Tag: Goodrich

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Proposed plan to review economics curriculum, 1944

 

A transcription of a 1945 memo from the curriculum committee of the department of economics at Columbia University regarding curricular issues brought up during discussions during the spring of 1944  was posted earlier. In a different box of departmental records I found the following memo that initiated the series of meetings and that provides us some of the backstory for the 1945 memo. I find the curious ordering of the meetings by topics rather random, e.g. theory courses only to be discussed in the second to last session. 

As the note stapled to the bottom of the memo indicates, the proposed days for the meeting were suggested to be shifted to Mondays. The penciled dates shown in square brackets in the transcription are all Mondays.

______________________

Plan to review Columbia’s economics curriculum

January 13, 1944

To the Members of the
Graduate Department of Economics

At our meeting on December 6th there was, we think, general agreement on the need of reviewing our course offerings and some of our present methods of graduate instruction. For such review, and for a more careful consideration of the problems we shall face in the Department during the years immediately following the war, we suggest that a series of meetings be held during the Spring Session. Each meeting could be devoted to consideration of a particular subject or group of subjects in our present curriculum. One meeting could be given to economic theory, another to economic history, another to labor and industrial relations, and so on. It would be desirable, of course, that at each session we have, not the casual and rather unfocussed discussion that was inevitable at our first meeting, in December, but intensive examination of what we are doing, and a consideration of what we should and can do.

As an indication of what might be covered, we list certain matters that might be given attention, each time:

—the substance of our present offering (i.e. a summary account of what is given in our present courses, including an indication of the subjects covered and of the manner in which each course is organized.
—chief present problems in this field of knowledge, and prospective problems in the post-war period.
—relation of work in this field to other fields and the curriculum as a whole.
—teaching procedures employed, and appraisal of results (If seminar system, how effective? If lecture system, or modified lecture system, how effective?)
—relation of our work to what is done elsewhere (in several other leading graduate schools) in this field.
—needs of this field, in the way of equipment of trained men (What equipment is needed by men undertaking work in this field? What are the best means of providing the needed equipment and research experience?)
—recommendations, if any, as to what we should do in the future in this field at Columbia.

This list is, of course, suggestive only; it is not intended to be an outline that should be followed each time. We should doubtless, throughout, keep the whole curriculum in mind, and the relations among activities in different fields, although the discussion at each meeting would center on a particular topic.

Following is a provisional grouping of subjects for discussion at successive meetings:

  1. Labor and industrial relations (including labor law and social insurance) [February 14]
  2. Economic history (excluding the courses on capitalism and investment, which are placed in group #6) [February 21]
  3. International trade and finance [February 28]
    Banking, and monetary economics
  4. Industrial organization [March 6]
    Capitalism in the 19thand 20thcenturies
    Investment and economic change
    Economics of business enterprises
  5. Business cycles[March 13]
    Structure of the American Economy
    Prices
  6. Types of economic organization [March 20]
    …Socialism
    …Types of national planned economy
  7. Statistics[March 27]
    Accounting
  8. Economic theory (including all courses on theory, the history of theory, institutional economics and mathematical economics) [April 3]
  9. Public finance and taxation [April 10]
    Corporation finance
    Public utilities

This tentative grouping is subject to modification, if the general plan is approved by the Department. We hesitate to suggest covering several important topics at a single meeting, but we can see no other way to keep the time schedule within reasonable limits.

Our purposes in holding these meetings would perhaps be better served by afternoon meetings, running for two hours, than by evening sessions. As a possibility we suggest Wednesday, from 3 to 5 o’clock in 304 Fayerweather, beginning on February 9th. We should probably plan to have the discussion of each topic opened with a statement from the Department member concerned—a statement that might run from 20 to 40 minutes, depending on the number of subjects to be covered at that meeting. Thereafter time should be given for general discussion. Particular attention would be given in this discussion to the relation of the topic in question to other subjects covered in our curriculum.

