Tag: Friedman

Chicago. Gilbert and Sullivan Parody Songs. About Classical and Keynesian Economics.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-12-06

__________________________

Every so often the tiny cultural studies scholar inside my economist body says it is time to post another artifact from the social life of an economics department. Annual Christmas parties, skit parties and picnics (less so) are occasions when economists attempt to write comedy and some popular or familiar song or text gets reworked into a bit of burlesque humor.

Transcriptions of such masterpieces previously posted in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror include: FIRST EPISTLE UNTO NEW STUDENTS, WHEN I WAS A LAD, COWLES COMMISSION SONG, and SONG FOR AN ENTREPRENEUR.

This evening I thought I would treat myself to a quick-and-easy posting of the lyrics of two songs taken from the nine pages stapled together of University of Chicago skits that I found in Albert Rees’ papers at Duke. In an act of unpremeditated scholarship I glanced at what I had believed to be identical copies of the same stuff in Milton Friedman’s papers. Then to my horror (I really wanted this to be a quick-and-easy posting), I discovered that the two versions are not quite identical (recycling!). The only honorable thing to do was to post both versions side-by-side and highlight their differences. The versions found in Milton Friedman’s papers seem to me to read better than those found in Albert Rees’ papers which leads me to conclude that the versions from the Friedman papers are of more recent vintage.

Authorship is unknown, but there can be no doubt that we are dealing with lyrics composed, performed, and (first) enjoyed by economists at the University of Chicago sometime in the first two decades after WWII (when Rees was at the University of Chicago).

My personal favorite line: “In economic theory we’re wed to ceteris paribus./We find it nicer living where the air is rather raribus.”

__________________________

Parody of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I am the very model of a modern Major General”

To enjoy the original work being parodied:

English National Opera: Major-General’s Song from The Pirates of Penzance – live and with lyrics!

I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A CLASSICAL ECONOMIST (To the tune of “I am the very model of a modern Major General” from THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE)	I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A U OF C ECONOMIST (To the tune of “I am the very model of a modern Major General” from THE PIRATES OF PENZANCE)
I am the very model of a classical economist. A Marshall, Smith, Pigou and Mill Comprise my total reading list For policy, you must insist On having as your analyst A U of C example of a classical economist.	I am the very model of a classical economist. A Marshall, Smith, Pigou and Mill Comprise my total reading list For policy, you must insist On having as your analyst A U of C example of a classical economist.
Our tools are based on static equilibrium analyses. The economy we study is afflicted with paralyses. But, if you want an analyst, For quality you must insist On a U of C example of a classical economist.	Our tools are based on static equilibrium analyses. The economy we study is afflicted with paralyses. But, if you want an analyst, For quality you must enlist A U of C example of a classical economist.
Competitive adjustment is the true course for all laborers. A freely fluctuating wage, all long-run benefits confers, So, unions, if you must persist Remember, that an analyst Does not come any finer than a classical economist.	Competitive adjustment is the true course for all laborers. A freely fluctuating wage, all long-run benefits confers, So, unions, if you must persist Remember, that an analyst Does not come any finer than a classical economist.
In economic theory we’re committed to ceteris paribus. We find it easier living where the air is rather raribus. So, if you want an analyst For purity you must insist On a U of C example of a classical economist.	In economic theory we’re wed to ceteris paribus. We find it nicer living where the air is rather raribus. So, if you want an analyst For purity you must enlist A U of C example of a classical economist.
The chastity of this our land we manifestly must preserve. The banking system should be based on 100% reserve. So obvious, so simple this Why does the FRB exist? Replace it with a very special U of C economist.	The chastity of this our land we manifestly must preserve. The banking system should be based on 100% reserve. So obvious, so simple this Why does the FRB exist? Replace it with a very special U of C economist.
Our little coterie extends from here across to Manchester. But government advisers seldom here or there with us concur. We must ask a psychiatrist Why our advice they all resist. But we’ll keep the tradition of the classical economist.	Our little coterie extends from here across to Manchester. But government advisers seldom here or there with us concur. We’ll ask a good psychiatrist Why our advice they all resist. But we will bear the standard of the classical economist.
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Albert Rees. Box 1, Folder “Rees—Personal”.	Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 79, Folder 6 “University of Chicago Miscellaneous”.

__________________________

Parody of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I’m Called Little Buttercup”

To enjoy the original work being parodied:

Lyric Theatre of San Jose performing “I’m Called Little Buttercup” from H.M.S. Pinafore. Song starts at 0:45.

KEYNESIAN SONG (To the tune “They call me Little Buttercup” from H.M.S. Pinafore)	THEY CALL ME A KEYNESIAN (to the tune of Buttercup from PINAFORE)
They call me a Keynesian, a Keynesian Economist And that I can never deny For I’m a heretic, a classicist critic— Bold little Keynesian, I.	They call me a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist And that I cannot deny. For I’m a heretic, a classicist critic, Bold little Keynesian, I.
I’ve equations and functions, and marginal assumptions All here in my little kit bag. I have tricky proposals for income disposals All lest the economy sag.	I’ve equations and functions, and marg’nal assumptions All here in my little kit bag. I’ve tricky proposals for income disposals Lest the economy sag.
To deficit spending and government lending I give a hearty “Huzzah”. I distrust automaticity despite its simplicity— I doubt if it would work at all.	To deficit spending and government lending I give a hearty huzzah. I shun automaticity despite its simplicity; I doubt if it would work at all.
For I am a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist And that I can never deny For I’m a heretic, a classicist critic— Bold little Keynesian, I.	They call me a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist And that I can cannot deny. For I’m a heretic, a classicist critic, Bold little Keynesian, I.
When faced with deflation or misallocation I feel that the former is worse I abominate waste with Ricardian distaste But still first things always come first.	When faced with deflation or misallocation I feel that the former is worse. I abominate waste with Ricardian distaste, But still first things always come first.
And yet they deplore me, criticize and abhor me For I am the standard straw man But blows I don’t heed—Oh, I’ll stick to my credo That a plan is a plan is a plan.	And yet they deplore me, criticize and abhor me, For I am the standard straw man. But blows I don’t heedo, I’ll stick to my credo, That a plan is a plan is a plan.
For I am a Keynesian, a Keynesian economist And that I can never deny For I’m a heretic, a classicist critic— Bold little Keynesian, I.
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Albert Rees. Box 1, Folder “Rees—Personal”.	Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 79, Folder 6 “University of Chicago Miscellaneous”.

Image Source: Monty Python’s silly walks. Quora website: What are examples of Low Comedy?

Tags Friedman, Rees

Amherst Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. John Maurice Clark. Autobiographical notes, 1949

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

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

______________________

June 8, 1949

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________

J.M.C. later history.

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

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

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

1912 ed. of Control of Trusts

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

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

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

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

Modern Psych.

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

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

Ayres, Knight on faculty.

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

Social Control [of Business]

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

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

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

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

Chicago Funny Business

Chicago. First Epistle Unto the Entering Students. Ca. 1950

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-10-11
1 Comment on Chicago. First Epistle Unto the Entering Students. Ca. 1950

These scriptural apocrypha were found in a folder archived in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution labelled “University of Chicago, Miscellaneous” in which texts from Chicago (economics) performance art had been filed. The First Epistle Unto the Entering Students and First Epistle Unto New Students are clearly of divine inspiration though we are left without any explicit indication of authorship or date. The version designated V2.0 is presumed to be of later origin: the correction of “thou” for “thee” as well as the multiplication of false gods, from “Probability” to “Macro-economics and Probability” seem to fit the proposed sequence.

Confidence intervals for the date of the first appearance of the Epistle should probably include 1950. The Cowles Commission “The American Patrol” song follows immediately in Friedman’s folder and it has been dated to be around 1949 by Carl Christ (JEL, March 1994, p. 34). For this reason I have included course descriptions for the economics courses in 1950-51 specifically mentioned (301 and 302 being standard Frank Knight courses). From the text it would appear that a dissertation writing graduate student at that time could have been the author “for these many months have I spent in the land of Marshall and Pigou, and have felt the weight of prelims on my balding head.” Perhaps a visitor to this page knows the identity of a witty balding graduate student in economics at mid-century Chicago?

The image for this posting is taken from the bottom of the page of the alternate version of the First Epistle. Is there another riddle of the Sphinx?

__________________________

First Epistle Unto the Entering Students:
[V1.0]

Lo ye who enter through the gates of admissions, unto the sanctity of the Department, behold its Grace and witness the Truth it gives unto you.

Heed ye well the words of one who is older and wiser than thee, for these many months have I spent in the land of Marshall and Pigou, and have felt the weight of prelims on my balding head.

Beware the course called 302, for therein shalt thou know the deer from the beaver.

Beware also the courses 300 A & B, for they shall try thee sorely. There is a time to speak and there is a time to be silent: be thou silent. Present thyself upon the appointed hour, lest the social cost exceed the private gain and the wrath of the master descend upon thee.

Shun thou the geometer, for he loveth his curves too dearly and seeks to seduce thee therewith. Throw thou his siren song from thy soul, for it lacketh rigor and appeals but to the senses.

Shun thou also the temple of the false god Probability, for therein dwell the Philistines who worship not Marshall. For there shall they descend upon thee with all manner of strange things, and thy head shall whirl in n-dimensions.

Attend carefully upon the course 301, for there if thou learnest nothing else, shalt thou learn at least this—and it shall be a contribution to thy general education.

Avoid thou the seven sins of the classicists and remember as thine own name the five rates of substitution. Confuseth not stocks with flows lest thou spend thy days in the industrial relations center.

Shun thou the welfare economist, for he duly loveth to stick out his neck, and he will teach thee his evil ways.

Disturb not the agricultural economist when he is at his data for he loveth them mightily and will defend them as a lioness her cubs—he heeds not the statistician or the wiseman.

Yea, verily, stray not unto the land of the Hansenites. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Scourge from thy heart the heretics of Keynes. The devil dost appear in the name of the Lord.

Await the coming of the Messiah, for then shall the Pigou effect bring full employment upon the land.

