.

WL: kd

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Written Theory Committee, 1963-64”.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. November 1962

Edward Chamberlin was a member of the graduate examination committee of the Harvard economics department in the early 1960s and in his files I have found copies of the theory exams from 1961, 1962, and 1963 along with a few memos that  circulated among members of the committee that together provide a description of the procedures used for grading.

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
April 8, 1963

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Exam in Economic Theory
November 13, 1962

ANSWER ANY 7 (AND ONLY 7)
AMONG THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

Questions are all of equal weight.

Use a separate book for each question.

(Please write legibly. Please write, on your first exam book, a phone number or address where you can be reached quickly in the event your exam book, because of handwriting, has to be transcribed and the typist cannot decipher some of your writing.)

  1. Compare the views and arguments of Ricardo, the Austrians, and Marshall, on the question of the roles of utility and demand, and of cost of production and supply, in determining the prices of the goods produced in a competitive economy.
  2. Construct a simple (static) general equilibrium model of a closed national economy, and show how it can be used to explain employment, prices, wage rates and the distribution of national income between capital and labor.
  3. Indifference surfaces of an individual’s ordinal utility function are defined by

U = x1/3 y1/3 z1/3

where U is utility and x, y, and z express quantities of three different products consumed. The individual himself produces 1 unit of x, 2 units of y, and 3 units of z.

    1. Derive the equilibrium levels of consumption of the three products as a function of relative prices;
    2. Derive the demand (supply) curves for the three products, and show as an application the quantities of x, y, and z demanded or supplied in the case where all money prices are equal;
    3. Derive the relative prices that would have to prevail in a competitive market to keep the individual at autarky.
  2. Compare and evaluate critically the solutions of duopoly proposed by at least 3 of the following: Cournot, Bertrand, Stackelberg, and Fellner.
  3. Keynes maintained that an economy could be in equilibrium with a substantial amount of involuntary unemployment, but many other economists feel that an equilibrium in which an important market is not cleared is a contradiction in terms. Explain the concept of macro-economic equilibrium and in the light of this explanation sketch Keynes’ justification of his position and the Pigou-Patinkin refutation of it.
  4. Present the argument according to which indirect taxes reduce the efficiency of the economic system, while a direct income tax does not, and show how the validity of this argument is affected by the existence of consumers’ choice between work and leisure.
  5. Write on “increasing returns” with respect to (a) the firm; (b) the industry; and (c) the whole economy. In each case you should discuss at least: explanations of the phenomenon, how it affects the efficiency of the competitive pricing mechanism, and the question of stability or instability of equilibrium.
  6. Point out and discuss what seem to you the most important similarities and difference between (a) Marx’s, and Schumpeter’s, theories of economic development under capitalism.
  7. Discuss the problem of excess capacity in firms or in groups of firms. What different meanings may the phrase have? To what extent and way would you expect to find excess capacity in (a) static equilibrium; (b) a fluctuating economy; (c) a growing economy.
  8. “Comparative advantage” is typically elaborated in the context of international or interregional trade. Generalize the concept as an economic principle and discuss the reasons you think account for its conspicuous association with international economics.
  9. Discuss the theoretical significance of the distinction between net and gross investment in models of economic growth incorporating technological change.

You may keep this question sheet when you hand in your exam books.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

November 19, 1962

From: T. C. Schelling

To: Messrs. E. H. Chamberlin, W. W. Leontief, and J. Vanek

Subject: Written Examination in Economic Theory

Seven students took the exam, and we have a total of forty-two questions, each in a separate book. I had managed to allot the questions so that each of us grades either ten or eleven books. I am asking Chamberlin to grade questions 1 and 9, Leontief 2, 7, and 11, Vanek questions 3, 4, 8, and 10, Schelling questions 5 and 6. Wassily and I get eleven a-piece, Ed and Jaroslav get ten a-piece.

If you are interested in what the students chose, it is follows:

Question     1 — 6 7 — 5
2 — 4 8 — 5
3 — 1 9 — 4
4 — 4 10 — 1
5 — 5 11 — 2
6 — 6

Enclosed, for each of you, are the books you should grade.

Each book will have a second reader. I will redistribute them as they come back. Some may need a third reader.

As we agreed, let’s grade them “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “fail,” with plus and minus as appropriate, and for averaging we will treat the intervals between grades as numerically equivalent. For borderlines between pass and fail, if any, we can reconsider the scaling system.

The immediate urgency is only in letting students know whether they are still preparing for orals. When I asked, none were scheduled for before Christmas. But I would like to finish the grading by the middle of next week if we can. If you can read your books before Thanksgiving, so I can redistribute them next Monday, it would help.

[After a] quick check I did not notice any with an impossible handwriting, [and] if you wish you may ask Joyce to get your books transcribed. That will slow us down, but I believe it is worthwhile. If you lose any books, we all hang together.

P.S. I suggest you not write your grade on the book. Each of us is then free to do a second reading unconstrained. Instead, turn in a sheet for each question with a grade corresponding to each student number; the number in red pencil is the code for the individual student. Please return your books and grade sheets to Joyce.

TCS: ac

Enc.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

December 7, 1962

From: T. C. Schelling

To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, and Vanek

Subject: Theory Exam Grades

I have communicated to the Departmental office that all six who took the exam have passed. Wassily and I agreed on the phone that we should add to the dosier of the two poorest ones our scepticism that they are qualified for a Ph.D, and urging the oral examining committee to take very seriously the unsatisfactory quality of their theory exam. I shall set up a meeting this week at which we can settle on the grades for these students and work out language to meet Wassily’s point.

In preparing some statistics for you I discovered some minor errors in my tabulation; these raised the lowest grades by about one point in total, or 1/14th of a point for the grade average.

Attached is a tabulation that gives the two grades by student, by question, and by grader — the capital letters are the initials of the four graders.

I will call you to set up a meeting. At that time we can also discuss what we want to report to the Department, if anything.

The names of the students, with their scores, are as follows:

Book Student Score
6  [name deleted] 30.0
3  [name deleted] 23.3
5  [name deleted] 22.0
1  [name deleted] 18.0
2  [name deleted] 16.3
4  [name deleted] 14.3

TCS:ac

Theory Exam Grades*

Question Student
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 C 2- 1 2- 1 2+ 2
V 2+ 2 2+ 2- 3- 2+
2 S 2- 2- 2+
L 0 0 0+
3 V 2+
L 0+
4 C 2 1 2 3
V 2 2+ 3- 3-
5 S 2- 1 3 2 1
V 2- 1+ 3- 2 3-
6 S 0+ 0 2- 1 1 2-
L 1- 0 2 0 1- 3
7 C 2 1 2- 1- 0+
L 2 1 1 0 1
8 S 2- 1 1- 2- 3
V 2- 2- 2- 2 3-
9 C 1 1+ 1+ 1+
L 1 1 1 2
10 S 0-
V 1-
11 V 1+ 2-
L 1 1
Total points** 18.0 16.3 23.3 14.3 22.0 30.0
Average 1.28 1.17 1.66 1.02 1.57 2.15
No. of excellents** 0 0 2 0 2 6
No. of fails** 2 2 1 3 2 1

*Scoring: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fair = 1, Fail = 0, with 1/3 point for (+) and (-).

**For fourteen grades, two on each question.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Written Theory Committee, 1963-64”.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. April 1961

Edward Chamberlin was a member of the graduate examination committee of the Harvard economics department in the early 1960s and in his files I have found copies of the theory exams from 1961, 1962, and 1963 along with a few memos that  circulated among members of the committee that together provide a description of the procedures used for grading.

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

November 13, 1962
April 8, 1963

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Exam in Economic Theory
April 11, 1961

Answer six questions. All questions count equally. Please write legibly.

I

Set out Ricardo’s formal model of economic growth, so far as he has a complete system. Compare Ricardo’s diagnosis and prognosis with those of Adam Smith and Marx.

II

Discuss the rationale and limitations of measures of national income as indicators of social welfare.

III

Answer one of the following

Explain the concept of a “shadow price” in linear programming. Compare it with the role of the price concept in marginal analysis.

or

Give examples of “corner solutions”

    1. in the analysis of production
    2. in the analysis of consumers’ demand
    3. in the analysis of exchange

and show in what respect they differ from the corresponding marginal solutions.

IV

Answer one of the following

What were the basic theoretical issues between Keynes and non-Keynesians at the time the General Theory was published? To what extent has a synthesis since been achieved?

or

Discuss the effect of changes in the general level of money wages on the level of real wages.

V

“In contrast to the propositions of positive economic theory, the propositions of welfare economics cannot be subject to empirical verification. Hance the latter discipline can hardly be useful.” Discuss this observation using specific examples.

VI

The homogeneous Cobb-Douglas production function is usually defined for two factors of production. Construct a Cobb-Douglas function for three factors and for one factor and show that their basic formal properties are analogous to those of a two-factor function.

_________________________________

Note: the following list of ten undated and unattributed questions was found in Chamberlin’s papers immediately following the above examination. 

PROPOSED WRITTEN GRADUATE THEORY EXAM

Answer six questions; all questions have equal weight.

  1. Describe and discuss Ricardo’s theory of economic growth; and discuss its relevance to problems now confronting ‘underdeveloped’ countries, or economies.
  2. What are the chief differences in the conclusion reached by analysing an area of the economy (say, an “industry”) under the assumptions of (a) pure competition, on the one hand, and (b) monopolistic competition on the other. Elaborate the explanation of one of the differences mentioned.
  3. To what extent may the concept of economic rent be generalized beyond its original application to land? Discuss fully, making clear what you mean by “rent” in each case.
  4. Identify and illustrate the main kinds of uncertainty that arise in economic decisions; and relate the different kinds of “decisions”. Can problems of choice involving uncertainty be analysed in terms of ordinal utility?
  5. Give an economic appraisal of the effects of comparative resource allocation in the case of “indivisibility”.
  6. Set up an example of a simple static general equilibrium system with three goods and two factors of production, for example, land and labor.
  7. How can technological change cause unemployment? What market forces tend to eliminate the unemployment? What factors may impede the operation of those forces?
  8. What is the theoretical justification of the “competitive ideal”? How is the validity of the argument that competition produces ideal results affected by recognition of the phenomenon of product differentiation?
  9. Describe the Neumann Model, and the principal results concerning it. Discuss the relevance of these results to real economies.
  10. Outline and criticize the theory of economic growth, of one of the following authors:

Solow, Joan Robinson, Kaldor, Tobin.