The Curriculum Committee would be glad to have the judgment of the members of the Department on this proposal. If you approve the general plan, will you let us know whether you could attend meetings on Wednesday afternoon from 3 to 5 o’clock?

Sincerely yours,

CARTER GOODRICH
FREDERICK C. MILLS
CARL S. SHOUP
WESLEY C. MITCHELL, Chairman

[added] NOTE: We find that a Wednesday afternoon schedule for the proposed meetings would involve at least one serious conflict. Accordingly, we suggest that the meetings be held on Monday afternoon from 4 to 6. Is this time suitable? If so, our first session might be held on Monday, February 14th.

Curriculum Committee

 

Source:  Columbia University Archives. Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2 “Faculty”, Folder “Department of Economics—Faculty, Beginning January 1, 1944”.

Categories
Amherst Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. John Maurice Clark. Autobiographical notes, 1949

 

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.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum Fields

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

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

_____________________________________

 

COPY

January 9, 1942

Dear Bob [R. M. Haig]:

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

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

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

Yours,

J. M. Clark

_____________________________________

 

January 13, 1942

Professor John Maurice Clark,
Fayerweather Hall.

Dear Maurice:

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

Faithfully yours,

[R.M. Haig]

_____________________________________

January 13, 1942

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

You will be interested in the enclosed comments from Maurice Clark

_____________________________________

 

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

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

Categories
Columbia Computing

Columbia. Statistical Lab Equipment for Economics Faculty Request, 1948

__________________________

One detects George Stigler’s style in the justification below for the purchase of two pieces of calculating equipment for the use of economics faculty at Columbia in 1948: “…the economist requires more than a library, a pen, a desk, and possibly a crystal-ball to prosecute his studies. He requires empirical material, lots of it, and this material is often numerical.” In the same budget request we also find a list (with current costs) of mundane faculty office furniture items, classroom accessories, and a dictionary for the department administrator.

Cf. An earlier posting for the purchase of a calculator by Henry Schultz at the University of Chicago in 1928.

__________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

January 13, 1948

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

Dear Mr. President:

I beg to submit the requests of the Department of Economics for fixed equipment and physical changes for the fiscal year 1948-49. The greater part of the sum asked is for non-recurring items. The total request is for $1,465, divided as follows:

1) New furniture necessitated by recent alterations in Fayerweather and Hamilton Halls

$270.00

2) Ordinary needs for 1948-49

$195.00

3) Statistical equipment for Economics Faculty

$1000.00

            Item 1) represents furniture equipment urgently needed as a result of the alterations in the two halls. The details are given on the following page. A part of this equipment has already been asked for during the present fiscal year and all of it should, if possible, be provided at once and paid for on the present budget.

Item 2) is explained on the second page following.

Item 3) represents a request for technical equipment which would be of great service in the work of members of the Department. This request is explained and justified in detail in the appended statement prepared by a Departmental committee consisting of Professor Stigler, chairman, and Professors Haig and Harriss.

Respectfully yours,
[signed] Carter Goodrich

__________________________

1) [New furniture]

Item For Cost
Book shelves A. R. Burns $30.00
Clothing tree A. R. Burns $ 5.00
Club chair R. Nurkse $75.00
Legal size filing cabinet R. Nurkse $75.00
6 straight chairs H. Taylor $30.00
Swivel chair C. L. Harriss $15.00
4 coat racks H. Taylor $20.00
Small table O. Hoeffding $20.00
[Total] $270.00

2)        Ordinary needs for 1949-49

Item For Cost
Wall map of Europe R. Nurkse $   20.00
Grid-panel blackboard in classroom W. S. Vickrey $   20.00
Dictionary G. D. Stewart $     5.00
Other needs $150.00
[Total] $195.00

 

3) Proposal of a Statistical Laboratory for Faculty in Economics

$1,000.00

  1. The need

Contrary to a widely held opinion, the economist requires more than a library, a pen, a desk, and possibly a crystal-ball to prosecute his studies. He requires empirical material, lots of it, and this material is often numerical. Statistical analysis, broadly defined, is the social scientist’s laboratory, and in principle the social scientist must spend more time in his laboratory than the natural scientist in his because the social scientist’s findings become obsolete even in the absence of improved techniques and doctrines. The statistical method is important in all branches of economics; it is noteworthy that the present proposal is energetically supported by five teachers of economic theory.