FIRST EPISTLE UNTO NEW STUDENTS
[V2.0]

To all who enter through the Gate of Admissions unto the sanctity of the Department, heed ye well the words of one who is wiser and older than thou. For verily I have dwelt in the land of Marshall for many months, and have felt the curse of Prelims on my head.
Beware the courses called 300A and 300B, for they will tax thee sorely. They have been devised that the deer may be known from the beaver.
Present thyself upon the appointed hour, lest the social cost exceed the private gain and the wrath of the Master fall upon thee mightily.
Shun thou the geometer, for he seeks to seduce thee with curves. His siren song is pleasant but he lacketh rigor.
Shun thou also the temple of the twin gods, Macro-economics and Probability, for therein dwell the Philistines who worship not Marshall. There wilt thou be set upon with all manner of strange things and thou shalt feel the lash of the mixed strategy upon thee, and thy head shall whirl in n-dimensions.
Treasure thy Marshall, for verily all manner of mysteries are set down therein. Read it well and carefully, but say not that thou hast understood.
Take to thine own bosom the demand curve lest it desert thee in thine hour of need.
Attend well upon the lectures called 301, for there if thou learnest nothing else, shalt thou learn at least one thing and it shall be a contribution to thy general education.
Shun thou the agricultural economist when he is at his data, for he loveth them dearly and will defend them as a lioness her cubs.
Beware also the statistician who will leave thee witless with a pair of dice.
Shun the welfare economist, for he loveth mightily to stick out his neck and will teach thee his evil ways.
Shun thou the Social Science Tea, but study diligently in Harper lest thou and thy end thy days in the Business School.
There is a time to speak and a time to be silent. Be thou silent in the presence of the Master, for he shall reveal to thee the secrets of Marshall and there shalt thou solve the riddle of the Sphinx.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 79, Folder 6, “University of Chicago, Miscellaneous”.

_______________________________

ADVANCED COURSES

300A, B. Price Theory. A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production. Prereq: for 300A, Econ 209 or equiv and Math 112 or equiv, or consent of instructor. For 300B, Econ 300A. Aut (300A) ThTh 1:30-3:30; Wallis; Win (300A): MWF 1:30; Metzler; Win (300B): TuTh 1:30-3:30; Friedman; Spr (300B): MWF 2:30; Metzler.

301. Price and Distribution Theory. Study of the general body of economic thought which centers about the theory of value and distribution and is regarded as “orthodox theory.” Critical examination of some modern systems of this character. Prereq: Econ 209, Math 112 or equiv, and two years’ work in the Division of Social Sciences, or equiv. Sum: MTuWF 11; Knight.

302. History of Economic Thought. Brief survey of the whole field of economic thought and a more intensive study of the “classical school” of British economists, whose doctrines are studied in relation to the problems and discussions of today. Prereq: Econ 301 or equiv. Spr: TuTh 3:30-5:30; Knight.

Source: The University of Chicago. Announcements, Vol. L, No. 9 (July 20, 1950): The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, pp. 28-29.

Tags Friedman, Knight

Bibliography Columbia Courses Economists Suggested Reading

Columbia. Friedman’s lecture notes to first Hotelling lecture in Mathematical Economics, 1933

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-10-06

On October 3, 2017, Antoine Missemer tweeted an image of an undated examination question by Harold Hotelling “Describe two mathematical contributions to economics published before 1910”. One should note that asking students to talk about work published at least a quarter century before the current academic year is not necessarily a deep dive into the history of economics, though of course Cournot, Bertrand and Edgeworth had achieved “historical” fame by 1933.

From Harold Hotelling’s course in Mathematical Economics taught in the first semester of 1933/34 at Columbia, Milton Friedman kept about forty-five 3 by 5 inch index cards worth of notes (both sides). From his first lecture, we can put together a convenient “short list” of Hotelling’s chosen greatest hits in mathematical economics. I have taken the liberty of expanding Friedman’s abbreviations, figuring the main purpose of transcribing archival material is to ease digital search down the road.

Earlier postings include a list of Hotelling’s courses and his class rolls at Columbia as well as an outline and exam for his course in mathematical economics offered at North Carolina (1946, 1950).

___________________________

Milton Friedman’s student notes to Harold Hotelling’s first lecture in Mathematical Economics (1933)

9/2/33 (1)

Hotelling, Harold on Mathematical Economics

Has been stated that methodological difference between economics + natural sciences is that in former cannot + in latter do experiments

Not entirely true: in econonomics may experiment, + in some physical sciences (e.g. astronomy, meteorology etc.) do not experiment.

Better dividing line to be found in number of relevant factors

Use of Mathematics in Economics:

A. Cournot 1838

J. Bertrand 1883 Journal des Savants (reviewed Cournot)

F. Y. Edgeworth 1881 Math. Psychics. Papers relating to Pol. Economy.

Pareto

Alfred Marshall Principles of Economics

(Edgeworth laid foundation of many theories more modern than Marshall

Using higher Mathematics in Economics

G. C. Evans

C. F. Roos

Zeuthen

Pareto in Encyclopedie des Science Math, Vol I, Tome IV part 4 (Tome I, Vol. IV)

[Yes, that is all that Friedman wrote down for that lecture]

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 120, Class note cards.

___________________________

Links to Works Referred to by Hotelling

Cournot, Augustin. Recherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Richesses. Paris: Hachett, 1838.

Nathaniel T. Bacon translation: Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth with a bibliography of Mathematical economics by Irving Fisher. New York: Macmillan, 1897.

Bertrand, J. (Review of) Théorie Mathématique de la Richesse Sociale par Léon Walras: Recherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Richesses par Augustin Cournot. Journal des Savants 67 (1883), 499-508.

Edgeworth, F. Y. Mathematical Psychics. An Essay on the Application of Mathematics to the Moral Sciences. C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1881.

Edgeworth, F. Y. Papers Relating to Political Economy. Volume I; Volume II; Volume III. London: Macmillan, 1925.

Pareto, Vilfredo. Économie mathématique, —in Encyclopédie des sciences mathématique, Tome I, vol. 4 (Fascicule 4, pp. 590-640), 1906 [?].

Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics (8^th edition). London: Macmillan, 1920.

Griffith C. Evans. Mathematical Introduction to Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1930.

Reviewed by Hotelling in Journal of Political Economy, 39, no. 1 (Feb 1931) pp. 107-09.

F. Zeuthen Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare. London: Routledge, 1930.

Reviewed by Corwin D. Edwards (New York University) in AER, 21, no. 4 (December, 1931), pp. 701-704.

Charles Frederick Roos. Dynamic Economics—Theoretical and Statistical Studies of Demand, Production and Prices. Monographs of the Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, No. 1. Bloomington, Indiana: Principia Press, 1934.

Image source: From a photo of the Institute of Statistics leadership around 1946: Gertrude Cox, Director, William Cochran, Associate Director-Raleigh and Harold Hotelling, Associate Director-Chapel Hill. North Carolina State University.

Tags Friedman, Hotelling

Economists NBER

NBER. Mitchell to Burns about Friedman. 1945

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-22

Reading the letter written by Wesley Clair Mitchell, the Director of Research at the NBER, to Arthur Burns in which Mitchell offers discouraging words regarding an appointment at NBER for Milton Friedman in 1945, it is interesting to see how Milton Friedman and his wife report on the controversy that very clearly influenced Mitchell’s personal opinion of Milton Friedman. What is not yet clear is whether Arthur Burns ultimately made an offer to Friedman or whether it was perhaps the timely offer arranged by George Stigler for Milton Friedman to teach at the University of Minnesota that made a NBER appointment a moot point.

_______________________________

The Friedmans Remember

The publication of the NBER book by Simon Kuznets and Milton Friedman Incomes from Independent Professional Practice (1945) was delayed four years in part because of the new demands for statistical and economic analyses due to World War II. In Milton Friedman’s judgment the delay was caused “mostly by a controversy about one part of the manuscript” that attributed half the observed excess average income of physicians over dentists to “the difference in ease of entry, produced at least in part by the success of the American Medical Association in limiting entry into medicine.” (pp. 71-72) A member of the special reading committee of directors appointed to evaluate the manuscript, C. Reinhold Noyes, did not agree and wrote “I suggest that the subject of freedom of entry is a hot poker and be dropped.” Friedman described how he and Kuznets wrote eighty pages worth of memos in response to this and other criticisms of Noyes. In his account of the controversy, Milton Friedman has nothing but praise for Wesley Clair Mitchell: “Three years of back and forth discussion followed, with Wesley Mitchell…supporting the scientific freedom of bureau authors…In later years I came to appreciate how rare is the combination of toughness and diplomacy that Mitchell demonstrated in defense of our scientific freedom.” (pp. 74-76)

Rose Friedman wrote about her worries about her husband’s job prospects after World War II ended.

“Presumably he could have gone back to the Treasury but that was the last thing he wanted to do. A government career was never Milton’s choice. He could always return to the National Bureau, but I knew that too was not Milton’s preference. An academic career was what he wanted. By early September, when we moved back to our apartment in Manhattan, Milton had received no offer for the fall. As an inveterate worrier always fearing the worst, I was not happy. I remember very well a visit from the Burnses and Arthur’s attempt, while Milton was temporarily out of the room to reassure me by telling me that Milton was very gifted and would make it to the top and that I had no reason to be concerned.” (p. 147)

Source: Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People: Memoirs (Chicago, 1998).

_______________________________

Letter from Wesley Clair Mitchell to Arthur Burns

Huckleberry Rocks
Greensboro, Vermont

August 27 1945

Dear Arthur

Milton offers a problem that is painful indeed, but we ought to face it squarely. You know how highly I value Simon’s [Kuznets] judgment as well as your own. Both of you have longer + more intimate acquaintance with M. than have I. I am sure both of you try to be objective about him. So do I. That we differ must be due to the unlike weights we attach to qualities we agree, or admit, he possesses.

We agree about his acute mind, about his thorough training in mathematical statistics + mathematical economics, about his creative powers at least in the first of these fields and probably in the second, about his personal likeability, + about his honesty of intention. We must admit that he has fooled himself, unwittingly, + thereby fooled all three of us who were so predisposed to accept his findings. Do you remember that first paper in which M. argued that the incomes of physicians run substantially higher than those of dentists, + the criticisms Fred Mills made of the averages on which M. rested his conclusion? Simon was annoyed by Mills; you were annoyed by him; I was a little annoyed; but Mills was right in large part. Then came the second + graver case brought out by Noyes’ rather brutal attack which enlisted my sympathies as well as yours + Simon’s warmly on Milton’s side. M. drew up a table that seemed to settle the critical issue in his favor. It was made from data he had collected + studied. We knew nothing about these materials in detail. Simon accepted the results. You accepted them. I accepted them with pleasure. Noyes’ second set of criticisms forced a more searching examination. I put in more than a month of careful study + concluded that M. had misused his data in several ways + reached an indefensible conclusion. The best thing about that sad affair was that M. frankly admitted his errors.

I think Milton’s troubles arose from accepting a conclusion about the monopolistic practice of the medical societies, feeling sure that restriction of entry must tend to increase the incomes of medical practitioners, + so accepting at face value any statistical evidence that pointed in the direction he knew to be right. We are all of us subject to this type of error. We examine far more critically evidence that appears to run counter to our hypotheses than evidence that supports them. But M. seems to me worse than most of us on this respect.