_________________________________

Excerpt from the minutes of the Department of Economics meeting held on Tuesday, May 16, 1961

Copies of the Written Theory Examination were distributed. Professor Chamberlin had three comments to make on the examination:

  1. There is not sufficient choice
  2. The questions are overly specific
  3. There were no questions on Economics 201 yet 35 of the students take this course as one half of their preparation for economic theory.

He concluded that the examination results must be capricious.

Professor Smithies defended the examinations by saying that the questions were varied from one examination to another and you had to look at all examinations in order to generalize, and the results of the examination showed a close correspondence with those of course grades.

There were some things suggested as a result of the discussion. The whole Department should be asked to submit questions. There were, a number of people who felt that there should be a number of specific questions. Professor Duesenberry suggested that the student should have a better idea of what the coverage would be. It was also decided that the grading of these examinations should be on the same basis as the General Oral Examinations rather than A, B, or C.

Professor Duesenberry suggested that there should be a theory syllabus including topics which are not covered in courses but which are nevertheless important and the topics should be divided into optional subjects and required subjects with the understanding that students would be examined on required subjects and on some optional fields.

Professor Dunlop contemplated no action tonight and that this should be referred to a committee.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Theory, 1952-1962”.

Categories
Economist Market Economists

Harvard. Renewal of Faculty Instructorship. Case of Paul Sweezy, 1940

 

The following records come from the President’s Office at Harvard University involving the terms of the reappointment of Paul Sweezy at the rank of Faculty Instructor in the Harvard economics department. Sweezy joined the army in the fall of 1942, so the debate about a two or five year reappointment turned out to be moot on account of the Second World War. What I found particularly interesting in these records is the last one posted below where we witness a member of the department’s visiting committee trying to scuttle Sweezy’s appointment because of his Keynesian fiscal proclivities.

“Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism…”

In Sweezy’s defense the two members of the department present at the meeting with the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science felt it necessary to remind the others present that the department itself had nominated John Maynard Keynes to receive an honorary doctorate at the Tercentenary celebrations in 1936 (…but that honor somehow escaped Keynes…).

__________________________

Departmental Recommendation
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 23, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

The Department of Economics has considered the reappointment of Paul Marlor Sweezy whose term as a Faculty Instructor expires in the current year. The Executive Committee voted unanimously that he be reappointed without specification of the term of such reappointment. It then voted to appoint him a Faculty Instructor for a period of five years. As indicated on the detailed record of this ballot, there were two dissenting votes. Letters from Professors Burbank and Slichter will explain in detail their reasons for not approving of the five-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy’s instruction is in the fields of Industrial Organization and Socialism, and is primarily undergraduate. He is an experienced tutor, and at present is one of the two Examiners in Economics. He would at any time be considered a strong candidate for a Faculty Instructorship, and is especially valuable to the Department now in view of the recent departure of so many of our younger staff.

                  Biographical and bibliographical data are enclosed on separate sheets.

Yours very truly,
(S) E. H. Chamberlin
E. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Copied by: MEH

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

Departmental Vote
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

Paul Marlor Sweezy

                  At a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics on February 13, 1940, upon motion of Dean Williams, it was voted unanimously that we favor the reappointment of Paul Sweezy, without specification of term.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank Yes
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter Yes
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

Dean Williams then moved that we recommend the appoint of Paul Sweezy as Faculty Instructor for a five-year term. The motion was carried with two dissenting votes.

Professor Black Yes
Professor Burbank No
Professor Chamberlin Yes
Professor Crum Yes
Professor Frickey Yes
Professor Haberler Yes
Professor Hansen Yes
Professor Harris Yes
Professor Leontief Yes
Professor Mason Yes
Dr. Monroe Yes
Professor Schumpeter Yes
Professor Slichter No
Dr. Taylor Yes
Professor Usher Yes
Dean Williams Yes
Professor Wilson Yes

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

Burbank’s Dissent
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 17, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  You are familiar with the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the Department of Economics regarding Dr. Paul Sweezy.

                  Since I voted against the recommendation which is in your hands, I should like to state the reasons for my action.

                  I strongly favor continuing the present appointment of Dr. Sweezy for two years, or voting him a five-year appointment from 1937. Either action would give him a full five-year faculty term.

                  I take this position because I believe his status should be reviewed in about two years. The members of the Executive Committee have known Sweezy for a long period. We are, or should be, altogether familiar with his work and his promise for growth and accomplishment. I place two more years rather than four or five as the better time for revision both from Sweezy’s point of view and from the point of view of the Department.

                  I  have had many years of experience in placing men in other institutions. It has been our experience that it is extremely difficult to place the better men advantageously after they have passed the early thirties. In this particular category the matter of a few years is of real significance. If, in 1945, Sweezy should not be advanced, the difficulties in securing an acceptable place for him will be increased. I hope this can be avoided. I believe that the colleagues who are the principal supporters of the motion for the longer term would declare that this argument carries little or no weight. However, the fact that Dr. Sweezy has no invitations from other institutions of high standing carries very considerable weight in its bearing on this problem.

                  I was reluctant to recommend a longer appointment at this time because of my estimate of Dr. Sweezy’s promise.

                  In the immediate past men have not been advanced and have gone elsewhere who were regarded, I believe, by a majority of the members of the Committee as superior to Dr. Sweezy. There are a number of men on the ground whom I regard as more promising.

                  Further, I believe that in our present situation our Instructorships should be well staggered and filled with regard for our long-time development. Considering the urgent needs of the Department in particular areas, I think it unwise to fill too many places immediately. I urge this policy strongly, since I am convinced that in some fields it is likely to be exceedingly difficult to uncover the requisite ability. It may be decidedly to our advantage to develop competition in these areas, — that is, two Instructors in the subjects involved. I would not urge this course for all areas of study and instruction, but in Agriculture and related problems, and in Labor and related problems I believe such competition may be essential.

Very sincerely yours,
(s) H. H. Burbank
H. H. Burbank

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Copied by: MEH

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

Slichter’s Dissent
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

(Copy)

February 19, 1940

Dean W. S. Ferguson
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Dean Ferguson:

                  At a meeting of the Department of Economics on February 13, I voted for the reappointment of Mr. Paul Sweezy as faculty instructor but against a term of five years. I favor a two-year term.

                  Mr. Sweezy is just completing a three-year term as faculty instructor. Consequently appointment for two more years would convert his three-year term into a five-year term which is more normal. On the other hand, appointment for five years following three would put Mr. Sweezy in a special class among faculty instructors and would easily be interpreted as a stronger endorsement of his work and qualifications than I think we are warranted in giving.

                  No one, of course, knows how rapidly Mr. Sweezy will develop during the next few years but I think that the chances are against our desiring to offer him a permanent place. If that is so, a two-year appointment is fairer than a five-year both to him and to the University.

Sincerely yours,
(S) Sumner H. Slichter

Copied by: MEH

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

Appendix: Sweezy c.v.

Paul Marlor Sweezy

Biography

Born April 10, 1910

A.B., Harvard, 1931
A.M., Harvard, 1934
Ph.D., Harvard, 1937

Married

1934-37 Annual Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard.

1937-40 Faculty Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Division of History, Government and Economics, Harvard, for three years.

Bibliography

“A Note on Relative Shares,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I, No. 1, October 1933.

“Pigou’s Theory of Unemployment,” Journal of Political Economy, December, 1934.

“Economics and the Crisis of Capitalism,” The Economic Forum, Spring, 1935.

“John Strachey’s Theory and Practice of Socialism,” review in The Nation, December 5, 1936.

“On the Definition of Monopoly,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1937.

“Review of The United States: A Graphic History, by Louis Hacker et al.,” The Nation, December 11, 1937.

“Review of Economics for Everybody, by Mervyn Crobaugh,” The Nation, December 25, 1937.

“Review of Socialism versus Capitalism, by A. C. Pigou,” The Nation, February 5, 1938; and Plan Age, March 1938.

“Review of The Promises Men Live By, by Harry Schernan,” The Nation, March 26, 1938.

“Review of Socialism, by Ludwig Mises,” Science and Society, Spring, 1938.

“Wage Policies and Investment,” American Economic Review, Supplement, March, 1938.

“Review of On the Economic Theory of Socialism, by Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor,” The Nation, June 25, 1938.

“Expectations and the Scope of Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, June, 1938.

“Review of Confessions of an Economic Heretic, by J. A. Hobson,” The Nation, August 27, 1938.

An Economic Program for American Democracy. With R. V. Gilbert, G. H. Hildebrand, Jr., A. W. Stuart, W. Y. Sweezy, L. Tarshis, and J. D. Wilson. The Vanguard Press. 1938.

Monopoly and Competition in the English Coal Trade, 1550-1850. (Wells Prize essay 1937-38.) Harvard Economic Studies Vol. LXIII. Harvard University Press. 1938.

“Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly,” Journal of Political Economy, August 1939.

“The Thinness of the Stock Market,” American Economic Review, December, 1938.

“Review of Full Recovery or Stagnation, by A. H. Hansen,” The Nation, November 19, 1938.

“The Power of the Purse,” The New Republic, February 8, 1939.

“Marx on the Significance of the Corporation,” Science and Society, Spring 1939.

“Review of The Brandeis Way, by A. I. Mason,” Harvard Law Review, April, 1939.

“Review of Jobs for All, by Mordecai Ezekiel,” The New Republic, April 19, 1939.

“Government Spending, its Tasks and Limits,” (discussion), Social Research, May, 1939.

“Is Further Debt Financing Sound?” (symposium), The Business Bulletin, May, 1939.

“Review of Man’s Estate, by Alfred M. Bingham,” The Boston Transcript, July 22, 1939.

“Public Works as an Aid to Private Investment,” The American City, July, 1939.

“Review of Henry George, by Albert Jay Nock,” The Nation, October 28, 1939.

“Review of Ideas are Weapons, by Max Lerner,” The Nation, December 2, 1939.