Granting the necessity for quantitative work, and noting the frequency with which such work leads to fairly extensive computations, the faculty requires access to computational equipment (and, one is tempted to say, assistance). At present this access is small and fortuitous. The available computational equipment is being used extensively by students, and it is common to be unsuccessful for several days before obtaining use of a machine. Since the department of economics has no such equipment, a protracted use of the machines (that is, more than say 6 hours a week) is properly objected to by the administrator of the laboratory, but usually this is an unattainable limit.

  1. The detailed proposal

1.  Equipment. We propose to purchase two machines:

Underwood Sundstrand, tape adding machine, Model 1014p
Marchant Calculator, Model ACT – 10M

2. Cost. The purchase price of these machines would be:

Sundstrand: $330 less 10 percent plus 6 percent = $316.80
Marchant:     $750 less 15 percent plus 6 percent = $682.50,

a total of $999.30. The annual cost of servicing the machines would be (1) nothing the first year, (2) $18 for the Sundstrand and $36 for the Marchant thereafter. In addition there would be the cost of the tapes for the Sundstrand, electricity, and space.

These machines will last, at a very conservative minimum, 10 years. Hence, the pro-rate annual cost of the laboratory would be on the order of $170 (of which $100 is depreciation), or $10 per member of the department.

  1. Administration. The machines would be most generally useful if they were placed in some small room to which the faculty had access. A much less efficient alternative would be to keep them in the departmental office when not in use.

 

Source: Columbia University Archives, Central Files 1890- (UA#001). Box 406. Folder “1.1.313 (1/4);  Goodrich, Carter; 7/1946 – 6/1948”.

Image Source: Marchant Calculator, Model ACT-10M. Smithsonian. The National Museum of American History.

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. History of Economics Department. Luncheon Talk by Arthur R. Burns, 1954

The main entry of this posting is a transcription of the historical overview of economics at Columbia provided by Professor Arthur R. Burns at a reunion luncheon for Columbia economics Ph.D. graduates [Note: Arthur Robert Burns was the “other” Arthur Burns of the Columbia University economics department, as opposed to Arthur F. Burns, who was the mentor/friend of Milton Friedman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, etc.]. He acknowledges his reliance on the definitive research of his colleague, Joseph Dorfman, that was published in the following year:

Joseph Dorfman, “The Department of Economics”, Chapt IX in R. Gordon Hoxie et al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

The cost of the luncheon was $2.15 per person. 36 members of the economics faculty attended, who paid for themselves, and some 144 attending guests (includes about one hundred Columbia economics Ph.D.’s) had their lunches paid for by the university.

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

March 25, 1954

 

Dear Doctor _________________

On behalf of the Department of Economics, I am writing to invite you to attend a Homecoming Luncheon of Columbia Ph.D.’s in Economics. This will be held on Saturday, May 29, at 12:30 sharp, in the Men’s Faculty Club, Morningside Drive and West 117th Street.

This Luncheon is planned as a part of Columbia University’s Bicentennial Celebration, of which, as you know, the theme is “Man’s Right to Knowledge and the free Use Thereof”. The date of May 29 is chosen in relation to the Bicentennial Conference on “National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad” in which distinguished scholars and men of affairs from the United States and other countries will take part. The final session of this Conference, to be held at three p.m. on May 29 in McMillin Academic Theater, will have as its principal speaker our own Professor John Maurice Clark. The guests at the Luncheon are cordially invited to attend the afternoon meeting.

The Luncheon itself and brief after-luncheon speeches will be devoted to reunion, reminiscence and reacquaintance with the continuing work of the Department. At the close President Grayson Kirk will present medals on behalf of the University to the principal participants in the Bicentennial Conference.