Another weakness that I think hurts Milton is lack of interest in and appreciation of non-rational factors that influence, + sometimes dominate, economic behavior. They cannot be handled effectively by the calculus of economic theory concerned with what it is to the interest of men to do. Milton’s clever appraisal of the effect of the higher costs of medical than of dental education is a brilliant specimen of this sort of theorizing. Of course he knows his argument is most unrealistic + says so. Under pressure of criticisms he stressed his qualifications still further. What does such an analysis really add to our knowledge of how men choose their occupations? Can’t the simple bits of truth in the proposition that high costs of training limit the number who enter a profession be put better in simpler form? Why work out an accountant’s estimate in detail when you have to add that few men are able to do such work correctly; that still fewer possess the concrete evidence needed to give the estimate some air of reality; that a man clever enough to do the job + possessed of the factual data would realize that conditions might well change by the time he or his son was ready to set up in practice, + that no one should suppose that choices are really made in this way?

I wish I could share your intuitive faith that M. “has more to contribute to economic science than any man of his generation.” If only we could find the man of whom this remark is true + draw him into the National Bureau, I should be happy indeed! Whoever he may be, he has more insight into human nature than Milton has been blessed with.

Nor do I think you would be wise in taking on a man whom you would have to follow through all the details of his work to make sure that his deficiencies, genuine or problematical, would never again embarrass us. As director of research, you need colleagues who know a great deal more than you will have time to learn about the materials they are severally handling. The kind of watching M. needs is not critical examination of his statistical methods + general reasoning, but detailed study of his data + the way he uses them. That is a time consuming job. None of us did that for M. until far too late. I must accept primary responsibility for this error of omission. I don’t want to see you put in a position where your conscience will force you to spend weeks in making good the guarantee you suggest.

You know that I am grieved to write as I do. To me it seems that you are letting admiration for Milton’s technical proficiencies + personal liking warp your judgment. Loyalty to the aims we both cherish requires me to be candid, though at cost to your feelings as well as mine. If you can produce genuine evidence that my present opinions are wrong, I shall be glad. In the meantime, please do your best to give proper weight to my misgivings.

[…]

Ever yours

[signed]

Wesley C. Mitchell

Source: Arthur F. Burns Papers at the Economists’ Papers Archives. Duke University, David M. Rubenstein Library. Box 2, Folder “Correspondence: Wesley Clair Mitchell 1911-1945”.

Image Source: Columbia 250 Website: Arthur F. Burns, Milton Friedman. Foundation for the Study of Cycles Website: Wesley Clair Mitchell.

Tags BurnsAF, Friedman, Mitchell

Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy Exam for A.M. and Ph.D. Friedman, Mints, Marschak, 1952

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-11
2 Comments on Chicago. Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy Exam for A.M. and Ph.D. Friedman, Mints, Marschak, 1952

The committee for the Money, Banking and Monetary Policy examination for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees for the Winter Quarter 1952 at the University of Chicago consisted of Milton Friedman (chairman), Lloyd Mints, and Jacob Marschak. The date of the examination was February 12, 1952 taken by 25 students. From Milton Friedman’s notes it appears that the committee agreed to pass ten examinees at the Ph.D. level, ten at the A.M. level and five were failed.

_________________________________

MONEY, BANKING, AND MONETARY POLICY
Written Examination for the A.M. and Ph.D. Degrees
Winter Quarter, 1952

Write on the first three and two other questions. Time: 4 hours.

DO NOT PLACE YOUR NAME ON YOUR PAPER. GIVE ONLY YOUR NUMBER.

Suppose that (1) the national income is $270 billion; (2) the total wage bill is $180 billion; (3) the average annual wage is $3000, with only negligible variation among individual wages; (4) government’s demand for goods and services is $60 billion, and consumers’ demand is $200 billion. Suppose that, through joint action of employers and labor unions the wage rate is increased by 10%, and that the real volume of government demand is not changed. Indicate further conditions (such as, for example, the monetary policy, fiscal policy, technological conditions, initial level of employment, the behavior of consumers and of entrepreneurs) that you deem particularly important for a rough estimate of the effects of the rise in wages upon the levels of (present and future) consumption and of prices. Give two or three such estimates on the basis of your own hypothetical numerical specifications of those conditions.
“It will be sound policy for the Treasury to borrow new funds insofar as possible from nonbank sources, to minimize the inflationary potential of the deficit.” (January 1952 Economic Report of the President, pp. 141-2.)
Discuss the basis for and validity of this view. In your answer, distinguish between the effects of borrowing from the Federal Reserve Banks and from other banks; and justify your conclusions in detail.
According to the Keynesian theory of income and employment, the change in money income equals the change in “investment,” or, more generally, the change in “autonomous expenditures” times the “multiplier.”
(a) Explain the terms in quotation marks. How, if at all, does the value of the “multiplier” depend on the distribution of income, the stock of money, the rate of interest?
(b) A shift from a balanced government budget to a deficit because of an increase in expenditures would generally be regarded as a corresponding increase in “autonomous expenditures,” and therefore, other things the same, as leading to an increase in money income equal to the multiplier times this amount. Can this statement, which suggests that any effect on money income of the deficit depends only on its size and the size of the multiplier, be reconciled with the quotation in question 2, which implies that “the inflationary potential of the deficit,” presumably meaning the rise in money income it produces, depends on the method of financing the deficit?
It has been claimed that the British made the gold content of the pound sterling too high when they returned to gold in 1925. What would be the effects of such action? Did these effects actually appear to any significant degree? In any case, what means were available, if any, for determining the “correct” content of the pound?
“The great difficulty, if not the impossibility, of reversing a downward movement [of business activity] by monetary means alone must be accepted as demonstrated by experience.” Is this statement warranted? Support your position.
“Lowness of interest is generally ascribed to plenty of money. But money, however plentiful, has no other effect, if fixes, than to raise the price of labour…It is in vain…to look for the cause of the fall or rise of interest in the greater or less quantity of gold and silver, which is fixed in any nation” (David Hume, 1752).
Discuss in light of “modern” theories of the rate of interest.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 76, Folder 9 “University of Chicago Econ 300A”. [sic, this and other money, banking and monetary policy exams have been filed with material for the price theory course]

Tags Friedman, Marschak, Mints

Courses Statistics Suggested Reading Wisconsin

Wisconsin. Seminary in Statistical Research. Harry Jerome, 1937-38

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-07

The University of Wisconsin-Madison's Carillon Tower in Madison -- Wisconsin's capital city.

Harry Jerome taught statistics in the economics department of the University of Wisconsin from 1915-1938. The following course materials for a research seminar that he taught were found in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution in a file “Student Years”. Since there is no indication of either university or instructor for these materials and with only the course number and academic year to go on, it seems likely that an archivist presumed these might have been from a course at Chicago or Columbia which can be clearly seen not to be the case upon consulting the respective course catalogues.

Possible explanations why Milton Friedman had this Wisconsin material was that he was recruited by Harold Groves as a potential successor to Harry Jerome in the economics department and the material was sent to him in the course of the recruitment or that Friedman came across the stuff in his review of statistics instruction at Wisconsin. In any event, given Friedman’s and Jerome’s common NBER connection, it is not surprising that a research seminar on Wisconsin income statistics would be something that Milton Friedman was naturally interested in.

______________________________________

Harry Jerome (1886-1938)

“Professor Harry Jerome, economist and author, was born March 7, 1886, to Sarah and Moses Jerome at Bloomington, Illinois, and died September 12, 1938, at Madison, Wisconsin. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1914 and took his post-graduate work there, receiving his Ph.D. degree in 1918.

He was instructor in economics from 1914 to 1918 at Wisconsin. From that year until his death in 1938 he held the position of professor of economics at Wisconsin, and was chairman of the economics department from 1931 until 1936.

In 1919 and 1920 Jerome was district assessor of incomes for the Wisconsin State Tax Commission. He was a member of the staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research from 1923 to 1925, and was one of the directors of that organization for many years. He also served as a member of the advisory board for an income tax study by the Wisconsin Tax Commission. From 1936 he was consultant for a survey of productivity and changing industrial techniques by the Federal Works Progress Administration in cooperation with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Jerome was the author of three books, Statistical Methods (1924), Migration and Business Cycles (1926), and Mechanization In Industry (1934).”

Source: Harry Jerome Papers, Finding Aid. Wisconsin Historical Society.

Research Tip: Boxes 5 and 6 of Harry Jerome’s papers at the Wisconsin Historical Society have material on the NBER and the Wisconsin department of economics.

______________________________________

Course Announcement

[Econ.] 230. SEMINARY IN STATISTICAL RESEARCH. Yr; 2 cr. Cooperative research in one or more economic problems, each member of the class concentrating on a selected phase of the common subject. Subject for 1937-38: amount and distribution of wealth and income, with special attention to Wisconsin. Reports on current developments in statistical method. Fee $1.00. 7:15-9:15 Th. Mr. Jerome.

Source: Copy of page 148 from the course catalogue of the University of Wisconsin College of Letters and Science for 1937-38 that was provided Economics in the Rear-View Mirror by fellow historian of economics Professor Marianne Johnson of the College of Business, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh.

______________________________________

Course Materials from Econ 230, University of Wisconsin
1937-38

TREATISES ON NATIONAL INCOME AND THE FORMATION OF CAPITAL

List for Review in Econ. 230, 1937-38

W. I. King, The Wealth and Income of the People of the United States.
National Bureau of Economic Research: Vol. I, Income in the United States
Same as (2) – Volume II.
Federal Trade Commission, National Wealth and Income, 69^th 1^st. Sess. Sen. Doc. No. 126.
W. I. King, The National Income and its Purchasing Power. (NBER)
Maurice Leven, et al, America’s Capacity to Consume (Brookings)
Robert F. Martin, National Income and its Elements (NICB)
U. S. Department of Commerce:

National Income, 1929-36, supplemented by National Income, 1929-32, Sen. Doc. 124, 72d Cong. 2d Session, 1934; and National Income in the United States, 1929-35.

Simon Kuznets, National Income, 1919-35, NBER Bul. 66, supplemented by bulletin on National Income and Capital Formation, (in press).
Harold G. Moulton, The Formation of Capital (Brookings)
Robert F. Martin, Income in Agriculture, 1929-35 (NICB)
Colin Clark, National Income and Outlay (Great Britain)
John A. Slaughter, Income Received in the Various States, 1929-35, (NICB)

GROUP A. ESTIMATES OF INCOME PRODUCED IN WISCONSIN, BY INDUSTRIES, 1929-1937

Agriculture
Manufacturing
Construction
Transportation

Railroads and other freight and passenger traffic

Other public utilities
Trade: wholesale and retail
Finance
Service occupations
Government

GROUP B. SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN INCOME STATISTICS (WISCONSIN)

A plan for estimating income and number of recipients below the reporting levels for income tax purposes.
Methods of estimating income from currently available data, for tax administration purposes
Distribution of income in Wisconsin by objects of expenditure
Geographical distribution of Wisconsin income
Interstate movement of income: to and from Wisconsin

GROUP C. STUDIES IN THE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

Estimates of distribution of wealth in a selected county or counties, based on probate records.

REPORTS FOR October 14, 21 and 28.