“Major Interest Groups in the American Economy,” Appendix No. 11 in The Structure of the American Economy, National Resources Committee, 1939.

In preparation:

Lectures on Marxian Economic Theory. Accepted for publication by the Oxford University Press. (Eight chapters completed in first draft.

“A Contribution to the Economic History of the Law of Corporations.” Accepted for publication by The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

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

Dean Signals Green Light
to Appoint for a Five-year Term

C O P Y

February 26, 1940.

Dear Mr. Chamberlin:

                  I confirm herewith the message I gave you by telephone this morning, that we are agreed to have Dr. Paul Sweezy appointed as Faculty Instructor for five years beginning on September 1, 1940. It is part of this transaction that you and we are agreed that Dr. Sweezy should be informed (first) that this appointment involves no commitment for his election to a vacancy on the permanent staff, (second) that he will be considered for election to such a vacancy in competition both with other Faculty Instructors on the staff and with outsiders, and (third) that in all likelihood this competition will be severe.

                  Will you kindly write to him to this effect and send to me both a copy of your letter and of his acknowledgment of its receipt?

                  I am

Yours sincerely,
[unsigned]

Professor E. H. Chamberlin

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

Chairman Informs Sweezy
of the Appointment Decision

COPY

February 29, 1940

Dear Paul:

This letter is to confirm our conversation of several days ago. The Department of Economics has voted for you a five-year appointment as Faculty Instructor dating from September 1940, and this appointment has been approved by both Dean Ferguson and by President Conant. It goes without saying that it is an expression of a belief in your promise as an economist and in your continued usefulness to the Department over the five years to come.

                  The appointment, made during the transition from the old system to the new, in effect continues your tenure on a non-permanent basis over a period of eight years from your Ph.D. which is perfectly normal, but has the unusual result of extending over the entire eight-year period your status as “Faculty Instructor.” For this reason apprehension has been expressed both in the Department and by the University administration lest it be misinterpreted. In fairness to you it should be made perfectly clear that no one regards this appointment as involving any commitment whatever for subsequent election for a permanent position at Harvard. When such a permanent position is to be filled, the competition will include, as well as yourself and other Faculty Instructors on the ground, former members of the Department and still others from the outside. It looks now as if this competition would be severe.

                  I trust that you will understand the importance of avoiding any misunderstanding at this time. Will you please let me have an acknowledgement to this letter.

Sincerely yours,
(s) E. H. Chamberlin

Dr. Paul M. Sweezy
10 Forest Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts

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

Sweezy Confirms Understanding
Tenure Review will be Competitive

COPY

March 3, 1940

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin,
Department of Economics,
Littauer Center,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Professor Chamberlin,

                  I have your letter of February 29th regarding my appointment to a five year term as Faculty Instructor beginning next fall. Needless to say I am happy that the Department and the Administration feel the confidence in my work to date which this appointment implies.

                  I note that both the Department and the Administration are anxious to make it quite clear that this appointment carries with it no implication of further commitments. You may rest assured that I understand the situation in this respect completely; this letter will serve to furnish a formal record of the fact.

Sincerely,
(sgd.) Paul M. Sweezy

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

Official Announcement
of the Appointment Decision

PAUL MARLOR SWEEZY

Recommendation of the Dean of the Faculty:

                  I recommend the appointment of Dr. Paul Sweezy as Instructor in Economics and Tutor in the Department of Economics for five years from September 1, 1940. Dr. Sweezy’s three-year term as Faculty Instructor expires this year. Prior to his present appointment he served three years as Annual Instructor before receiving his doctorate. Consequently he is entitled under our rules to the five-year Faculty Instructorship for which he is recommended. He is thirty years of age.

                  The vote of the Department on which this recommendation is based was not unanimous. The two dissenters preferred to have the five-year period divided into two periods, one of two years and the other of three. This division seems to me to conflict with the essential idea on which the new type of Faculty Instructorship rests. It denies him the opportunity of sufficient time, free from the consequences on himself and his work of an intervening judgment, in which to demonstrate his scholarship. On the plan of the dissenters Dr. Sweezy would come up for consideration again a year hence. It is not urged that the Department would be in a better position to reach a definite decision regarding him twelve months from now than it is in at present. The action recommended by the great majority of the Department is best calculated to give Dr. Sweezy a fair chance. The Department has only one other Faculty Instructor on the five-year tenure at present and he has just been appointed. Their quota is six. Hence they could have another man in direct competition with Dr. Sweezy in 1944. Dr. Sweezy is comparatively young. There is, therefore, little risk in keeping him on for five years longer. In a subject like Economics the five years between the ages of 30 and 35 constitute the period in which a man ordinarily comes to maturity.

                  The enclosed letter from me to Professor Chamberlin makes clear to Dr. Sweezy the situation in which he stands on entering on his five-year term.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

March 20, 1940.

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

Memorandum of the discussion between Mr. Albert Bigelow, Professors Burbank and Chamberlin, and Assistant Dean Buck, and myself [W. S. Ferguson, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] Thursday, May 9, 1940.
Dramatis Personae

Albert Francis Bigelow. Harvard Class of 1903. Harvard Law Graduate. Member of the Economics Visiting Committee. Republican member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives 1925-1944. [His son, Albert Bigelow, was a prominent pacifist.]

Paul Herman Buck. Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, associate professor in history as of 1939. He received the Pulitzer prize in American History in 1938 for his book on the Reconstruction Period after the Civil War.

William Scott Ferguson. Dean of Faculty of Arts and Sciences, McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History (Fun fact: Ferguson invented the reading period at Harvard)

Harold Hitchings Burbank, David A. Wells Professor of Political Economy. Former chairman of the Department of Economics, chairman of the Board of Tutors in the Division of History, Government and Economics.

Edward Hastings Chamberlin, Professor of Economics and Chairman of the Department of Economics.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

                  Mr. Bigelow presented newspaper and other clippings as evidence that Mr. Sweezy advocated economic doctrines in regard to the utility of government-spending in excess of income, and ways of meeting huge deficits, which characterized Mr. Sweezy in Mr. Bigelow’s opinion as an opponent of capitalism and, on this basis, queried “whether or not he arrived at his views by thorough scholarship and by intellectual processes which command the respect of his peers” — that is to say, met the conditions formulated in the Report of the Visiting Committee of the Economics Department for 193[last digit omitted]. General discussion followed. Professor Chamberlin pointed out that the position taken by Mr. Sweezy was substantially that held by Professor Keynes of Cambridge University, scholar to whom Harvard had tendered an honorary degree at the Tercentenary. Neither Professor Burbank nor Professor Chamberlin was able to define the degree of Mr. Sweezy’s radicalism and affirmed vigorously that in making their recommendation the Department was not actuated for or against him by considerations of his politico-economic opinions. They regarded Mr. Sweezy as a well-trained economist, a man of real ability, and an excellent teacher. Mr. Bigelow raised the question whether the point of view advocated sympathetically by Mr. Sweezy was not considered dispassionately by other members of the Department in their teaching. Professor Burbank affirmed that this was the case, adding that the men who agitated irresponsibly on matters of current controversy were not in the Harvard Department of Economics.

                  Mr. Bigelow also inquired whether Mr. Sweezy was not likely to influence emotionally the opinions of young men predisposed by present conditions to seek, by any or every means, an escape from their immediate troubles. The point was made that individual undergraduates were taught economics not by one man alone but by at least four or five, among them men who were more orthodox than he in their economic theories. Professors Burbank and Chamberlin were clear that it was impossible not to have instruction on socialism in the Economics Department at Harvard and that without the services of Sweezy they would be very hard put to give it. Accordingly somebody else would be needed to replace Mr. Sweezy; and, according to Mr. Burbank, there was only one man in the country whom they regarded as his superior (Lange of Chicago) and whom in his opinion they would prefer to Sweezy when and if they contemplated making a permanent appointment in this field. He is not procurable on an Instructor’s salary. Professor Burbank thought that the needs of the Department on its permanent staff placed Labor, Economic History, and Agricultural Economics prior to the field represented by Mr. Sweezy. It was pointed out by Mr. Buck that with its quota of six Faculty Instructors, the Department could easily provide for these permanent needs and yet retain Mr. Sweezy as a Faculty Instructor of the new type. He pointed out that since the Department would have at best only two Faculty Instructors next year (excluding Sweezy) they had a real need for Sweezy to insure greater continuity in tutoring and to perform other departmental duties such as the conduct of General Final Examinations. This was admitted by both Mr. Burbank and Mr. Chamberlin.

                  I took the point of view that I was recommending Mr. Sweezy’s appointment on the grounds of his training in Economics and his intellectual distinction and his excellence as a teacher, adding that since the question of his opinions had been raised I should like to urge that neither at the present time nor a year from now* could an explanation be given which would seem to Mr. Sweezy or his friends to be at all adequate for our failure to reappoint him: in view of our agreement as to his qualifications he would be entitled to think that he was denied the type of appointment granted to his competitors primarily because of his political opinions, whereas should he be given his five-year appointment and not elected to a permanency at its termination (which Professor Burbank thought highly probable) there would be an explanation for letting him go which he could not contest; namely, the prior needs for men in other fields, the fact that, however good they were, only one Faculty Instructor out of every two would find a vacancy open for him, and the regularity of turn-over at that stage.

                  Mr. Bigelow intimated that he might wish to discuss the matter further with me and with President Conant. (Mr. Bigelow called me up later to say that he would ventilate the problem on Monday but would not press for adverse action.

[signed] W. S. Ferguson

* The date at which a decision would have to be made if he were given a two-year appointment only.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 154, Folder “Economics, 1939-1940”.

Image Source: Paul Sweezy in the Harvard Class Album 1942.

Categories
Economic History Economists Gender Harvard

Radcliffe/Harvard. Ph.D. economic history alumna Esther Clark Wright, 1931

Esther Clark Wright (1916)

Today we meet the Canadian Radcliffe/Harvard Ph.D. in economic history (1931), Esther Clark Wright. A link to her list of publications will be found below. The main artifact for this post consists of transcriptions of documents in her graduate record in the Division of History, Government, and Economics.

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Full Name, with date and place of birth.

Esther Clark Wright, May 4, 1895, Fredericton, N.B., Canada.