We shall be happy to welcome to the Luncheon as guests of the University all of our Ph.D.’s, wherever their homes may be, who can arrange to be in New York on May 29. We very much hope you can be with us on that day. Please reply on the form below.

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

*   *   *   *   *   *

Professor Carter Goodrich
Box #22, Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

I shall be glad…
I shall be unable… to attend the Homecoming Luncheon on May 29.

(signed) ___________

Note: Please reply promptly, not later than April 20 in the case of Ph.D.’s residing in the United States, and not later than May 5 in the case of others.

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

May 6, 1954

 

TO:                 Departments of History, Math. Stat., Public and Sociology
FROM:            Helen Harwell, secretary, Graduate Department of Economics

 

Will you please bring the following notice to the attention of the students in your Department:

            A feature of Columbia’s Bicentennial celebration will be a Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, to be held May 27, 28 and 29.

            The final session of the Conference will take place in McMillin Theatre at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 29. The session topic is “Economic Welfare in a Free Society”. The program is:

Session paper.

John M. Clark, John Bates Clark Professor. Emeritus of Economics, Columbia University.

Discussants:

Frank H. Knight, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
David E. Lilienthal, Industrial Consultant and Executive
Wilhelm Roepke, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva

 

Students in the Faculty of Political Science are cordially invited to attend this session and to bring their wives or husbands and friends who may be interested.

Tickets can be secured from Miss Helen Harwell, 505 Fayer.

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29th, 1954

President Kirk, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Department of Economics I welcome you all to celebrate Columbia’s completion of its first two hundred years as one of the great universities. We are gratified that so many distinguished guests have come, some from afar, to participate in the Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad. We accept their presence as testimony of their esteem for the place of Columbia in the world of scholarship. Also, we welcome among us again many of the intellectual offspring of the department. We like to believe that the department is among their warmer memories. We also greet most pleasurably some past members of the department, namely Professors Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, Eugene Agger, Eveline M. Burns and Rexford Tugwell. Finally, but not least, we are pleased to have with us the administrative staff of the department who are ceaselessly ground between the oddity and irascibility of the faculty and the personal and academic tribulations of the students. Gertrude D. Stewart who is here is evidence that this burden can be graciously carried for thirty-five years without loss of charm or cheer.

We are today concerned with the place of economics within the larger scope of Columbia University. When the bell tolls the passing of so long a period of intellectual endeavor one casts an appraising eye over the past, and I am impelled to say a few retrospective words about the faculty and the students. I have been greatly assisted in this direction by the researches of our colleague, Professor Dorfman, who has been probing into our past.

On the side of the faculty, there have been many changes, but there are also many continuities. First let me note some of the changes. As in Europe, economics made its way into the university through moral philosophy, and our College students were reading the works of Frances Hutcheson in 1763. But at the end of the 18th century, there seems to have been an atmosphere of unhurried certainty and comprehensiveness of view that has now passed away. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a colleague of today launching a work entitled “Natural Principles of Rectitude for the Conduct of Man in All States and Situations in Life Demonstrated and Explained in a Systematic Treatise on Moral Philosophy”. But one of early predecessors, Professor Gross, published such a work in 1795.

The field of professorial vision has also change. The professor Gross whom I have just mentioned occupied no narrow chair but what might better be called a sofa—that of “Moral Philosophy, German Language and Geography”. Professor McVickar, early in the nineteenth century, reclined on the even more generous sofa of “Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Rhetoric, Belles Lettres and Political Economy”. By now, however, political economy at least existed officially and, in 1821, the College gave its undergraduates a parting touch of materialist sophistication in some twenty lectures on political economy during the last two months of their senior year.