A. L. Bowley, “The Definition of National Income”, Econ. Journal, vol. xxxii (1929), pp. 1-11.
Simon Kuznets, “National Income”, in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. II, pp. 205-224.
J. Stamp, “Methods used in different countries for estimating national income; with discussion. Royal Statistical Society Journal. 97 No. 3: 423-66; no. 4: 541-57.

Papers in Studies in Income and Wealth (as yet unpublished [NBER, 1937])
by the Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth:

Gerhard Colm, “Public Revenue and Public Expenditure in National Income”
M. A. Copeland, “Concepts of National Income”
Solomon Fabricant, “On the Treatment of Corporate Savings in the Measurement of National Income”
Simon Kuznets, “Changing Inventory Valuations and Their Effect on Business Savings and on National Income Produced”
Solomon Kuznets, “Some Problems in Measuring Per Capita Labor Income”
Carl Shoup, “The Distinction between ‘Net’ and ‘Gross’ in Income Taxation
O. C. Stine, “Income Parity for Agriculture”

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 5, Folder 12 “Student years”.

Image Source:University of Wisconsin’s Carillon Tower from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 .

Tags Friedman, Jerome

Exam Questions Suggested Reading Wisconsin

Wisconsin. Business Cycles. Readings and Exam. Friedman 1940-41

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-06

One of the courses taught by Milton Friedman in his year at the University of Wisconsin (1940-41) was on business cycles. A few charts and notes have survived from that course (in Milton Friedman’s papers at the Hoover Institution Archives) but also found in the same folder for that course are three pages of handwritten references that likely were readings for the course. These are listed below, most of which have been linked to the respective books/papers. The bibliographic data have been corrected and expanded where necessary. His incomplete notes, actually more of a log of the sessions, include a reference to “Mitchell & Burns, first chapter” for the third lecture “What is business cycle?”. I guess this must have been from an early draft of the 1946 NBER publication by Burns and Mitchell, Measuring Business Cycles.

_______________________

Business Cycle Readings

Wesley Clair Mitchell. Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting. NBER, 1927. Chapter 2. Economic Organization and Business Cycles, pp. 61-188.

Friedrich A. Hayek. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (translated by N. Kaldor and H. M. Croome). New York: 1933.
____________. Prices and Production. London: 1935.

R. G. Hawtrey. Currency and Credit. London: 1919, 1923, 1927. First ed. 1919; Second ed. 1923.

____________. The Art of Central Banking. London: 1932
____________. Capital and Employment, 1937

Ludwig von Mises. The Theory of Money and Credit, 1934 (based on second German edition of 1924). Yale University Press 1953 ed.

Lionel Robbins. The Great Depression, 1934.

W. Ropke. Crises and Cycles (Vera C. Smith, trans. and rev.). 1936.
____________. “Trends in German Business Cycle Policy”, Economic Journal, Sept. 1933.

Knut Wicksell. Interest and Prices (R. F. Kahn, trans.). London: 1936.
____________. Lectures on Political Economy (E. Classen, trans.). London: 1935. Volume I; Volume II.
____________. “Influence of Rate of Interest on Prices”, Economic Journal, June 1907.

Alvin Hansen, Full Recovery or Stagnation. New York: 1938.

Chap. 1. Keynes, pp. 13-34;
Ch VI & VII pp. 137-60 Purchasing power: government deficit financing in various forms including consumer reserves[?];
Ch XVI through XX, 267-329. The economic outlook, Interpretation of 1937 recession, consequences of reducing expenditure, [illegible word beginning with “P”] pricing[?], Investment outlets & secular stagnation, The Fear[?] of Inflation

Walter Salant’s contribution to the discussion of Chapter 4 (“The Volume and Components of Saving in the United States 1933-1937”) in Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth. Studies in Income and Wealth, Volume 3. NBER, 1939. Vol. III. pp. 305-15.

Gottfried Haberler. Prosperity and Depression. League of Nations, 1937. Chapter 2 “The Purely Monetary Theory”, pp. 14-28.

C. H. Douglas, Social Credit. Edinburgh: 1924. Part II, Ch I & II, 78-107 [sic, pp. 89-122]
J. A. Hobson, The Economics of Unemployment. London: 1922. Ch. II “The Failure of Consumptions”, pp. 29-42
William Trufant Foster and Waddill Catchings. Profits. Boston: 1925. pp. 398-418
J. E. Meade, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy. London: 2^nd ed, 1937. Ch. 1 “Can the Economic System Work?”, pp. 1-11.
E. F.M. Durbin, Purchasing Power and the Trade Depression. Toronto, 1934. Ch. I-III, pp. 17-102

National Resources Committee. Consumer Expenditures in the United States: Estimates for 1935-36. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1939. App. C[?]

Lester V. Chandler, Introduction to Monetary Theory. New York, 1940. Ch VI & VII, pp. 115-83

______________________

ECONOMICS 176
Final Examination
January 30, 1941

One device proposed for mitigating the severity of cyclical fluctuations is the concentration of governmental expenditures on public works in depressions, the extra expenditures at such times to be financed from surpluses accumulated during prior periods of prosperity, from borrowing, from the creation of new money, or from current taxes. Under what conditions, if any, would you recommend the adoption of this proposal? If adopted, what method of financing would you endorse? Justify your answers in detail. Discuss both the merits and demerits of the proposal and of the various methods of financing. Discuss also the observed features of cyclical fluctuations that make the proposal appear strategically desirable or undesirable.
“The business cycle in the general sense may be defined as the alternation of periods of prosperity and depression, of good and bad trade.” Discuss.
Distinguish between “a theory of business cycles” and a “description of the cyclical process”. What characteristics would an adequate cycle theory possess?
Does the fact that there has not yet been developed an adequate cycle theory known to be consistent with the observed course of cyclical fluctuations mean that there is no basis for judging the desirability of governmental measures designed to mitigate cyclical fluctuations? Does it mean that society is condemned either to inaction or to irrational intervention? Give the reasons for your answers.

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 75, Folder “University of Wisconsin, Econ. 176”.

Image Source: Milton Friedman on the Columbia University 250th Anniversary Website.

Tags Friedman

Chicago Curriculum Economics Programs Regulations Yale

Ruggles-Friedman correspondence on Draft Report on Graduate Training in Economics, 1955

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-02

A transcription of the complete printed Report of the Panel Discussions on Graduate Training in Economics at Yale (1956) was provided in the previous posting. A copy of the draft of that report from December 1955 can be found in Milton Friedman’s file of correspondence with the chairperson of the Yale Committee responsible for the report, Richard Ruggles, along with Ruggles’ cover letter and a copy of Friedman’s response. The first couple of pages of the draft are transcribed below because they provide a little bit of the backstory for the Report as does Ruggles’ cover letter. Otherwise the only substantive change between the two versions, aside from a rearrangement of a few sections in the Report, comes from Friedman’s reservations concerning the publication of doctoral theses in a university series. These were incorporated into the final Report.

Fun Fact: Richard Ruggles graduated from Harvard in 1939. Classmates included his later Yale colleagues James Tobin and William Parker. The composer/conductor Leonard Bernstein was also a member of that Harvard class of ’39.

________________________

Letter from Richard Ruggles to Milton Friedman
Requesting Comments on Panel Report

YALE UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
New Haven, Connecticut

Richard Ruggles

December 12^th 1955

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Milton,

At long last a preliminary draft of the report on the panel discussions held at Yale last spring has been prepared. This draft is based on notes taken on the discussions in the five panel meetings, and the draft has been gone over and revised according to the interpretations they placed upon the discussions in which they participated. Although the same agenda was followed in all the panel discussions, the amount of time spent on the various topics differed considerably.

Our intended procedure is as follows. We would like all the panel participants to send in their comments on this draft. In light of these comments one or more of three possible courses of action will be taken on each specific part of the draft. If numerous comments of the same general nature are made, the draft will be revised to present these views in the body of the text. This revision may consist either of replacing present sections or adding alternative views. In cases where only one or two individuals disagree on a particular point in the text, this disagreement may be handled by appropriate foontoe references. In instances where an individual panel member feels it desirable, he may write a section embodying his views and this will be appended to the report as a supplementary statement. It is not the object of this report to come out with an appearance of any greater degree of consensus than actually exists.

There appears to be widespread interest in the results of this inquiry. Numerous requests for copies of the final report have already been received. We had expected to publish the report here at Yale, but in view of the very great interest that has been shown, the committee has instructed me to ask the panel members whether or not they would approve of having the report published in an economic journal such as the American Economic Review. I would therefore appreciate it if, when you send in your comments about the panel report, you could also let me know whether or not you would approve of such publication.

Sincerely yours

[signed] Richard

ssk
enc.

________________________

Introduction to Draft Report of the Panel Discussions on Graduate Training in Economics

Confidential Preliminary Draft;
Not for Distribution

REPORT OF THE PANEL DISCUSSIONS ON GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS

The program of graduate training in economics at Yale, and generally elsewhere in the United States, is the result of an evolutionary development. The changes that have occurred over the last two or three decades have taken the form of specific improvements in already existing programs. Although this approach can be expected to improve a graduate training program, it will in all probability lead to an end result quite different from, and not necessarily superior to, that which would result from a comprehensive reshaping of the program to meet the changed requirements, new objectives, and shifting substance in the field itself. Any minor change in an existing program must necessarily tie in with those parts of the program which remain unchanged; because the system as a whole has not been subjected to an overall redesign, it will be found necessary to modify any partial revisions so that consistency, equity, and flexibility will all be preserved.

Revision by such minor steps has a number of advantages. The degree of risk involved is minimized. Also, the changes undertaken can be expected to be within the capabilities of the organization which puts them into force. Finally, if changes are undertaken by small stages the existing program will usually be flexible enough to incorporate them without disruption.

A major reorganization involving the setting up of an entirely new program, on the other hand, faces many problems arising from lack of experience. Because such a system is new, it is often impossible to judge whether it can be carried out with the resources available. Finally, the implementation of the new system completely different in structural form may require flexibility on the part of those responsible for carrying it out that cannot be achieved quickly.

Thus it is no accident that change is usually of an evolutionary nature, but the possibility of setting up a completely new system should not be ignored. Evolutionary development, if not subjected to periodic overall review, can easily proceed in a direction which turns out to be sterile and unsuited to the needs of the society. Because evolutionary development is piecemeal, it tends unconsciously to take the underlying assumptions of the system for granted, and not to question the overall objectives and goals in relation to the requirements which must be met. Even if a comprehensive reorganization is never undertaken, it should be considered periodically. Even a complete failure in the attempt may breed new insights and suggest new directions that an orderly evolution should take. It was with these considerations in mind that the Department of Economics at Yale undertook to review the problem of graduate training in economics.

The monograph on graduate training published by the American Economic Association was extremely instructive with respect to the current status of economics training in the country, and the possible standards and improvements in such standards that might be established. The monograph, however, did not attempt to explore any major changes in the system itself.

Participation in an overall review should not be restricted to those who are administering the present system. Individuals concerned primarily with the substance of the field often have ideas that should receive consideration. Similarly, those who make use of the people who are trained, who may themselves be very little concerned either with substance or with training methods, will have valuable contributions to make concerning the areas of strength or weakness in the products of the training.