II. Academic Career: (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

1912-1916. Acadia University.
1918. Toronto University.
1920-21. Oxford University.
1926–. Radcliffe College.

Fredericton High School. 1920,1922-23. English and History.
Moulton Ladies College, 1923. History and Latin.
Harvard. Assistant in Business History, 1927.

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

B.A. Acadia, 1916. Honors in Economics.

IV. General Preparation. (Indicate briefly the range and character of your under-graduate studies in History, Economics, Government, and in such other fields as Ancient and Modern Languages, Philosophy, etc. In case you are a candidate for the degree in History, state the number of years you have studied preparatory and college Latin.)

History, 1 yr.
Economics and Sociology 3 yrs.
Greek and Latin, 4 yrs. each.
French and German, 1½ yrs each.
Philosophy, 1 yr.
Logic and Ethics, 1 yr.
Psychology, 1 yr..

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?)

Economics.

VI. Choice of Subjects for the General Examination. (State briefly the nature of your preparation in each subject, as by Harvard courses, courses taken elsewhere, private reading, teaching the subject, etc., etc.)

  1. Economic Theory. S7a. Ec. 11. Courses at Toronto and Stanford (not registered).
  2. Labor Problems. Ec 34. Seminary at Toronto. Private reading..
  3. Socialism and Social Reconstruction. Ec. 7b. Private reading.
  4. Canadian History. Course at Toronto. Private reading. (Special Topic: The Settlement of New Brunswick). Teaching.
  5. [Sociology] Ec. 12. Course at Toronto. (Course credit).
  6. (Economic History since 1750) Ec 2. Ec 20. Course at Oxford. Assistant in Business History at Business School.

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

Economic History since 1750.

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

The Genesis of the Civil Engineer. A Study in the Economic History of Great Britain, 1760-1830. Professor Gay..

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of the general and special examinations.)

April 28 or 30, 1930. General.
Special, Tues May 19/31

X. Remarks

Professors Gay, Ripley, Mason, [Dr.] Furber, Chamberlin

Special Committee:  Professors Gay, Usher, and Dr. Monroe

Signature of a member of the Division certifying approval of the above outline of subjects.

[signed] H. H. Burbank

*   *   *   [Last page of application] *   *   *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: Esther Clark Wright

Approved: December 10, 1929

Ability to use French certified by Professor A. E. Monroe, March 8, 1930.

Ability to use German certified by Professor A. E. Monroe, November 6, 1930.

Date of general examination April 30, 1930. Passed (Edwin F. Gay, Chairman)

Thesis received April 1, 1931

Read by Professors Gay and Usher

Approved June 1, 1931.

Date of special examination Monday, June 8, 1931. Passed. (Edwin F. Gay, Chairman)

Recommended for the Doctorate June 4, 1931

Degree conferred  June 17, 1931

Remarks.  [left blank]

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

General Examination,
date and examiners requested
[carbon copy]

April 21, 1930.

Dear Sir:

Will it be possible for you to serve as a member of the committee for the general examination in Economics of Mrs. Esther Wright on Wednesday, April 30, at four o’clock? Mrs. Wright’s fields for this examination are:

  1. Economic Theory and its History.
  2. Labor Problems.
  3. Socialism and Social Reconstruction.
  4. Canadian History.

Mrs. Wright’s special field is Economic History since 1750 and she is offering course credit in Sociology.

The committee consists of Professors Gay (chairman), Chamberlin, Mason, Ripley, and Dr. Furber.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary of the Division

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

Change of thesis title
[carbon copy]

June 6, 1931

My dear Mrs. Wright:

Professor Gay has asked me to tell you that he would like you to change the title of your thesis to

The Genesis of the Civil Engineer in Great Britain

As it is desirable to have this done before the examination, could you attend to it on Monday? The thesis is in my office.

Very sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Secretary

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

Radcliffe College

College Record of Mrs. Esther Clark Wright.
SUBJECT GRADE
1926-27 Course

Half-Course

Economics 2

A minus

 

SUBJECT GRADE
1927-28 2hf. Course

Half-Course

Economics 20″
Prof. Gay

A minus

 

SUBJECT GRADE
1928-29 Course

Half-Course

Economics 20
Prof. Gay

A minus
Economics 34″ A
Economics 7b” A

 

SUBJECT GRADE
1929-30 Course

Half-Course

Economics 11

Economics 12

A.B. Acadia University 1916

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics, Ph.D. Degrees Conferred 1930-31. (UA V 453.270), Box 11.

__________________________

Course Names and Instructors

1926-27

Economics 2. Economic History since the Industrial Revolution. Professor Gay.

1927-28

Economics 20. Economic Research. Professor Gay.

1928-29

Economics 20. Economic Research. Professor Gay.

Economics 34. Problems of Labor. Professor Ripley.

Economics 7b. Programs of Social Reconstruction. Asst. Professor E. S. Mason.

1929-30

Economics 11. Economic Theory. Professor Taussig.

Economics 12. Some Fundamental Problems in Economic and Social Theory. Professor Carver.

Source: Radcliffe College Catalogue [for] 1926-27, 1927-28, 1928-29, 1929-30.

_______________________

Some of her personal backstory

…After her undergraduate study at Acadia, she studied at the University of Toronto and then at Oxford. Her studies at Oxford were cut short after just one year by her younger brother’s illness, which ended his life in October 1921. It was on the journey back to Fredericton from Oxford that she met her future husband, Conrad Payling Wright.

The courtship between the two comprised largely of correspondence over the next two years and culminated in their marriage, in 1924, on the family farm outside of Fredericton. This was unusual at the time because her family held positions of esteem in the local congregation and thus they were expected to marry in a church. After marriage, Esther Clark Wright moved to California where her husband was studying at Stanford University. She soon discovered that she was unable to have children which, though devastating, enabled her to pursue her academic studies and research at liberty. She joined her husband at Stanford, and then following that she studied at Radcliffe (Harvard University), where she graduated with a PhD in economics in 1931.

Back in Fredericton, her father had risen through the political ranks, beginning as mayor of Fredericton and eventually becoming the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick. He had also opened several car dealerships in anticipation of the coming demand for automobiles. Her family’s prosperity ensured that Wright never had to depend on any other income to maintain her material comfort and this enabled her to spend time pursuing her research. This also provided her with much more independence in marriage than her female contemporaries enjoyed. Her relationship with her husband was tumultuous with the two of them often maintaining separate residences throughout their sixty-five-year marriage….

Source: New Brunswick Literary Encyclopedia website article “Esther Isabelle (Clark) Wright”.

__________________________

Esther Isabelle Clark Wright’s publications, 1914-1988.

__________________________

Esther Isabelle Clark Wright
Timeline of her life and career

1895. Born May 4 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

1916. B.A. Acadia University (Wolville, Nova Scotia). Honors in Economics.

1924. July 31. Married Conrad Payling Wright.

1931. Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. Dissertation: “The Genesis of the Civil Engineer in Great Britain, 1760-1830.”

1943-47. Lectured in sociology at Acadia University.

1975. Honorary D. Litt. awarded by Acadia University

1981. Honorary Ll.D. awarded by Dalhousie University.

1984. Honorary D. Litt. awarded by the University of New Brunswick.

1990. Died June 17

1990. Posthumously awarded Order of Canada. “A prolific author and respected scholar, her excellent research has been used by many students, historians and genealogists studying Maritime history, particularly the Loyalist migration, or tracing family roots.”

Image Source: Esther Isabelle Clark from the Acadia University Class of 1916 photo.

Categories
Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard and Columbia. President of Harvard headhunting conversation regarding economists. Mitchell and Mills, 1936

The following typed notes were based on a conversation that took place on February 21, 1936 regarding possible future hires for the Harvard economics department. President James B. Conant (or someone on his behalf) met with Columbia university professors Wesley C. Mitchell and his NBER sidekick, Frederick C. Mills. This artifact comes from President Conant’s administrative records in the Harvard Archives.

In the memo we find a few frank impressions of members of the Harvard economics departments together with head-hunting tips for established and up-and-coming economists of the day.

An observation that jumps from the paper is the identification pinned to the name Arthur F. Burns, namely, “(Jew)”. Interestingly enough this was not added to Arthur William Marget (see the earlier post Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.) nor to Seymour Harris.  

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

Confidential Memorandum of a Conversation on Friday, February 21, with Wesley [Clair] Mitchell and his colleague, Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills (?) of Columbia

General impression is that the Department of Economics at Harvard is in a better state today than these gentlemen would have thought possible a few years ago. The group from 35-50 which now faces the future is about as good as any in the country. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, [John Henry] Williams,[Gottfried] Haberler and Schlichter [sic, [Sumner Slichter] are certainly quite outstanding. Very little known about [Edward Sagendorph] Mason;  he seems to have made a favorable impression but no writings. [Seymour Edwin] Harris slightly known, favorable but not exciting.

[John Ulric] Neff admitted to be the best man in economic history if we could get him. Names of other people in this country mentioned included:

[Robert Alexander] Brady — University of California, now working on Carnegie grant on bureaucracy; under 40.

Arthur [F.] Burns at Rutgers (Jew) now working with the Bureau of Economic Research and not available for 3 or 4 years. Said by them to be excellent.

Henry Schultz of Chicago, about in Chamberlin’s class and age, or perhaps a little better.

[Arthur William] Marget of Minnesota, Harvard Ph.D., I believe; well known, perhaps better than Chamberlin. Flashy and perhaps unsound. (Mitchell and Mills disagree to some extent on their estimate of his permanent value but agree on his present high visibility).

Winfield Riffler [sic, Winfield William Riefler], recently called to the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, probably one of the most if not the most outstanding of the younger men.

Morris [Albert] Copeland of Washington; good man but not so good as Chamberlin.

Giddons [sic, Harry David Gideonse?] of Chicago, very highly thought of by Chicago people but has not written a great deal; supposed to be an excellent organizer.

C. E. [Clarence Edwin] Ayres, University of Texas, about 40; in N.R.A. at Washington. Mitchell thinks very highly of him.

England

[Theodore Emmanuel Gugenheim] Gregory, at London School of Economics, about 50, same field as Williams but not so good. Mills more favorable than Mitchell.