But by the middle of the century, integration was giving way to specialization. McVickar’s sofa was cut into three parts, one of which was a still spacious chair of “History and Political Science”, into which Francis Lieber sank for a brief uneasy period. His successor, John W. Burgess, pushed specialization further. He asked for an assistant to take over the work in political economy. Moreover, his request was granted and Richmond Mayo Smith, then appointed, later became Professor of Political Economy, which, however, included Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. The staff of the department was doubled in 1885 by the appointment of E. R. A. Seligman to a three-year lectureship, and by 1891 he had become a professor of Political Economy and Finance. Subsequent fission has separated Sociology and Anthropology and now we are professors of economics, and the days when political economy was covered in twenty lectures seem long ago.

Other changes stand out in our history. The speed of promotion of the faculty has markedly slowed down. Richmond Mayo Smith started as an instructor in 1877 but was a professor after seven years of teaching at the age of 27. E. R. A. Seligman even speeded matters a little and became a professor after six years of teaching. But the University has since turned from this headlong progression to a more stately gait. One last change I mention for the benefit of President Kirk, although without expectation of warm appreciation from him. President Low paid J. B. Clark’s salary out of his own pocket for the first three years of the appointment.

I turn now to some of the continuities in the history of the department. Professor McVickar displayed a concern for public affairs that has continued since his time early in the nineteenth century. He was interested in the tariff and banking but, notably, also in what he called “economic convulsions”, a term aptly suggesting an economy afflicted with the “falling sickness”. Somewhat less than a century later the subject had been rechristened “business cycles” to remove some of the nastiness of the earlier name, and professor Wesley Mitchell was focusing attention on this same subject.

The Columbia department has also shown a persistent interest in economic measurement. Professor Lieber campaigned for a government statistical bureau in the middle of the 19th century and Richmond Mayo Smith continued this interest in statistics and in the Census. Henry L. Moore, who came to the department in 1902, promoted with great devotion Mathematical Economics and Statistics with particular reference to the statistical verification of theory. This interest in quantification remains vigorous among us.

There is also a long continuity in the department’s interest in the historical and institutional setting of economic problems and in their public policy aspect. E. R. A. Seligman did not introduce, but he emphasized this approach. He began teaching the History of Theory and proceeded to Railroad Problems and the Financial and Tariff History of the United States, and of course, Public Finance. John Bates Clark, who joined the department in 1895 to provide advanced training in economics to women who were excluded from the faculty of Political Science, became keenly interested in government policy towards monopolies and in the problem of war. Henry R. Seager, in 1902, brought his warm and genial personality to add to the empirical work in the department in labor and trust problems. Vladimir G. Simkhovitch began to teach economic history in 1905 at the same time pursuing many and varied other interests, and we greet him here today. And our lately deceased colleague, Robert Murray Haig, continued the work in Public Finance both as teacher and advisor to governments.

Lastly, among these continuities is an interest in theory. E. R. A. Seligman focused attention on the history of theory. John Bates Clark was an outstanding figure in the field too well known to all of us for it to be necessary to particularize as to his work. Wesley C. Mitchell developed his course on “Current Types of Economic Theory” after 1913 and continued to give it almost continuously until 1945. The Clark dynasty was continued when John Maurice Clark joined the department as research professor in 1926. He became emeritus in 1952, but fortunately he still teaches, and neither students nor faculty are denied the stimulation of his gentle inquiring mind. He was the first appointee to the John Bates Clark professorship in 1952 and succeeded Wesley Mitchell as the second recipient of the Francis A. Walker medal of the American Economic Association in the same year.

Much of this development of the department was guided by that gracious patriarch E. R. A. Seligman who was Executive Officer of the Department for about 30 years from 1901. With benign affection and pride he smiled upon his growing academic family creating a high standard of leadership for his successors. But the period of his tenure set too high a standard and executive Officers now come and go like fireflies emitting as many gleams of light as they can in but three years of service. Seligman and J. B. Clark actively participated in the formation of the American Economic Association in which J. B. Clark hoped to include “younger men who do not believe implicitly in laisser faire doctrines nor the use of the deductive method exclusively”.