A considerable period of time was therefore invested in searching out new ideas from people in charge of administering programs, people interested in specialized areas of economics, people in business, and people in government and international organizations. During the fall and early winter of 1954-55, a great many interviews were conducted with representatives of these groups. These people were encouraged to discuss any portions of the overall problem they thought important, and no set questionnaire was used to elicit their responses. This procedure had two advantages. First, the influence of the preconceptions of the interviewers was kept to a minimum, and second, the interviews provided a sort of ink-blot test which was useful in assessing the kinds of problem that generally worried people in the different groups.

The material gathered from these interviews naturally lacked order and did not readily fit into any single comprehensive organization, but it was extremely useful in providing a basis for an agenda for a more orderly and comprehensive discussion. Such an agenda, together with a brief discussion of the various ideas expressed by individuals in the interviews, was therefore drawn up, and on the basis of this agenda a series of six panel discussions were held at Yale in the spring of 1955. The topics chosen for panel discussion covered only a few selected problems of graduate training in economics. In view of the limited time available for panel discussion, it was thought preferable to focus on a relatively small number of major issues. The choice of problems to be included was based on (1) their relative importance in suggesting possible new directions for graduate education, and (2) the amount of controversy they generated among the people with whom they were discussed.

The following report presents the results of the discussions of this agenda by the six panels.

[…]

________________________

Carbon copy of Milton Friedman’s Response to Ruggles

9 January 1956

Mr. Richard Ruggles
Department of Economics
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut

Dear Dick:

Your report of the panel discussions strikes me as an excellent statement though my recollection of the discussions themselves are so vague that I would hardly feel competent to testify to the accuracy of the summary of the views expressed at the particular discussion that I participated in.

I find myself in substantial agreement with almost the whole of your report, the one point about which I have real doubts is the bottom half of page 15. While there are clearly some advantages to having a publication in the form of an annual series, it seems to me that most important of all that the better theses or redrafts of them will be worth publication in the regular professional journals and this would be much preferable. I feel that an entirely University series will not offer any substantial incentive to high quality but may well have the opposite effect.

Aside from this one point, the questions I have about the report are on a different level. My major question is whether you want to present the report as an observer’s summary of the panel discussions on the one hand or as the conclusions which the Yale committee drew from the panel discussions on the other. The present draft has more of the flavor of the first yet it seems to me that you would do better to do the second, making it explicit that the report records the judgment of the particular people in the Yale committee but is based on the discussions with the panels. This would seem to me to have two very great advantages. In the first place it avoids committing any of the panel members or giving the impression that they are responsible for or in agreement with what was said. In the second place it makes it easier to be firm and to avoid wishy-washy statements.

This choice ties in very much with the question you ask about publication. If the report takes the second form suggested, there is no need to ask panel members whether they approve of publication but only whether they are willing to have their names listed as having been participants. If the report takes the first form, I am at a loss to know what my approval signifies. I think it would be useful to publish the report. I agree generally with it but I would not want to be listed in the capacity of a co-author or as one who lists himself as fully responsible for it.

My second main question about the present report is whether it would not gain greatly by being less hypothetical and arid. What I have in mind is that there are no references at all in the report as to what is happening at any other institution except in the vaguest terms. Yet almost every suggestion that is made is now in effect in one or more institutions. The report, I think, would gain greatly in effectiveness and persuasiveness if it referred to the experiments or named institutions as evidence of the feasibility of the various changes and of their desirability. The outstanding example, it seems to me, is materially the suggestions with respect to the thesis which is here put forward as if it were an untried suggestion, whereas our experience—and for all I know that of other institutions—gives very relevant evidence on both its feasibility and desirability.

I hope you will pardon me for commenting so fully on questions not really covered in your letter. I am sure that the report of your committee will have an important influence on the course of graduate training in economics.

Sincerely yours,

Milton Friedman

MF:pan

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 32, Folder 16 “Correspondence: Ruggles, Richard”.

Image Source: Richard Ruggles, noted economic statistician, dies. Yale Bulletin & Calendar Vol. 29, No. 23 (March 23, 2001).

Tags Friedman, RugglesR

Curriculum Economics Programs Yale

Graduate Training in Economics. Report of Panel Discussions at Yale. 1956

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-07-01

During the fall and early winter of 1954-55, Richard Ruggles and colleagues in the Yale economics department organized a series of interviews with representatives of business, government, international organizations, and universities to review the ultimate goals of a graduate education in economics and to identify future desirable directions the evolution of economics training might take. The interviews were followed by panel discussions in the Spring of 1955 attended by, among others, seven future economics Nobel prize winners. Today’s posting is a transcription of the final report printed in 1956.

I came across a preliminary draft of the report in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution Archives filed among his correspondence with Richard Ruggles and wondered whatever happened to the project. The report was never really published and survives as part of the “pamphlet literature”. Only recently did I find a printed copy of the final report in John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. The relative obscurity of this report can perhaps be attributed to its “Smoothie” style that has managed to blend panel member ideas and opinions into mere minutes of discussions sans quote or illustration. The report’s temporal proximity to the 1953 Bowen report (Graduate Education in Economics, AER, September 1953) could have left journal editors cold as well.

Since the primary goal of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is to assemble artifacts to help us follow the historical development of the education of economists in the United States, the Ruggles Report of 1956 is worth rescuing from its undeserved obscurity in archival vaults.

________________________________

[1]

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS
A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale
YALE UNIVERSITY
1956

[2]

A restudy of graduate education in economics has recently been undertaken at Yale, with the aid of a grant from the Ford Foundation. This study involved two steps. First, economists in universities, government, and business were interviewed to determine what they thought the major problems in training economists were at present. These views were summarized in the form of an agenda, which was then discussed by five panels of economists. This report presents the views of the panel members, as developed in these discussion groups.

The following people participated in the panel discussion and in the revisions of the report.

Panel members:

Robert Adams, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
Sydney Alexander, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University
G.L. Bach, Carnegie Institute of Technology
William Baumol, Princeton University
E. G. Bennion, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey
Henry Bloch, United Nations
Howard Bowen, Grinnell College
Sune Carlson, United Nations
Gerhard Colm, National Planning Association
Ross Eckler, Bureau of the Census
Solomon Fabricant, national Bureau of Economic Research
Milton Friedman, University of Chicago
Albert Hart, Columbia University
Leonid Hurwicz, University of Minnesota
Dexter Keezer, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
Simon Kuznets, Johns Hopkins University
Stanley Lebergott, Bureau of the Budget
Wassily Leontief, Harvard University
Ben W. Lewis, Oberlin College
John Lintner, Harvard Business School
Edward S. Mason, Harvard University
James Nelson, Amherst College
Donald Riley, Bureau of the Budget
Paul Samuelson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert Strotz, Northwestern University
Clair Wilcox, Swarthmore College

Yale committee:

Richard Ruggles, Chairman
Wight Bakke
William Fellner
Kent Healy
John Miller
John Sawyer
James Tobin
Robert Triffin

[3]

The Role of Graduate Education in Economics

THE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE EDUCATION IN ECONOMICS which were most frequently mentioned by the panel members were (1) to develop economists who can push back the frontiers of economics; (2) to prepare economists for teaching, not only at the undergraduate level but also in graduate economics departments and business schools; (3) to train individuals who are capable of carrying out research for business, government, labor, and other research organizations; (4) to develop economists who can serve in policy guidance positions in business, government, and labor unions. The panel members agreed that the curriculum of graduate education in economics can no longer be organized exclusively about scholars; it has become essential to produce economists who can do, not just know. Primary emphasis in the past has been placed upon the production of teachers, and although this is an important function, focusing on it may develop a more restricted concept of education than is appropriate today.

The frontier of economic knowledge.

The continual emergence of economists who are capable of contributing to the substance of economics is essential for the vitality of the field. Of course, every student who goes through a graduate school should not be expected to make such a contribution; many are needed to practice the art and science of economics for more immediate objectives in teaching, in applied economics in business and government, and in less basic research in the academic world, business, and government. Nevertheless, the graduate school program should be such as to encourage research of a basic nature and to acquaint students with it. Only by such investment can economics be expected to develop. Such an orientation is useful also for those who do not go on to make substantial new contributions. It provides a [4] necessary perspective as to the current status of economic knowledge and the bases on which it resets, and points up gaps in economic knowledge and the process by which the evolution of economic thought comes about. Accent on the encouragement of basic research should not be construed, however, as implying that large amounts of learning and scholarship should be the aim. Rather it implies that the creative talents of the individual should be stimulated, and that the individual be trained in the necessary tools to do such research. These aims are complementary to the other objectives of graduate training, not competitive with them.

Research training for business and government.

In recent years, there has been an increasing use of economists for research purposes in business and government. Projections of future demand, analyses of the impact of various market forces, problems of taxation and government expenditure, analyses of productivity changes, studies of business fluctuations, and various international problems related to trade and foreign economic policy all have required that a considerable amount of economic research be carried out. Graduate schools have not generally taken specific cognizance of the needs of these groups so that new Ph.D.’s going into these areas often require a considerable training period before they become useful to their organizations. When the organization does not have available senior staff capable of carrying out such training on the job, the result is that lower grade work is turned out. It is recognized, of course, that schooling cannot entirely substitute for experience, and that some training on the job will always be necessary, but the question still remains whether the present graduate school training is as appropriate as it might be for meeting the research needs of business and government.

Policy and administrative guidance in business, government, and labor.

Besides the technical research uses of economists in business, government, and labor, economists are needed in a more operating [5] capacity, where day-to-day decisions and advice are required without any formalized research work. Advisors are required at the policy level in large corporations. Banks, insurance companies, large manufacturing firms, and labor unions are employing more and more people in this capacity. Government and international organizations need trained economists to serve as administrators of various programs. These needs are growing in importance as the complexities of economic life increase. Again, most graduate schools have not been particularly attuned to meeting this sort of need.

Teaching.

To a very large degree, teaching is a derivative of the other purposes of economic training. Teachers should be expected to be able to teach those things which are useful in the training of economists. Thus, at the graduate level the objectives outlined above would be pertinent; teachers should be trained to meet these objectives. The problem of undergraduate teaching of economics may at first appear to pose somewhat different requirements, but closer examination indicates that its objectives should be closely allied with the objectives cited above, lest it become too academic and unrelated to the current practice of economics. Undergraduate teachers need to be trained broadly and to have a good general perspective about economics. The development of teachers who are interested in the furthering of economics as a science is necessary in order to prevent the teaching of economics from becoming a sterile academic exercise. The crucial question here is the ability to teach effectively, and to keep on doing it through time—to keep alive, stimulated and stimulating.