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

F. Colin [sic, Colin Grant] Clark, of Cambridge

Lionel Robins [sic, Lionel Charles Robbins] of London, age 35, rated very highly by both Mills and Mitchell

F. A. Hayek, another Viennese now in London; spoken of very highly by both Mills and Mitchell.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 54, Folder Economics, “1935-1936”.

Image Sources: Wesley Clair Mitchell (left) from the “Original Founders” page at the website of the Foundation for the Study of Business Cycles; Frederick C. Mills (right) from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. CVIII, No. 68, 11 February 1964.

Categories
Courses Harvard Syllabus

Harvard. Course description and outline. Economic Theory. Daniere, 1963-1964.

 

 

Edward Chamberlin had a lock-hold on the first graduate economic theory course at Harvard in the 1950s, Economics 201. Towards the end of the decade, Chamberlin began to co-teach the course with Leontief’s student, assistant professor André Lucien Danière (Harvard economics Ph.D., 1957). In 1963-64 Danière solo taught “Chamberlin’s” course and the outline to his own version of the course is transcribed below. No exams for Daniere’s Economics 201 were included in the official Harvard printed exam collection in the archives. After his term as assistant professor at Harvard, André Danière moved on to the economics department at Boston College where he worked on the economics of higher education and development economics. 

______________________

Course Announcement

A. General Courses

Economics 201. Economic Theory

Full course. Tu., Th., (S.), at 10. Assistant Professor Daniere.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, 1963-1964, p. 107.

______________________

Course Description
and Outline

                           Harvard Economic Project Research
André Danière
September 12, 1963

Economics 201
Description of the course

The first half is meant to be a self-contained basic course in micro-theory, with emphasis on the “useful”, for the benefit of students both in the department and in connected fields requiring some knowledge of economic theory. The techniques used will not go beyond elementary algebra and geometry, although some generalizations will be cast in terms requiring acquaintance with basic calculus and elements of modern linear algebra. The reading under each topic will consist in general of one modern article or book chapter selected mostly for its clarity of exposition, and one or two references to earlier classical or neo-classical literature.

The second half is integrated with the first in what is believed to be a logical overall plan, but treats of topics which either are of less urgency or are not normally included as such in –“theory” courses. For instance, a fair amount of time will be spent on central planning, with particular emphasis on “indicative” planning of the French variety. The last section on distribution will be an exercise in the history of economic thought, mostly neo-classical.

First semester

Note: Bracketed topics will be treated in no more than one lecture and are introduced only for purposes of completeness and connectedness.

  1. Framework of Economic Decisions
    1. Objectives of Economic Policy

Selected readings in chronological order from Turgot to Tinbergen.

    1. Modern Theory of Production

1) Input-Output; Linear Options; “Smooth” production function.

2) Time in the production function.

3) Definition of an “industry” production function.

    1. The Transformation Function; General Equilibrium in Production

1) Static assumptions

—with Constant Cost industries,
—with some Decreasing Cost industries,
—with jointness; external economies.

2) Dynamic models with capital accumulation

3) Semi-Aggregative models — Cobb Douglas type functions.

    1. Modern Theory of Consumption

1) Household Consumption and Income

—Utility maximization under static assumptions,
—Utility maximization over time,

2) Characteristics of Collective Consumption.

    1. Social Welfare

1) Efficiency criteria — Pricing as a tool.

2) Social vs. individual welfare

—Interpersonal comparisons; “aggregate” efficiency;
—Collective benefits in the welfare calculus
—[Basic theory of taxation]
—Philanthropy.

3) Pricing in Public utilities

4) Social investment criteria

5) [Special problems of growth in underdeveloped economies]

  1. The market economy
    1. Theory of the firm under free enterprise
    2. Alternative forms of competition

1) Industry behavior in the purely competitive model

2) Industry behavior under monopolistic competition

—Balanced competition of large numbers
—Oligopoly situations
—Public utilities

3) The determinants of competitive behavior.

    1. Welfare implications of alternative forms of competition

1) Welfare analysis

—Welfare properties of the purely competitive model
—Effect of monopoly power with fixed number of commodities
—Product differentiation.

2) [Social control and regulation of market behavior]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

ECONOMICS 201
Second Semester (summarized)

Note: Bracketed topics will be treated in no more than one lecture and are introduced only for the purposes of completeness and connectedness.

    1. Theory of investment of the firm.
    2. [The Capital market] Money and General Equilibrium
    3. [Elements of National Income Analysis]
      [Growth and Business Cycles] (sample model)
  1. Central Economic Planning
    1. [Budgetary and monetary planning]
    2. Structural planning

1) “Marginal” planning of public services — Projection models

2) “Indicative” planning (France) — “Consistent” forecasting models.

3) “Compulsive” target planning

4) Regional planning

  1. Distribution

1) Theory of rent

2) Theory of wages

3) Theory of interest

4) Theory of profits.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics, 1963-1964”.

Image Source: Boston College Association of Retired Faculty. Bulletin (Summer 2014). Photo of André Daniere on page 2.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1946-47 to 1949-50

 

This post adds the Chair’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the early post-WW II years to previously posted reports for 1932-33 through 1945-46. 

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.
1932-1941
1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year 1946-47.

This report necessarily follows much the same pattern as the report for last year. Again our work has been dominated by the number of students, undergraduate and graduate, and the lack of a trained junior staff.

The number of undergraduates of course is entirely so beyond our control. In Economies A and in most of our “middle group” courses, the elections taxed our capacity for effective instruction. Under the most propitious conditions the crowded classrooms would have presented many problems but with a dearth of trained teaching fellows and annual instructors the load carried by the senior staff was unduly heavy. Foreseeing this range of problems, the Department voted on February 19, 1946 [sic, 1947 probably correct. In December 1946 departments wereallowed to withdraw from offering tutorials] to suspend tutorial instruction for a period of two years. It may be stated here that this was probably a wise decision. Concentration in Economics appears to have resumed the trend apparent before the war. In the current year the number of concentrators will approach, or perhaps exceed 800. Even should no consideration be given to the expenditure involved, the possibility of finding and training effective tutors even for honors candidates seems somewhat remote.

On the graduate level the problems of instruction were even more difficult. During the year the number of graduate students receiving instruction was approximately 286. Our course offering on this level is large. Nevertheless, the principal graduate courses were crowded to a point where the maintenance of standards was difficult. After the graduate student has completed his preliminary program and has been accepted as a candidate for the Ph.D, degree, the instruction is largely individual. In the last year we were just coming into the situation where a considerable proportion of the students were receiving such instruction. The full impact of this situation will be felt in the current year. Most members of the senior staff will be directing the theses of some 10 to 15 students. Some officers will be responsible for even larger numbers. With the numbers we are attempting to handle on the graduate level the single task of examining candidates in the general and special examinations becomes a major consideration. During the last academic year the staff conducted general and special examinations. Such an amount of examining and of individual instruction on the graduate level has its bearing on tutorial instruction for undergraduates.

The Department voted to accept the large number of graduate students now on our rolls only after considerable investigation and discussion. It is my own personal opinion that we have set our limit altogether too high. However, the pressure upon us for admission has been very strong and our obligations to the Littauer School, where the pressure is hardly less, just be observed.

This matter of the size of the Graduate School in the immediate future is one of our most difficult problems. It will receive our attention in the current year.

In the last two or three years these reports have noted certain experiments in instruction, especially in connection with Economics A. Such experiments are dependent upon the presence of a considerable number of able and mature young men with adequate teaching experience, as well as upon a margin of free time. Both of these factors are lacking to such a degree that substantial and outstanding progress could not be expected but the plans were active and some progress was made.

If full tutorial instruction is not resumed by the Department, experimentation in undergraduate courses is imperative and this we have planned. It is our expectation that a good deal in the way of individual guidance can be accomplished in connection with Economics A and some of our middle group courses. We believe that we can make our instruction more efficient with a much smaller personnel and at much less expense than the tutorial system would involve. However, a definitive decision has not been reached on all of these matters.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the heavy instructional demands discussed above affected our research projects. Furthermore, the officers of this Department are severely handicapped by the lack of research funds. This dearth of research funds is a question which has been placed before our Visiting Committee.

In spite of the difficulties involved, the contributions of the members of the Department were substantial. The following books were published:

Teoria de la Competencie Monopolica, by E. H. Chamberlin, Mexico, 1946. (Spanish translation of The Theory of Monopolistic Competition)

Economic Policy and Full Employment, by A. H. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. 1947.

The New Economics, S. B. Harris, editor and contributor Knopf. 1947.

The National Debt and the New Economics, by S. E. Harris. 1947.

Income and Employment, by T. Morgan. Prentice-Hall. 1947.

New enlarged edition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, by J. A. Schumpeter.

The Challenge of Industrial Relations, by S. H. Slichter, Cornell University Press, 1947.

Postwar Monetary Plans and other Essays, by J. Williams. Knopf, 3rd edition. 1947.

articles were published.

Although we are able to record only one new volume and one republication of an older volume in the Harvard Economic Series for the past year, four other volumes are in the hands of the printer and will appear in the current year.

In the area of distinctions or honors, I believe the only items to be noted concern Dean Edward S. Mason. Last spring he was appointed Economic Advisor to Secretary of State Marshall at the Moscow Conference. In July he was appointed a member of President Truman’s Committee on Foreign Aid.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year 1947-48.

The report on the work of the Department for the last year can be given in part in the same terms that have been employed in the last three reports. Our major problems have been quantitative and have presented the same difficulties that were emphasized in the other post-war reports. However, we believe that the last year did reach the peak of the load and that the pressure of numbers will abate steadily. The problem of building and maintaining an effective junior staff was hardly less than in the preceding years. Crowded classrooms and insufficiently trained assistants imposed unduly severe burdens upon the senior teachers responsible for course instruction. Some improvement, especially in the middle group courses, is in prospect for the coming year but it is probable that two to three years more will be necessary before these courses will be adequately staffed. In the introductory course which relies heavily upon a large number of young instructors and teaching fellows, the situation is still serious but latterly we have been able to utilize young men with more satisfactory preparation and training. Because of the heavy demands for the services of these young men by other institutions, the turnover is large leaving us each year with a relatively inexperienced staff.