Among other members of the department I must mention Eugene Agger, Edward Van Dyke Robinson, William E. Weld, and Rexford Tugwell, who were active in College teaching, and Alvin Johnson, Benjamin Anderson and Joseph Schumpeter, who were with the department for short periods. Discretion dictates that I list none of my contemporaries, but I leave them for such mention as subsequent speakers may care to make.

When one turns to the students who are responsible for so much of the history of the department, one is faced by an embarrassment of riches. Alexander Hamilton is one of the most distinguished political economists among the alumni of the College. Richard T. Ely was the first to achieve academic reputation. In the 1880’s, he was giving economics a more humane and historical flavor. Walter F. Wilcox, a student of Mayo Smith, obtained his Ph.D. in 1891 and contributed notably to statistical measurement after he became Chief Statistician of the Census in 1891, and we extend a special welcome to him here today. Herman Hollerith (Ph.D. 1890) contributed in another way to statistics by his development of tabulating machinery. Alvin Johnson was a student as well as teacher. It is recorded that he opened his paper on rent at J. B. Clark’s seminar with the characteristically wry comment that all the things worth saying about rent had been said by J. B. Clark and his own paper was concerned with “some of the other things”. Among other past students are W. Z. Ripley, B. M. Anderson, Willard Thorp, John Maurice Clark, Senator Paul Douglas, Henry Schultz and Simon Kuznets. The last of these we greet as the present President of the American Economic Association. But the list grows too long. It should include many more of those here present as well as many who are absent, but I am going to invite two past students and one present student to fill some of the gaps in my story of the department.

I have heard that a notorious American educator some years ago told the students at Commencement that he hoped he would never see them again. They were going out into the world with the clear minds and lofty ideals which were the gift of university life. Thenceforward they would be distorted by economic interest, political pressure, and family concerns and would never again be the same pellucid and beautiful beings as at that time. I confess that the thought is troubling. But in inviting our students back we have overcome our doubts and we now confidently call upon a few of them. The first of these is George W. Stocking who, after successfully defending a dissertation on “The Oil Industry and the Competitive System” in 1925, has continued to pursue his interest in competition and monopoly as you all know. He is now at Vanderbilt University.

The second of our offspring whom I will call upon is Paul Strayer. He is one of the best pre-war vintages—full bodied, if I may borrow from the jargon of the vintner without offense to our speaker. Or I might say fruity, but again not without danger of misunderstanding. Perhaps I had better leave him to speak for himself. Paul Strayer, now of Princeton University, graduated in 1939, having completed a dissertation on the painful topic of “The Taxation of Small Incomes”.

The third speaker is Rodney H. Mills, a contemporary student and past president of the Graduate Economics Students Association. He has not yet decided on his future presidencies, but we shall watch his career with warm interest. He has a past, not a pluperfect, but certainly a future. Just now, however, no distance lends enchantment to his view of the department. And I now call upon him to share his view with us.

So far we have been egocentric and appropriately so. But many other centres of economic learning are represented here, and among them the London School of Economics of which I am proud as my own Alma Mater. I now call upon Professor Lionel Robbins of Polecon (as it used sometimes to be known) to respond briefly on behalf of our guests at the Conference. His nature and significance are or shall I say, is, too well known to you to need elaboration.

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Bicentennial Celebration”.

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

 

BURNS, Arthur Robert, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1938) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1895; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1920, Ph.D. (Econ.), 1926, London Sch. of Econ. Fields 5a, 3bc, 12b. Doc. dis. Money and monetary policy in early times (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., London, 1926). Pub. Decline of competition (McGraw-Hill 1936); Comparative economic organization (Prentice-Hall, 1955); Electric power and government policy (dir. of res.) (Twentieth Century Fund, 1948) . Res. General studies in economic development. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci., III, Dir. of Amer. Schol.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July, 1957), p. 40.