[6]

Requirements Posed by the Objectives of Graduate Training in Economics

THE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS are largely complementary in the requirements they pose; there seems little ground for suggesting that individuals expecting to go into different areas of economics should have greatly different and unrelated programs. It was thought that the basic requirements common to all the objectives could be classified into four major categories: (1) a common core of economic knowledge; (2) the ability to present ideas coherently; (3) the ability to do research; and (4) the specialized training in the area of the student’s greatest interest.

No strong line of distinction can in fact be drawn between knowledge, on the one hand, and the ability to present ideas coherently and the ability to do research, on the other hand. A person who does not have the ability to express ideas coherently or the ability to do research cannot be said to possess knowledge of his subject. True knowledge is more than the capacity for parrot-like repetition of what this, that, or the other economist said, and what this, that, or the other formula is, and unless research is narrowly defined as the analysis of empirical data of a limited kind, really operative knowledge is included under either the ability to present ideas coherently or the ability to do research or both. Thus, the teaching involved in imparting the common core of knowledge (as well as that involved in specialized training) should be such as to produce in the student clarity of thinking which should make clear writing a necessary consequence; and, also, the teaching involved in imparting the common core of knowledge (and specialized training) should be such as to leave the student with a clear idea of what research means, and how the interplay of hypotheses with tests based on empirical data results in acceptable knowledge.

In spite of the obvious interrelationship of the four major [7] categories listed above, however, it will be useful to consider them one at a time.

COMMON CORE OF ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE

All economists should have a general acquaintance with the basic ideas in economics, and all should be equipped with the tools and the general empirical knowledge about modern economic systems that will provide a basis for economic research, policy guidance, and teaching. The common core consists of (1) a set of analytical tools, (2) a way of handling the tools in research and problem solving, and (3) certain institutional knowledge about the economic world. This common core is necessary not only to meet the above objectives, but also so that economists will be able to communicate with each other, and so that mobility among different uses of economists will be preserved. The substance of economics itself will be enriched if individuals can move freely from one area to another. For example, it is beneficial for the development of the profession if economists can move between business and government, on the one hand, and teaching, on the other. Similarly, research individuals should have the same sort of general background as those who are faced with administrative problems. The existence of a common core helps to ensure this, and is some protection against excessive compartmentalization and overspecialization in the profession. The problem of core training is one of balancing the desirability of having a number of essential requirements included in each student’s program with that of having the minimum amount of formal requirements.

With respect to the nature of the common core, there was fairly general agreement among those participating in the panels, and the conclusions reached are not strikingly different from the current practice in many graduate schools or the objectives expressed in the Bowen Report. There was a general feeling that some reorientation and redesign within the accepted framework might be in order, but that the general framework itself [8] need not be significantly altered. The content envisaged would include economic theory, economic history, mathematics, and statistics.

Economic theory.

The theory requirement in the common core should probably be the most intensive of all the requirements. At least one and probably two full years of formal classwork in economic theory were considered necessary, supplemented by outside reading to fill in gaps not taken up in the formal courses. The courses themselves would not be entirely devoted to a formal presentation of certain specialized areas of theory, but should give students the ability to use theory effectively in handling problems. The work should cover modern theory in most areas of economics, and it should also be tied in with both the history of economic thought in these areas and some of the historical and institutional background that provides the context for the theory.

Economic history.

Economic history as a core component should be distinguished from economic history as a special field. The purpose of the economic history requirement should be one of literacy, to insure that the student has some perspective with respect to how economics is related to various aspects of human development. This requirement can provide the thread of continuity and integration which is normal lacking from work at graduate level. The growth and development of economic institutions in the various specialized areas should be treated in relation to each other, together with the relation of social and political history to economic development and the role of geographic location as a determinant of economic development.

Mathematics.

The purpose of the mathematics requirement as a part of the core is partly to serve as a necessary tool for the mathematical economics and statistics, and partly for general literacy. It would [9] be desirable, of course, for students to have a proper mathematical background when they enter graduate school. Unfortunately, such a requirement is not easily enforced at this time, and it will generally be necessary for this deficiency to be made up either while a student is taking other work in graduate school or during the summers. In view of the specialized nature of the mathematics required for economists, it may well be that a specialized course drawn up specifically for economists or for social scientists would be the most efficient way to meet the need. Such a course would not be intended as a shortcut, but rather would attempt to give the student those areas of mathematics which are relevant to social science and to relate them to problems in economic theory, game theory, statistics, and econometrics. Literacy in the area of mathematics is important so that students will not be frightened by economics which is cast in symbolic terms. If there is to be communication among members of the profession, it is essential that all economists should have enough mathematics so that they can tell in a general way what articles in a mathematical form are about. This does not mean that those students who are not mathematically inclined should be forced to achieve mathematical fluency. However, all students should at least be required to have some minimum competence in mathematics.

Statistics.

As in the case of mathematics, statistics is partly a tool requirement and partly a literacy requirement. As a tool, students should be able to employ statistics for economic research. The traditional topics such as probability theory, statistical tests, and index numbers would all be covered. In addition, however, the student should learn how to handle basic empirical material in a systematic and orderly manner. The uses of accounting data, together with the meaning of various accounting classifications and accounting methods, should be studied. The student should also have a general knowledge of the sources of economic data, such as the kind of material contained in the various censuses of [10] the U.S., the national income statistics, and the types of economic information provided by the other agencies in the government. They should be familiar with the empirical work provided by non-governmental research institutions such as the National Bureau, and by international organizations. All of these are useful research tools, and they are also required for literacy in this area, so that the student will be able to appraise and evaluate empirical research.

Interdisciplinary training as related to the core of economics.

Considerable attention has been focused recently upon the desirability of having students know about fields other than economics, so that useful cross-fertilization can take place among the disciplines, and so that economics can be used more effectively in helping to handle public and private policy problems. It is argued that training in other disciplines will give the student greater breadth and make his economics training more meaningful. There was a general consensus among the members of the panels, however, that elementary survey courses in other disciplines would be of limited usefulness, and would expand the common core to a point where it would seriously infringe upon the freedom of students to follow lines of their own interest. Undergraduate training supposedly gives a student breadth; if it has failed in doing this the lack should be recognized as a gap in the student’s training. It is questionable, however, whether a graduate school should take formal cognizance of such gaps, as it does in the case of mathematics, and make provision in the graduate school curriculum for filling them. Where the gaps are extremely serious, the student should probably be encouraged to attend summer school, an/or do special reading, to make up the deficiencies. But it does not seem that the subject matter of interdisciplinary training and the deficiencies of preparation in the students are sufficiently clearly defined to make courses in them practical. Experiments might usefully be tried in this area, but they should be regarded strictly as experiments, [11] which might eventually yield elements that should be incorporated into the common core.

The extent and timing of the common core.

In terms of formal requirements, the common core should probably not exceed four or five year courses, depending upon whether or not the student can anticipate the mathematics requirement. In addition to this formal work, however, it might be desirable to provide for some sort of tutorial instruction to fill in gaps not covered in the courses and to follow up lines of special interest to the individual student. Such tutorial instruction would provide an element of flexibility not obtainable in formal classwork. With respect to timing, it seems logical that the major portion of the core would be covered in the first year, inasmuch as it provides tools used at later stages in graduate work. On the other hand, some time should be left in the first year for students to take courses of their own selection. Students should have an opportunity to sample several specialized areas before finally determining the area in which they are most interested.

The Ability to Express Ideas Coherently

The economist should have the ability to express his ideas coherently, and to move easily between the abstractions posed by economic analysis and the empirical elements of the problems with which he deals. This requirement is more than that of being able to write grammatical English; it involves training in the organization of ideas and the development of perspective. Rigor and clarity is essential if the profession is to serve its many potential functions. One of the major complaints of people who hire economists in business and government is that the products of graduate schools whom they hire do not have this ability to present their ideas coherently. They often express the opinion that economists who are intending to go into business and government should receive special training in this respect. However, [12] it is not any less important that individuals going into pure research or teaching should be trained to express their ideas coherently. Perhaps the reason teaching and academic research have not appeared to suffer as much in this respect lies in the lack of direct supervision of such individuals by supervisors who bear the responsibility for their written and oral presentations.

As already indicated, the ability to express ideas coherently is not merely a problem of correct grammar, but rather involves the organization of ideas in a meaningful manner. Unless a student can express an idea clearly, he does not really understand it. Thus, the ability to express ideas coherently is highly related to the problem of substance, and is properly the responsibility of a graduate school. Some students have difficulty in writing because they have little or nothing to say. They have not developed habits of creative thinking, and do not know how to approach a subject.

Because the economist usually crystallizes the results of his work in written form the writing itself is a tool, and is part of the basic methodology of the profession. In other disciplines such methodological tools are given explicit consideration. For example, in the sciences, students are thoroughly trained in laboratory work. In mathematics, students are drilled in working through problems. In law, briefs and case studies are written. In medicine, the internship trains the student in the handling of actual medical cases. Few graduate schools of economics, however, have considered writing explicitly as a tool of the profession, and therefore relatively little accent has been placed upon training the student adequately in this function.

The Ph.D. thesis, traditionally the masterpiece of a student being trained for the doctorate, does not fulfill this need. All too often it is instead a traumatic experience which leaves the student scarred but untrained. In a great many instances, furthermore, the thesis is done by the student out of residence, and the supervision of the writing of it leaves much to be desired. The student often attempts to write the thesis while he is pursuing another job on a full-time basis, and the writing may take [13] a period of five or six years. The hurdle is so great, as a matter of fact, that a large proportion of students who have completed everything but the thesis never finish it. Also, the moral pressure on professors to approve theses of students who have spent a large number of years on them is very great, with the result that the thesis itself need only show effort and length to be acceptable. In other words, the Ph.D. thesis is quite unsatisfactory for teaching students how to write, and because of the institutional considerations involved this failure cannot be corrected merely by exhorting students and teachers to greater effort and higher standards.

The members of the panels believed that the solution to the problem of training students to write coherently lies in the direction of more writing practice early in the graduate training program, and reliance on a larger number of shorter papers (5 to 10 pages) rather than a small number of major papers. This process should intimidate the student less, offer him more practice in organizing material, and make the task of criticizing and evaluating any given paper simpler.

One important aspect of training students to write, now largely neglected, is provision for revising and reworking papers. So much effort goes into the original writing of a lengthy paper, and the task of reworking it is so great, that most of the student’s writing tends to be a single-shot experience. In many cases the student never even seriously re-reads what he has written after he finishes it. In order to promote the reading and criticism of papers, it was suggested that some of the papers be duplicated and discussed in essay seminars attended by both students and faculty. Students should learn from such a procedure not only when their own work is presented but also from the problems encountered by other students. In this connection also, all papers need not be written in the confines of formal courses. The tutorial function spoken of in the previous section might well bear some of the brunt of criticizing short papers.

Courses involving group research would provide an opportunity for students to prepare papers in conjunction with each [14] other. Such joint papers would force the students to discuss the organization and presentation of the material, so that an agreed-upon version may be arrived at. This practice will prepare students for the sort of writing experience they are likely to encounter in business, government, or other group research.