Graduate instruction continues to make unusual demands upon the time and energy of the senior staff. During the past year we conducted 109 general examinations and 26 special examinations. Examining and the related task of directing the research of candidates for the higher degrees undoubtedly have an incidence upon undergraduate instruction which raises questions of fundamental importance. It is encouraging that the number of graduate students is, through the action of the Department, declining.

In spite of the difficulties presented by the numbers of undergraduates and graduates, the Department, perhaps belatedly, has given particular consideration to its commitments in the Areas and in General Education. A report on General Education is enclosed.

Also, the Department has considered at length and in detail various problems of instruction, particularly undergraduate instruction. These considerations will be continued in the current year. By completely revising the content of our basic courses it may be possible to increase the effectiveness of our instruction and reduce somewhat the number of courses offered. A preliminary report on this aspect of our work is included.

A year ago I noted that many of our senior officers were handicapped severely by the lack of research funds. As you know, it can now be recorded with sincere satisfaction that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and that several projects under the auspices of the Research Marketing Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Charles H. Hood Dairy Foundation, the Ferguson Foundation Fund, and the Carnegie Corporation Fund, meet the situation effectively for some of our officers. The set-up of these projects promises not only to be of great value to the professors in charge of the research but it contributes heavily to the training of our most promising graduate students and younger officers.

The following books were published by members of the Department:

How Shall We Pay for Education? by Seymour Harris. Harpers.

Stabilization Subsidies by Seymour Harris. Historical Report Series, U.S. Gov’t.

Price Control of International Commodities by Seymour Harris. Archives Volume, Historical Records Office.

International Monetary Policies, by Gottfried Haberler (with Lloyd Metzler and Robert Triffin). Postwar Economic Series, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors.

Problemas de Conjuntura e de Politica Economica, by Gottfried Haberler. Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janiero.

Production in the United States, 1866-1914, by Edwin Frickey. Harvard University Press.

Seventy-eight articles have been published. Three books were published in the Harvard Economic Series during the past year. Five volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year.

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin has been appointed to succeed Dr. Arthur B. Monroe as Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Both the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics are well established intellectually and financially. With the demands of instruction and research, the editing of the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as the direction of the Harvard Economic Series, raises questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

 In the area of distinctions or honors, Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter was chosen to be President of the American Economic Association for 1948. Dean Edward S. Mason was awarded an honorary degree, D. Litt, from Williams College, June, 1948.

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

The pattern of the report of the Department of Economics on the work of the last year is essentially the same as the other reports for the post-war years. Indeed, not a little of the introduction to the report of a year ago could be utilized in the current report. The quantitative side of our work has been among our major problems. I think I was correct in predicting that the peak of the load would be passed in 1948-49. For the year 1949-50, numbers, particularly on the graduate level, will be approximately less although the total is still beyond the capacities of our senior staff.

Again I can repeat that the problem of building and maintaining a junior staff presents great difficulties. We have strengthened our position on the level of the assistant professor but we are unable to hold our most promising young Ph.D’s for appointment at the instructor level. All of our undergraduate instruction suffers because of this factor, but Economics 1 (the introductory course) is affected particularly. The demand for these young men by other institutions continues at a high level resulting in a high rate of turnover and leaving us sech year with a relatively inexperienced staff. [end of p. 1]

[Note: need to replace unfocussed image of page 2]

[p. 3 begins ] …expectation that we will be able to revise our general examination effectively.

In the post-war years the Department has been striving to meet its obligations to General Education and to the areas. We believe that we have made an excellent beginning in both General Education and in the Russian Area. We are still actively engaged in the attempt to strengthen our position in the Chinese Area. This is exceedingly difficult but I believe that some progress is being made.

Last year we were able to record with great satisfaction that some research projects were being established satisfactorily. These projects under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation and under the auspices of various groups interested in agriculture and marketing are now going forward successfully and up proving to be important for us not only as research projects but also because of their general effect upon a relatively large group of our graduate students. We can now give a type of training to our most promising men which would have been impossible without such projects. It should be emphasized at this point that other areas of interest need research funds.

The following books were published:

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1949, by John I. Dunlop.

Labor in Norway by Walter Galenson. Harvard University Press, 1949.

Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, by Alvin Hansen McGraw-Hill, 1949.

The European Recovery Program, by Seymour E. Harris. Harvard University Press.

Foreign Economic Policy for the U.S., edited by Seymour E. Harris, Harvard University Press.

Price Control of International Commodities, by Seymour E. Harris. Archives Volume for Historical Records Office.

Saving American Capitalism, edited by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Post-war Monetary Plans and Other Essays, by John H. Williams. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

The American Economy, Its Problems and Prospects, by Sumner H. Slichter. Knopf.

There were 62 articles published by members of the Department during the past year. Five books were published in the Harvard Economic Studies and two volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year. There has been a total of 86 books published in the Harvard Economic Studies to this date.

It should be recorded that both the Quarterly Journal of Economics under the editorship of Professor Chamberlin and the Review of Economics and Statistics have prospered during the year. Again I do feel it necessary to refer to the fact that editing the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics and the carrying forward of the Harvard Economic Studies continues to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions and honors, Professor Slichter was awarded honorary degrees (LL.D.) from the following universities: Lehigh University, Harvard University, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin and Northwestern University. Professor

Haberler was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Economics (“Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaft honoris causa”) from Handelshochschule, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Dr. Galbraith was awarded the President’s Certificate of Merit, Medal of Merit Board, for services in Price Control and Economic Stabilization during the war.

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

___________________________

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

In each of the reports for the last three years, emphasis has been placed upon two matters; our efforts to handle the increased numbers incident to the war, particularly on the graduate level, and our attempts to revise and improve our instruction, particularly on the undergraduate level.

With a good deal of satisfaction we are able to report that for the last year substantial progress has been made in each of these areas. Immediately after the war the number of our graduate students increased from approximately 100 to nearly 300. By raising the standards of admission and giving the most careful scrutiny to applications, the numbers on the graduate level are now well under 200, and will be reduced somewhat more for 1950-51.

The work of supervising and directing graduate students falls very unevenly upon the various members of the senior staff. Even with not over 150 graduate students some members of the staff will carry an inordinate part of individual instruction and of examining for the higher degrees. Further, large graduate classes tend to dilute the instruction.

On the undergraduate level the Department has revised its requirements for concentration, including the content of many of our key courses. This plan has been accepted by the Faculty and is now in operation. It is an ambitious scheme that involves not only a change in the content and coverage of our key courses but it also involves the strengthening the staff in these courses and an integration of course work with tutorial work. Undoubtedly it will take some years to complete this plan. Much depends upon our ability to build a strong junior staff, especially on the annual instructor level. When this reorganized instruction is in full operation it is expected that a number of courses now offered for undergraduates may be deleted.

Also it is with a good deal of satisfaction that after a period of suspension tutorial instruction has been reestablished and is developing steadily. The period of suspension was unfortunate but probably inevitable. We are now approaching a position with respect to both graduate and undergraduate instruction that at least approximates a normal situation, with a possibility of a carefully planned and well integrated system of undergraduate instruction. As a part of this plan increased attention has been given to reestablishing the General Examinations on something approximating the level of earlier years. Since we are lacking experienced tutors the establishment of tutorial instruction is a very real task but it is believed it can be done successfully.

We have been fortunate to have been able to attract to the Graduate School a group of unusually able young men. The very top of this group represents ability of the very highest order. Unfortunately only rarely can we retain the services of these young men even on the assistant professor level. However, the Department is keenly aware of the difficulties it faces in recruitment and every effort is being made to follow the progress of the product of other schools as well as the progress of our own young scholars.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

I am now somewhat belatedly submitting the report of the Department of Economics for 1949-50.

I. Undergraduate Instruction

Four hundred eighty-two Harvard and Radcliffe students concentrated in economics in 1949-50 as compared with 608 in the previous year. The enrolment in Economics 1 was 402 as compared with 546 in the previous year. Seventy-seven students graduated with honors; 20 obtaining magna cum laude and 57 cum laude.

The entire senior staff gave courses at the undergraduate level— a practice that distinguishes Harvard sharply from institutions such as Columbia and Chicago which restrict the activities of some of the most talented members of the staff to graduate instruction. Nevertheless, the strength of our undergraduate teaching has depended very largely on the unusually fine group of assistant professors we now have on our staff.

During the past couple of years the Department has been gradually moving toward restoration of the tutorial system and last spring it decided finally to give tutorial instruction to all honors students in their junior and senior years,

II. Graduate Instruction

Two hundred graduate students in economics were in residence last year as compared with 234 the previous year. The Department gave 58 general examinations for the Ph.D. and 47 special examinations.

The number of graduate students is still too large to handle effectively with the present staff. The students themselves justifiably complain that they cannot see enough of the members of the faculty. However if they did see as much of the faculty as they wanted to, the faculty would have little time for reading and research and the quality of instruction would decline. We are planning to deal with this problem as far as possible by making sure that more graduate students attend reasonably small seminars and do have an opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member reasonably well.

I believe that the quality of our graduate work has suffered through overemphasis on course work and preoccupation with grades. We tend to make graduate instruction too much of a prolongation of undergraduate instruction. We also tend too much in the direction of specialization and provide too little encouragement for students to become coordinated in the whole economic field. The remedy for this state of affairs depends more upon the general attitude of the Department rather than any specific measures of reorganization. We shall do whatever is possible to encourage students in the feeling that their main function here is to acquire the maturity that is essential for scholarship rather than to accumulate a collection of pieces of isolated information.

III. Research

Professors Mason, Leontief, Black, Galbraith and Dunlop are all conducting organized research projects within the Department. Apart from their substantive value, these projects give a considerable number of graduate students an opportunity to take part in organized research activity. I believe these projects have an important part to play in the future of the Department as a whole rather than as special interests of individual members. However, I do not share the view that most of our intellectual activities should be directed towards organized research. There is danger that we may become a research bureaucracy and that the merits of individual scholarship may achieve less recognition than they deserve. While the research project is invaluable in training the students in specialized activity, it does little to cultivate the maturity that should be one of the most important products of our graduate training.