If the writing of papers is to be stressed as a part of the graduate training program, it is only proper that it should assume a more significant role in the grading system. The student who can produce a first-class report at this own leisure, using the materials freely available to him, may well be a better economist than one who is more facile in showing his learning well in an examination but who may also be less proficient in turning out an independent piece of research. Present grading systems rely heavily upon examinations, which may test the student’s leaning ability but do not ordinarily test his ability to produce a well-conceived and well-executed report. The comprehensive examinations weigh very heavily in determining whether students are permitted to proceed and what kind of financial aid they are given. At both the course level and at the comprehensive examination level, it would be possible to give greater weight to written reports in the grading scheme. For the comprehensive examination, the student might be required to present what he considered the best two or three papers he had written. An evaluation of these papers would add a significant new dimension to the judgment of the abilities of students at this stage. By giving reports and papers a significant weight in the grading structure of the graduate school, students would be encouraged to revise and rework their manuscripts to a greater extent than they now do. Originality would be rewarded just as learning ability is now rewarded.

Research Competence

Because so many economists are required to do research of some sort in their work, and because all economists must be able to analyze and evaluate the results of such research, research [15] training is essential. The tools of economic research are, of course, necessary at least in some degree, but fully as important as the teaching of tools is the actual training of students to do research by doing it. The student emerging from graduate school should be able to carry through a piece of research in a systematic and meaningful manner. Students must be trained to set out a problem, design their work program with reference to this problem, carry out the basic work utilizing pertinent sources and appropriate methods, and finally, evaluate the results of this research, relating them to the original problem and appraising their validity.

A number of members of the panels felt that economic research generally suffered from a lack of respect for discipline and rigor. Casual empiricism, rather than scientific testing of hypotheses, is all too frequent. In many major pieces of research the sources and methods behind the results are not indicated adequately. These faults, they believed, are the result of inadequate teaching of research methods.

The misapplication of research tools, or the failure to apply suitable tools, is also widespread in much current economic research. The research worker may carry extremely unreliable estimates out to a number of decimal places, causing an inordinate amount of computational effort and lending a spurious appearance of accuracy. At the same time, this same research worker may gloss over important characteristics of his material which should have been tested for bias or general inconsistency by the use of fairly ordinary and straightforward statistical testing procedures.

The lack of research competence is also evident in the formulation of research problems. Often the reader of a research paper is at a loss to discover just what is being undertaken, and whether it was in fact achieved. This confusion often stems from a lack of clarity on the part of the original research worker in the conception of his problem, even more than from his presentation of it. It is very important that those embarking upon research recognize the importance in the research process of the original [16] conception of the problem and the design of the research to fit the problem.

These faults in economic research, combined with indecisiveness on the part of the individual research worker, lead to a considerable amount of floundering and waste motion. It is frequently necessary to re-do a piece of research because the formulation of the problem was inadequate. The failure to apply the proper tools at the proper time in the research process also may require that much of the work be redone, to make adjustments the need for which becomes obvious at a later stage in the research process. The prevalent lack of discipline and rigor makes all these revisions of portions of the research process extremely difficult, so that in fact the work usually must be completely redone, very often with quite different results.

In the light of these difficulties, research training should start early in the student’s graduate career and continue throughout its duration. Although in his first year the student will not have the necessary background and tools to do very much economic research, even at this early date practice with simple research problems would be useful in acclimating students to the various problems that research poses earlier in their careers rather than later. More of the student’s time can then be focused at a later stage on problems of a more substantive nature. It is well known that the greater part of time now spent on the Ph.D. thesis is spent in floundering around trying to select a problem and decide just how to carry it out. More and earlier practice in research might avoid much of this floundering.

The assignment of a larger number of short research subjects seems generally preferable, at least in the earlier part of the graduate training, to concentration on a few more substantial topics. If a number of different subjects are assigned, the student is faced again and again with the problem of how to formulate the research objectives and how to design the research. A larger number of projects also will serve to introduce the student to a number of different areas of economics, rather than to concentrate his attention solely in one direction. The question of [17] whether specific research topics should be assigned or whether the student should be allowed to choose his own is not an easy one to answer. Probably some of each approach should be used. Assignment of topics has the advantage of training the students to write for a customer. Freedom of choice in topics, on the other hand, has the advantage of allowing students to follow areas of special interest—and also gives them practice in arriving at a decision.

One of the major objectives of research training should be practice in the handling of empirical material of all sorts. The student should become used to dealing with historical material, economic statistics from all kinds of sources, and also material from other disciplines. He should gain experience in the critical evaluation of definitions and concepts, and in the manipulation and recasting of material.

The form of research training should probably differ at different stages of the graduate training process. In the early stages it may well take the form of special workshop courses, together with some for the work done for tutorial purposes. At a later stage, internship in various research projects within the university might be advisable. If possible, summer internship programs with business, government, or economic research foundations would also be desirable. Finally, individual research relationships with the faculty members on the basis of research assistantships or apprenticeships would serve a valuable role.

The Ph.D. thesis should serve a major function in research training, and should provide a test of whether the student has achieved research competence. But the primary research training should be begun much earlier in the student’s career; it should not fall upon the thesis alone. The thesis may well emerge as an outgrowth of some earlier research project.

Specialization

Specialized training in specific fields is necessary so that economists can usefully bring to bear both the more detailed knowledge [18] of the institutions pertinent to the special area and the latest developments of economic analysis in this area. Without special field training, a student will not approach the frontier of any field, and will not have any training in depth. Specialized training, therefore, not only serves to equip a student to handle problems in a special area, but it also gives him training in depth as a background for understanding the process of research and appreciating the development of economics in general. In many special fields, economics alone will not be sufficient. Other disciplines are often required to enable the economist to deal with the specialized problems. In the area of corporate finance, law and accounting may be necessary. Law may also be necessary for public finance, labor, and international trade. Psychology or sociology may be pertinent to studies of consumer demand and labor. Each special field will necessarily entail the study of those portions of other disciplines which are germane to the set of problems encountered.

Under present circumstances specialization often tends to be somewhat superficial. The first year of graduate work is usually spent on the basic tool courses or general survey courses, and specialization is possible only during the second year of course work. A cumulative build-up of work within a special area is often impossible since the student finishes his term of residence at the end of the second year. Specialization may thus consist of one or two courses taken concurrently in the second year of graduate study.

The charge is often made that the areas of specialization offered tend to be too academic. Theory is extolled, and the actual work done by the student is largely confined to the library. Knowledge of the institutional setting of the special field tends to be slighted. There is little or no opportunity for internship in the special field during the period of graduate work.

Specialization may be conceived of as a highly detailed study of some small segment of economics or it may be conceived of as embracing a general area of problems for which other disciplines besides economics may also be relevant. Unfortunately, [19] present graduate training seems to emphasize only the first conception of specialization, but if the products of graduate schools are expected to serve as professionals in these areas the narrow concept of specialization must give way to the broader concept.

Finally, it is argued by representatives of both business and government that graduate training does not prepare students for the kind of work required in business and government. Unlike the conclusion in the previous sections with respect to the common core of economics, the ability to express ideas coherently, and the ability to do research, where it was concluded that the requirements are the same irrespective of whether the student wants to go into academic work, business, or government, additional training will depend upon the field the student decides to enter. The criticism that graduate schools at the present time do not offer appropriate specializations for students interested in business and government in the role of professional economists appears to be justified. The kinds of courses that would be required for such a specialization would cover such topics as projections, studies in demand and cost, and general economic accounting.

In order to correct the tendency toward superficiality, the student should customarily take two or three courses in a given special area, over a period of at least two years. This would provide the student with an opportunity to work in the area over a longer period, and so would permit a cumulative build-up.

Research work involving the handling of empirical material and/or field work should be undertaken simultaneously with the course work. Such research work might be part of an internship program, a workshop course, or an apprenticeship as a research assistant. In some cases, suitable summer employment might serve as part of the program.

As already indicated, training in related disciplines should accompany the work in the special field. Generally speaking, survey courses in related disciplines will not meet the need. Either courses especially designed to suit the area being studied or relatively advanced work within the other disciplines would be [20] appropriate in giving greater breadth to the program of specialization.

In order to meet the needs of business and government, a number of courses in fields not now generally offered could usefully be added. Such things as the problems of making projections, studies in cost and demand analysis, operations research, and economic accounting are all appropriate subjects, which could serve either as specialties in their own right or as valuable tool adjuncts in such fields as industrial organization, labor, and international trade.

The Role of the Ph.D. Thesis

In viewing the Ph.D. thesis as both a test of and a means of acquiring core knowledge, clarity of expression, and research competence, the panel members felt that the form of the thesis required some reconsideration.

The desirability of having the thesis written in residence is well recognized. Furthermore, the panel members generally agreed that it would seem sufficient as a requirement if students could turn out an article-length paper which would be of publishable quality. Such a short thesis could be examined and criticized in greater detail by the faculty, and, if needed, revised more often and more basically by the student. This does not mean that long Ph.D. theses should be prohibited; a student should have the right to undertake any task he wants to. Still, it does not seem unreasonable to require that even in the case of a long thesis the student shall, in order to meet the thesis requirement, present some piece of material not longer than 30 to 50 pages which can stand as an independent piece of writing, aside from possible appendices on sources and methods. Whatever he wants to do over and above this, of course, he can. It may well be argued that the short thesis should not be compulsory, but that it may be enough to announce to students that short theses are not only acceptable but encouraged. Several panel members felt that the short thesis might be inappropriate [21] for specific topics, and that the way should be left open so that the student could write a longer thesis if he chose to do so. There is danger in this approach, however, in that students may take the safe way out and write a long thesis much on the same basis that they write long answers to exam questions covering every possible facet of the question. In such a case the tendency to judge theses by the pound might continue.

If the requirement that the thesis be of publishable quality is seriously intended, it might be desirable to consider having the university undertake the actual publication, in the form of an annual series. If the theses are in fact held to a length of 30 to 50 pages, the cost of publishing them would not be excessive. Such an arrangement would have several advantages. First, it would tend to make the students more careful of what they offer, since in most instances it would represent their first published work. Second, it would provide the student with copies of his thesis at nominal cost in the form of reprints. This would be very useful for job applications. Even when prospective employers were not sent a reprint by the student they would be able to obtain the thesis series from most libraries, and so could have access to a sample of the student’s work. Furthermore, the faculty would feel more conscientious with respect to the supervision of theses, since it would be evident to other institutions and members of the profession generally what caliber of work was being done. Finally, the work involved could be arranged to accord the students themselves with experiences in publishing in much the same way a law review does in law school. The argument against such a series is that the better theses or redrafts of them will be worth publication in the regular professional journals, and that this would be much preferable. There is also no guarantee that the university series would offer any substantial incentive to high quality, but may well have the opposite effect.*

[22]

The General Form of Graduate Instruction in Economics

These requirements partially dictate the general form of graduate education in economics. For one thing, a certain degree of formality will be required in education at the graduate level. This formality comes about because the entering graduate student usually does not possess the background necessary for graduate work in economics. Unlike the sciences and medicine, it is not practical to require that all entering students possess training in specific areas. The decision by students to become economists almost invariably is made very late in their undergraduate careers, so that it is usually impractical for them to acquire more advanced training in this area while they are undergraduates. Students should, of course, be encouraged to acquire the background at the undergraduate level insofar as possible, and the graduate curriculum may be modified to accelerate students who are adequately prepared. Nevertheless, there will still be a considerable area of the common core to which almost all students should be subjected.