IV. The Staff of the Department

Professor Schumpeter’s death has meant a loss to the Department that cannot be covered by any individual that we now have on the staff or could get from the outside. The only way to make up for his absence is for the present members of the faculty to direct part of their attention to the aspects of economic thought in which Schumpeter was particularly interested. This has in part been done. I think it is true to say that since Schumpeter’s death his own work has received more attention in Harvard classrooms than it received while he was alive.

The only new additions to the to the staff at the professorial level in 1949-50 were assistant professors Orcutt and Sawyer. Orcutt is giving a course at the graduate level and the undergraduate level on empirical economies in which he stresses the quantitative aspects of economic theory. He is also a first-class statistician. Since the resignation of Professor Crum we have had only one professional statistician in the Department, and it seems highly desirable to have at least two. Sawyer will add considerable strength to the Department’s work in economic history although he will spend half of his time in the General Education program.

VI. [sic] Distinctions

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

Professor Edward Chamberlin — An honorary degree (Dr.) awarded by the Universita Catholica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. December 1949.

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

Professor Gottfried Haberler — President, International Economic Association for 1950 (held by Professor Schumpeter at the time of his death).

I am attaching a bibliography of the writings of the members of the Department. [not included in this folder]

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

Images Source: Burbank (left) from the Harvard Class Album 1946, Smithies (right) from the Harvard Class Album 1952.

Categories
Economists Gender Radcliffe Undergraduate

Radcliffe. Paul Sweezy’s blue eyes and a summary of economics courses taken by the Class of 1942.

Paul Sweezy by many accounts was a Paul Newman of academic economics. This is implicitly confirmed in the following text, written by one of his fans for the Radcliffe Class of 1942 Yearbook summarizing Harvard economics courses offered to Radcliffe women in the early years of WWII.

_______________________

Economics. Ec. A—Or is the business cycle necessary? Wages, interest, profit, rent—where that last five dollars went. If value equals distribution, why do we pay so much tuition?—Money and Banking, or How Professor Harris converts the American business man to Keynes.—Corporations. Dull? How could it be, considering its Social Significance, and Dr. Sweezy’s blue eyes.—Economic Theory—watch ring-master Chamberlin corral the whole economic system into ceteris paribus.—Ec. 18. We have to strike a defense note in these parlous times.—Did we say strike? Ec. 81, Labor Problems, led this year by Messrs. Healy and Hogan.

Source (Text and Image): Radcliffe College Yearbook, Class of 1942, p. 43.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Haberler and Chamberlin fight over last-minute course changes, 1942-43

Exogenous shocks are really useful for finding out how the economy works. They also help dear colleagues reveal themselves when their private interests conflict with those of other colleagues in particular or with departmental needs in general. The U.S. entry into the Second World War forced several adjustments in the graduate and undergraduate instructional staffing at the Harvard economics department.

This post provides some light on the time Gottfried Haberler was asked to teach the first of the two term graduate economic theory sequence for the academic year 1942-43. The course was a direct descendent of Frank Taussig’s Economics 11 (the expansion of course offerings over the decades required moving into 3 digits for some course numbers and a zero was dropped into the middle of “Economics 11” to obtain “Economics 101”). At the last minute Chairman Edward Chamberlin decided that he wanted “his” course back for both semesters but Gottfried Haberler was clearly not one to go quietly. And so we witness the performance of an academic drama before colleagues, of Professor X and Professor Y claiming conflicting rights to a particular course.

The record presented here is incomplete. I have been unable to find Haberler’s written plea on his own behalf. Reading the material one might think that Chamberlin got his way and Haberler was left to find another course to satisfy his annual teaching obligation. However, a look into the annual report of the President of Harvard College for 1942-43 finds that as far as the staffing of Economics 101 in 1942-43 goes, ex ante equals ex post. The course was ultimately divided that year between Messrs. Haberler and Chamberlin.

___________________________

Economics 101: syllabi (with links to most readings) and examinations for fall and spring terms 1941-42 taught by Edward Chamberlin.

___________________________

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Economics 1a. First term, undergraduate course “Economic Theory”.

Economics 102b. Second term, graduate course “Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Gottfried Haberler. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

Gottfried Haberler

Economics 18b. Second term, undergraduate course on the Economic Aspects of War,

Co-taught Economics 45a with Alvin Hansen. First term, undergraduate course  “Business Cycles”.

Economics 144. Graduate School of Public Administration Seminar “International Economic Relations”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Edward Chamberlin. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

___________________________

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Economics 101. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 12. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1942-43. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 53 (September 23, 1942), p. 55.

___________________________

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

[Economics] 101. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler. — Economic Theory.

Total 24: 16 Graduates, 4 School of Public Administration, 1 Graduate Business School, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1942-1943, p. 47.

___________________________

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

October 9, 1942

Course Economics 101 was announced in the catalogue for 1942-3 to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. This arrangement was never considered as final but was subject to adjustment at the beginning of the college year in view of the general uncertainty as to the status of such of the graduate instruction until enrolments in various courses were known. (In particular, it seemed likely that either 102b or 163 or both might be bracketed, thus freeing either one half or one full course of Mr. Chamberlin’s time). It was, however, agreed between Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin that, in case the course were given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin the second. Several times prior to the opening of college Mr. Haberler asked Mr. Chamberlin about the status of the course and was told that unfortunately nothing final could be decided until enrolments were known; it was agreed, however, that Mr. Haberler would take the first meeting, or meetings, of the course until a decision was reached. The matter was mentioned on Friday morning, October 2, at a casual meeting between classes at which time, since no final decision had been taken, Mr. Chamberlin said that it was still possible that the arrangement might stand. On Saturday, October 3, a final decision to take back the course was communicated to Mr. Haberler after considering a number of factors, among which were the following:

  1. The enrolment in Economics 102b was only two, plus five auditors. This course had always been given in the second semester, thereby opening it to the first year students who had had the first semester of 101. The bracketing of 163 made it possible to revert to this disposition of 102b, (or to bracketing it later on if this seemed necessary). The chief obstacle to Mr. Chamberlin’s giving the first half and therefore all of 101 was thereby removed.
  2. The class list of 101, received Friday afternoon, revealed that of 16 [or 18?] student then enrolled in the course all but two were foreigners. Many of these would have serious problems of adaptation to academic work in a new language and in a new country, and it seemed for the reason especially desirable to unify the introductory course in theory under one direction during the current year.
  3. During the past, two years the course had, for better or worse, been split both vertically and horizontally, not by action of the department but on the initiative of Mr. Chamberlin. This was done in part to open greater possibilities for discussion through smaller sections, and in part to share the course with others who wanted very much to teach theory. At no time during that period had Mr. Chamberlin given less than a full year of the course, and its outline and organization had always been his. It was his sincere belief that now that the course was again of manageable size the department would wish it to be given as it had directed earlier, and that he was fully competent to make the decision. At that time the work of the year had not really begun.

However, Mr. Haberler objected so strongly to the change that in order to settle the matter amicably, Mr. Chamberlin proposed on Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Haberler agreed, that the matter be left to a committee composed of Professor Crum as Chairman and other members to be chosen by Professor Crum. As this Committee could not possibly be assembled and give a decision before the Monday meeting of the course it was agreed that Mr. Haberler would take that meeting and that the Committee shouId render a decision before the Wednesday meeting. The decision was in fact rendered Tuesday afternoon and was unanimous that Mr. ChamberIin should give the course, When apprized of this decision, Mr. Haberler said he would like time to consider whether or not he was willing to accept it. From this point on Mr. Chamberlin became a passive duopolist, leaving all initiative to Mr. Haberler, who proposed that he take the Wednesday meeting of the course, finishing matters which he had begun on Monday, give a cut on Friday (there was a holiday the following Monday), and decide sone time before the Department meeting whether or not he would like to bring the matter before the Department. Meanwhile, the Committee had decided that certain questions which it had discussed apart from the immediate issue should be brought before the Department at its meeting October 13th. Mr. Haberler’s final decision on Thursday was that if the Department is going into the whole theory question anyway, they should also decide on the present status of Economics 101.

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

October 10, 1942

Dear Leonard [Crum]:

It has occurred to me that, since Haberler has given you in writing a statement of the facts as he sees them, I might, even at this late date do the same. My own statement will add some details and perhaps present a different emphasis at one or two points It may be used at your discretion in whatever way you think best, (including, of course, the possibility of no use at all beyond your own reading). I am sending a copy to Haberler.

Sincerely,

E. H. Chamberlin

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

October 17, 1942

To Members of the Department of Economics:

In view of the fact that Professor Haberler’s statement with respect to Economics 101 had some circulation prior to last Tuesday’s meeting and was also read in the meeting, whereas my own statement has to this moment been seen only by Professor Crum and one other member of the Department, I should like now to make both equally available to any who may wish to consult them. Accordingly, they will both be found in the blue folder in Mrs. Arnold’s office. Also in the blue folder are: (1) The minutes of the last three meetings, and 2) The report of the Chairman to the Dean of the Faculty covering the work or the Department for the past year.

Chairman [Chamberlin]

___________________________

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

CONFIDENTIAL

(for use of Department
of Economics officers
only)

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

13 October, 1942

On Monday, October 5, the Chairman of the Department brought to my notice a personal disagreement between himself and Mr. Haberler concerning the assignment for teaching Economics 101, and asked that I serve as Chairman of a Special Committee to “arbitrate” in the case, and report before the meeting of Economics 101 on Wednesday the 7th. I was instructed to associate with myself such members of the Department as I saw fit in making up the Committee. I asked Mr. Burbank, formerly Chairmen of the Department, to be a member, and also four other members of the Department who have at present no active part in the teaching of economic theory and whose views on the matter at issue were unknown to me. One of these individuals was unable to serve because of his inability to meet with the Committee at any time available for meeting within the interval during which action had to be taken. The Committee, therefore, was made up as follows: Crum, Chairman, Black, Burbank, Dunlop, and Usher.