Students who are capable of good work in one direction but find some other area extremely difficult may perhaps be permitted to waive certain of the requirements. The exceptional students, furthermore, need not necessarily be only those brilliant students who excel in economic theory. Students of more specialized interests, such as those primarily interested in the filed of labor, economic history, or corporation finance, should be given consideration fully as much as the theorists.

To a considerable extent, flexibility of graduate training can be secured by more individual attention in the form of some sort of tutorial and/or internship training in graduate school. Such a tutorial and/or internship would make the individual needs of the students known to the faculty, and it would give the student more opportunity to go his individual direction, either filling in gaps in his knowledge or pursuing lines of special interest. It would not always be necessary that senior faculty members be used as tutors. Younger staff members who [23] were themselves more recently graduate students may make more suitable tutors, in that they are closer to recent graduate training and are generally freer with their time.

Finally, it seems necessary to maintain some form of certification as a function of graduate education, as long as the number of students trained is substantial. People hiring students will want to know the kind and caliber of work done by the student in question. It has been suggested that the certification problem can be lessened by relying for purposes of recommendation and scholarship evaluation on more lengthy comments written by the student’s supervisors.

The Period of Graduate Training

It is the present practice of many graduate schools to concentrate the tool courses in the first year of graduate studies. Such an arrangement tends to make a somewhat regimented, formal, and uninspired first year of graduate work. The beginning student is left little room to follow lines in which he is interested or to explore areas to see whether he would find them interesting.

The specialization that takes place in the second year, as noted in the preceding section, often means only a single course in the special field. As a result, a survey course within an area is considered advanced work in that area. This specialization, furthermore, occurs at the same time the student is preparing for his comprehensives, and usually more attention is given to the comprehensives than to the specialization.

The thesis is often not started until after the student has finished his second year of graduate work and passed his comprehensive examinations. As a result, not only the writing of the thesis but the conception of it as well may be done after the student has served his time in residence and left. The consequent lack of supervision, the relegation of the thesis to a part-time task, and the prolongation of the thesis period to a number of years all tend to reduce the quality and usefulness of the thesis.

[24] The panel was generally agreed that the distinction in timing between tool courses, specialization, and the thesis should be less sharp than is current practice. In the first year, the student should be allowed to do some browsing. Some of the tool courses should be postponed until the second year, so that more of a cumulative development in the tools themselves would be possible.

The preliminary work on the thesis should not be put off until the third year of graduate work, and the thesis itself should be completed while the student is in residence. Initial work might start in a thesis seminar in the second year of graduate study. Rather than spending full time on the thesis at any point in his graduate work, the student would be expected to work on his thesis along with other course or seminar work.

Internships, research assistantships, and other such programs may mean that the student will interrupt or prolong the period of graduate work, or he may spend some of his summers in such activities. Programs such as these, however, should be planned in terms of the student’s total graduate training, and should be carried out as part of it. They should not be devised solely in terms of the faculty’s manpower needs—as at present is sometimes the case.

These requirements indicate that a minimum of three years in residence will be required by graduate students to complete the work. Generally speaking, four years will be more usual, so that the student can get practical experience as well as formal training into his graduate training. For the student’s own good, a period of more than five years in residence between entrance and the obtaining of the doctorate is probably undesirable. Should the student contemplate a more ambitious program than this, it should be of a post-doctoral nature. It would be useful for this purpose if universities could set up programs whereby post-doctoral students could obtain internships in business and government for a year, and then return to the university in a teaching position for a year following the internship. Such an arrangement would encourage business and government to take [25] students on an internship basis, and would at the same time give the individual student an opportunity to get established after having served his internship.

Summary and Conclusions

The familiar concept of giving all graduate students in economics basic training in a common core appears to be a useful device, and should be kept as an integral part of graduate training in economics. This common core, if properly conceived, has the advantage of providing some breadth to the student’s training, not only making him more literate, but also giving him a better perspective within which to place his more specialized training. The common core also makes it easier for economists to communicate with each other insofar as they have had the same type of general training. Finally, mobility within the profession is promoted, so that it is possible for economists to move between business, government, and academic work to a much greater extent than might otherwise be so.
The inadequacy of the current training of economists in writing and research was considered to be one of the greatest gaps in graduate training. The ability to express ideas coherently and the ability to carry through research work in a skillful manner should both be considered major tools of the economist. The graduate program, therefore, should take account of both these needs early in the period of graduate training, and attention should continue to be directed to them throughout the graduate program. Both writing and research should be weighted more than is done at present in the grading structure of the graduate program. One of the primary objectives of graduate schools should be to produce people who do not just know, but who can do as well, and the grading structure should be changed to assist in bringing this about. Special programs to promote research training, such as internships in the university or outside of it, should be developed to give the student more research experience under supervised conditions.
Specialization in graduate school should equip the student [26] with more advanced training in various areas. It is important that this training not be too narrowly conceived nor too superficial. Instances where a single advanced course and little outside work is supposed to make a student a specialist are all too frequent. Specialization requires a longer build-up of cumulative work, and may involve going into related areas outside of what is generally considered to be economics. Graduate schools should give more careful attention to the specialized training students receive and whether this training does in fact meet the requirements for genuine specialization.
Graduate training normally takes place over a very extended period. Students often work part time while trying to get their doctorate. It is thought that much would be gained if, as in the case of the professional schools, graduate training in economics could take place in an unbroken period of concentrated effort. If the common core is to be retained as is suggested in item 1 above, and more emphasis is to be placed upon writing, research, and specialization, as suggested in items 2 and 3 above, it seems very probable that the total effort going into graduate training in economics by the student will have to be increased. The concentration of studies into a period of three or four consecutive years on a full-time basis will do much to increase the efficiency of the students’ training and permit these objectives to be met. Summer programs of research or internship training may also be of considerable aid in fulfilling these objectives without extending graduate training further.
The present form of the Ph.D. thesis is not an optimal device for achieving these objectives. It was thought that short theses, which could be reworked more easily and which could generally be made available in published form, would be more manageable and would provide a more effective training device. Such a thesis could be integrated into the graduate training program, and could generally be expected to be written while a student was still in residence; the doctorate would be granted directly upon completion of the period of residence and the thesis.

___________________________________

*One panel member has suggested that in cases where a mediocre short thesis is written only an M.A. be granted, and the Ph.D. reserved for theses of exceptional quality.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. Personal Papers of John Kenneth Galbraith, Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 517, Folder “General Correspondence 8/7/56—12/10/57”.

Tags Alexander, Arrow, Bach, Bakke, Baumol, BowenH, Colm, Fabricant, Fellner, Friedman, Griffin, HartAG, Healy, Hurwicz, Kuznets, Lebergott, Leontief, LewisBW, Lintner, Mason, MillerJ, NelsonJ, RugglesR, Samuelson, SawyerJ, Strotz, Tobin, WilcoxC

I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A CLASSICAL ECONOMIST

I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A U OF C ECONOMIST

KEYNESIAN SONG

THEY CALL ME A KEYNESIAN

Parody of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I am the very model of a modern Major General”

I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A CLASSICAL ECONOMIST

I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A U OF C ECONOMIST

Parody of Gilbert and Sullivan’s “I’m Called Little Buttercup”

KEYNESIAN SONG

THEY CALL ME A KEYNESIAN

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

J.M.C. later history.

First Epistle Unto the Entering Students: [V1.0]

FIRST EPISTLE UNTO NEW STUDENTS [V2.0]

ADVANCED COURSES

Milton Friedman’s student notes to Harold Hotelling’s first lecture in Mathematical Economics (1933)

Links to Works Referred to by Hotelling

The Friedmans Remember

Letter from Wesley Clair Mitchell to Arthur Burns

MONEY, BANKING, AND MONETARY POLICY Written Examination for the A.M. and Ph.D. Degrees Winter Quarter, 1952

Harry Jerome (1886-1938)

Course Announcement

Course Materials from Econ 230, University of Wisconsin 1937-38

TREATISES ON NATIONAL INCOME AND THE FORMATION OF CAPITAL

GROUP A. ESTIMATES OF INCOME PRODUCED IN WISCONSIN, BY INDUSTRIES, 1929-1937

GROUP B. SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN INCOME STATISTICS (WISCONSIN)

GROUP C. STUDIES IN THE AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

REPORTS FOR October 14, 21 and 28.

Papers in Studies in Income and Wealth (as yet unpublished [NBER, 1937]) by the Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth:

Business Cycle Readings

ECONOMICS 176 Final Examination January 30, 1941

Letter from Richard Ruggles to Milton Friedman Requesting Comments on Panel Report

YALE UNIVERSITY Department of Economics New Haven, Connecticut

Richard Ruggles

Introduction to Draft Report of the Panel Discussions on Graduate Training in Economics

REPORT OF THE PANEL DISCUSSIONS ON GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS

Carbon copy of Milton Friedman’s Response to Ruggles

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale YALE UNIVERSITY 1956

Panel members:

Yale committee:

The Role of Graduate Education in Economics

The frontier of economic knowledge.

Research training for business and government.

Policy and administrative guidance in business, government, and labor.

Teaching.

Requirements Posed by the Objectives of Graduate Training in Economics

COMMON CORE OF ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE

Economic theory.

Economic history.

Mathematics.

Statistics.

Interdisciplinary training as related to the core of economics.

The extent and timing of the common core.

The Ability to Express Ideas Coherently

Research Competence

Specialization

The Role of the Ph.D. Thesis

The General Form of Graduate Instruction in Economics

The Period of Graduate Training

Summary and Conclusions

First Epistle Unto the Entering Students:
[V1.0]

FIRST EPISTLE UNTO NEW STUDENTS
[V2.0]

MONEY, BANKING, AND MONETARY POLICY
Written Examination for the A.M. and Ph.D. Degrees
Winter Quarter, 1952

Course Materials from Econ 230, University of Wisconsin
1937-38

Papers in Studies in Income and Wealth (as yet unpublished [NBER, 1937])
by the Conference on Research in National Income and Wealth:

ECONOMICS 176
Final Examination
January 30, 1941

Letter from Richard Ruggles to Milton Friedman
Requesting Comments on Panel Report

YALE UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
New Haven, Connecticut

GRADUATE TRAINING IN ECONOMICS
A Report on Panel Discussions at Yale
YALE UNIVERSITY
1956