The Committee met and considered to the best of its ability all aspects of the case, and herewith reports certain recommendations to the Department for such action as it wishes to take. The Chairman of the Committee reported on Tuesday afternoon the 6th to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler the findings of the Committee in outline form because the Chairman thought that the two individuals concerned might have agreed to abide by the finding of the “arbitration” and might be willing to put the findings into effect immediately. The Chairman of the Committee did, however, report to both participants in the controversy that he did not regard the Committee as being clothed with any conclusive authority and that unless the participants in the controversy both accepted the findings of the Committee those findings would have to go to the Department as recommendations and would be subject to such action as the Department saw fit to take.

Statement of the issues.

Course Economics 101 is announced in the spring issue of the current Courses of Instruction pamphlet as to be given jointly Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler, and I am informed that they had during the summer agreed among themselves that, in case the course was given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the course during the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin during the second. Late in the week in which instruction of the present half year began Mr. Chamberlin indicated to Mr. Haberler that he thought the entire course should be given by Mr. Chamberlin. Mr. Haberler objected to any such change and insisted that he continue to give the course during the first half year. The issue, accordingly, was whether the conduct of the course should go forward on the basis of joint responsibility of Mr. Haberler in the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin in the second half year, or should be restored to the basis prevailing for several years in which Chamberlin gave the full course.

History of the case.

After the retirement of Professor Taussig, Course 101 (formerly called Course 11) was given for several years by Mr. Schumpeter by an arrangement which was understood to be provisional and subject to later change. At the end of this interim, after extended consideration of the needs and purposes of the Department with respect to the teaching of the several courses in economic theory, the Department took specific action directing Mr. Chamberlin to teach Course 101. At the same time arrangements were agreed upon by which several other specialists in economic theory in the staff of the Department participated in the instruction in economic theory. Presently the enrolmont in Course 101 became so large that its conduct as a single course by the discussion method became difficult; and, without specific vote of the Department, the course was divided into two sections, with one conducted by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Taylor in 1940-41 and by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leontief in 1941-42, the other by Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin in both years.

With the decline in enrolment which has occurred, no occasion for such splitting of the course persists, and it has long been forseen that Economics 101 would be conducted as a single section during the present year. In recognition of this, an arrangement was made, without specific action by Department vote, to announce Economics 101 for the present year as to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. At the time this arrangement was made the expectation was that Mr. Chamberlin would be giving during the first half year Economics 1a and Economics 102b and that he should not be called upon to carry the additional instruction involved in teaching Economics 101 during the first term.

The initial enrolment in Economics 102b was so small that the course has been withdrawn from the first term offering, and although it is announced for the second term doubt remains whether the enrolment will be sufficient even then to warrant giving it. In recent months, various changes in personnel of the Department and the necessity of distributing the teaching and other load in all branches of the Department work as fairly and efficiently as possible have resulted in various changes in the assignments of particular officers to particular duties. In these circumstances it became possible for Mr. Chamberlin to resume during the first term instruction in Economics 101 without making his course load excessive.

In connection with the controversy, the Chairman of the Committee had a conversation with Mr. Chamberlin in which the latter presented his own views concerning the history of the case and the points at issue. Mr. Haberler submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee setting forth his ideas on the matter. Those items were brought to the attention of the Committee by its Chairman. Following the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Chamberlin also submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee. Either or both of the written statements will be laid before the Department on request.

Meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met on Tuesday, October 6. The Chairman gave the Committee a history of the case and a summary of the information available bearing upon the point at issue. The Chairman also informed the Committee that he did not understand that the Committee had any conclusive powers and would be obliged to report its findings in the form of recommendations to the Department.

The Chairmen specifically urged the Committee, therefore, in proceeding toward its findings to consider the wisdom of bringing in findings which, in its opinion, would probably be supported by the Department. The Chairman reminded the Committee that adequate treatment of the particular matter at issue might well involve (a) recommendations by the Committee concerning certain related matters affecting other courses; and (b) recommendations by the committee concerning certain longer run matters relating to the general question of our offering in economic theory. The Chairman discussed with the Committee certain basic principles bearing upon the case, and received the concurrence of all the members of the Committee in these principles. They are outlined below.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the matter at issue and various related matters. Discussion by the members of the Committee was free and active and the Chairman made a special effort to call forth the views of each member of the Committee. After this discussion the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations to be made to the Department, and to be reported to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler in the hope they would accept the findings. The agreement of the Committee was unanimous. Those recommendations are presented below.

Basic principles.

In approaching a set of findings with respect to the issues raised the Committee had in mind a series of basic principles in which members of the Committee concurred. Those are as follows:

(a) Because of its compressed personnel in wartime and because of the extraordinary wartime adjustments needed in its work: the Department has a peculiarly difficult task of assigning functions to its various officers with a view to getting the essential work of the Department done with such distribution of the burden as will be primarily efficient from the point of view of the Department and secondarily fair from the point of view of the individuals.

(b) Even in peacetime the needs of the Department and the objective of securing maximum efficiency in the performance of Department work transcend the interests and preferences of individual officers. Although in peacetime many concessions can be made with a view to accommodating the preferences and interests of individual officers and with a view to protecting the rights or supposed rights of individual officers, the Department would in general not recognize that such individual interests can overrule the general interest of the Department. In wartime this condition is even more emphatically true, and in such time the individual preferences and interests may be obliged to give way to the general interest of the Department more frequently and more extensively than in normal times. Throughout the duration of the war many if not all of the officers of this Department will be doing work which they prefer not to do and will be denied the opportunity to do work which they would like to do. Without such sacrifices the essential work of the University cannot be effectively handled in wartime.

(c) The Department and the University cannot afford to allow the general interest to be sacrificed because of informal commitments or quasi agreements made among individual officers when such agreements fail to take adequate account of the general interest of the Department, even though those who made the agreements acted in good faith. That agreements thus made may from time to time have to be set aside in the interest of the Department, and that such setting aside may involve some sacrifice by one or more individuals involved must be accepted as one of the costs of giving primary importance to the general interest of the Department. Ordinarily it is to be expected that individuals will refrain from making arrangements for which they have no power under the law of the Department; but ever if such arrangements are entered into under a grant of power, the individuals concerned must recognize that the Department itself has a clear right to final determination at one of its meetings.

(d) To the best knowledge of the Committee, the purpose of the Department with respect to the assignment of instruction in Course 101 remains as it was last officially determined by Department vote several years ago, namely, that Course 101 should be given by Mr. Chamberlin.

(e) Under the stress of war the Department may be obliged to sacrifice in part some branches of its work, and the Committee believes that graduate instruction will probably need to be sacrificed before instruction in undergraduate courses, tutorial instruction, and other Department work directed toward the teaching of undergraduates. A policy which exposes graduate instruction to the principal sacrifices is also likely to result in the most frequent disregard of personal preferences and even of supposed rights of individual officers; but presumably the Department would nevertheless feel that such a policy must be adopted and maintained.

Recommendations to the Department.

After considering the facts laid before it in connection with the matters at issue and in the light of its own agreement on basic principles, the Committee agreed unanimously to present the following recommendations to the Department at its meeting on Tuesday, October 13, and to report these recommendations at once to the parties in the controversy:

(a) That during the present year Mr. Chamberlin be assigned to conduct the entire Course 101.

(b) That, in view of chancing conditions which may mean that the Department’s present total offering in economic theory covering the entire range of courses in that field does not most satisfactorily meet the needs of instruction in that field, the Department promptly and earnestly reconsider the total offering with a view to making such changes as may be necessary in the next announcement of courses. The Committee makes no recommendation as to how the reconsideration should be conducted, whether by the appointment of a committee or by general Department discussion or by a combination. It also makes no specific recommendation as to any changes in the present offerings of courses, but merely notices that such a general reconsideration may well cover the possibility that Mr. Haberler might be asked to give work in economic theory.

(c) The Committee recommends that the Department consider asking Mr. Haberler to take charge of an additional half course during the present academic year, with a view to replacing the first half of Course 101 in rounding out his teaching assignment. The Committee specifically recommends that Course 18b be considered as one of the possibilities for additional instruction by Mr. Haberler; and makes this recommendation because on the one hand the Committee feels that the hurried arrangement by which that course was assigned jointly to four officers won Mr. Harris withdrew may have been ill-advised in that use of too numerous instructors in such a course may damage the continuity from the point of view of the student; and on the other hand the Committee believes that Mr. Haberler’s areas of specialization would enable him to handle this particular course very effectively.

(d) The Committee recommends that the Department consider carefully the question whether in determining that the enrolment in a course is so small that the course should be withdraw only those enrolled for credit should be counted, or whether in addition the auditors should be counted (this question was raised before the Committee in connection with Course 102b in which the first term enrolment was two members for credit plus five others. Course 102b has been withdrawn from the first term offering, but will be announced again for the second term, and the question posed above may at that time again be raised).

W. L. Crumm

___________________________

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Paul Herman Buck, Dean
Henry Chauncey, Assistant to the Dean
Jeffries Wyman, Jr. Assistant Dean

5 University Hall

January 12, 1943

To the Senior Members of the Department of Economics:

After considerable contemplation of the issue which has arisen between Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and which I have undertaken to arbitrate, I find I am in complete accord with the Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101, dated October 13, 1942. I commend especially as sound, the basic principles outlined on page 3 of that report and I accept as my official decision the recommendations to the Department given on page 4 of that report.

Frankly, it seems to me most unfortunate that the issue should have descended into personalities. The department should be prepared to face the large problems of policy which I have outlined in a letter to your Chairman which, I trust, will be read at your meeting tonight. Obviously those problems will not be solved intelligently and equitably if they are not approached with a vision directed to the loyalties of one’s subject and university rather than to self. Is it asking too much to relegate the personal aspects of this issue to oblivion?

It seems to me very important so to do. I have taken a great deal of pride in the distinction of the Department of Economics at Harvard and I have spoken in many circles boastfully of having what seems to me one of the very few remaining great departments of economics in the world. Certainly the responsibility of keeping that department great and of enabling it to develop continuing leadership should be the major loyalty to which every other consideration is subordinate. The awareness of this responsibility and the opportunities it presents will preoccupy your time and energies. Let me conclude by saying that I have always had and retain confidence in the intelligence, initiative, devotion. and cooperative spirit of your membership. I write this with all the more assurance because I know so many of you intimately and appreciate from personal friendship the qualities I have mentioned.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Buck

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Graduate Instruction in Theory. Economics 101. 1942-43.