 

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Columbia Curriculum

Columbia. Curricular Suggestions and Comments. 1945

In my examination of departmental records at Columbia, Chicago, Harvard and M.I.T. I have found relatively few written reflections on the rules/regulation/courses of the graduate programs. Today’s posting provides a memo of miscellaneous ruminations by Arthur F. Burns, Carter Goodrich and Carl Shoup who served as members of the Columbia Economic Department’s Curriculum Committee in 1945. Having a major field of comparative economic systems myself, I found Arthur Burns’ rather dismissive remarks about whether the graduate program should add a course in that field noteworthy.

_____________________________

April 30, 1945

To the Members of the Department of Economics:

During the year the Curriculum Committee has given thought to problems growing out of the Department discussions of last spring. Although the Committee is not prepared to place definite recommendations before the Department, I think it desirable that the members of the Department review certain suggestions and other changes that have been considered by the Committee. These suggestions, with comments of Committee members, are enclosed. There should be opportunity to discuss these at our meeting on me second. May 2.

Frederick C. Mills

_____________________________

SUGGESTIONS FOR CURRICULAR AND OTHER CHANGES
with comments by Committee Members

 

  1. We should formulate a more definite statement of requirements to be met by applicants for admission to the graduate department of economics.
    (Can we agree on basic requirements? Should we include mathematics, accounting, statistics, history, economic principles, English composition, psychology, one laboratory science?)

 

A. F. Burns

I doubt if much progress in this direction can be made this year or next. For one thing, there is likely to be slight unanimity among the staff. For another, each of us will have difficulty in convincing the others unless judgment be implemented by a canvas of experience. What do other graduate departments do? Would there be any advantage in drawing up a sample list of former graduate students in the department and analyzing the undergraduate training of those who proved especially “successful” and those who “got nowhere”?

 

Carter Goodrich

This is the point on which I am most doubtful of the general tendency. I do not believe we can agree on “basic requirements”. Even on recommendations I think we should be most cautious. We may be justified in making a strong recommendation for things we consider specific prerequisites, – perhaps economic principles, mathematics, accounting or statistics. I should see no justification for such specifications as “one laboratory science”. If we are to make a recommendation regarding preliminary training in economics, I feel strongly that it should be accompanied by a recommendation against over-specialization in economics at the undergraduate level. An excellent statement of this general point of view is contained in the Princeton catalog in a passage referring to pre-professional training.

 

Carl S. Shoup

As I see it, the Department faces two general alternatives. First, it can continue to admit graduate students who have had little or no economic training during their undergraduate days and who must therefore be given some general courses on a fairly elementary level. Owing to the number of students involved, these courses would presumably be of the traditional lecture type. Students who have already had substantial training in economics might be excused from these courses to take instead either special seminars designed for first-year students, or the usual advanced seminars. This alternative is inviting in many ways, but I fear that, inevitably, two undesirable consequences would follow: (1). Since our resources are not unlimited, even though they may be expanded from the present level, the use of some resources to give the rather elementary lecture courses would, necessarily, decrease the time and effort that the faculty members could otherwise give to the students entering with a good background in economics; (2) The fact that the graduate department would be supplying a pretty complete series of lectures in the various subjects on this level would tend to discourage the better undergraduate schools from maintaining high standards in their economics teaching. This would particularly be the case if students coming here with good undergraduate training in economics were required or allowed to attend these general lecture courses, and I think that experience indicates that this is what would happen: Word would get back to the undergraduate colleges that there is no particular point in working too hard on students who hope to go on for graduate economics work since they will have to, or will be induced to, or will allow themselves to spend a good deal of time in the graduate school going over, at much the same pace and with much the same intensity, the same material they covered in their undergraduate courses. To a certain extent, I believe this hypothetical situation I outlined has already developed in fact it will simply be intensified if we do not set up some sort of professional standards for admission.

The other alternative is to require that a student show a certain degree of proficiency in the elementary subjects of economics before he is admitted to the graduate school. This might be done simply on showing of courses taken and grades given, but I should prefer to work toward a system of entrance examinations without any requirements at all concerning specific undergraduate courses. We would be more sure that we were getting people with the kind of background desired and we would also thereby allow individuals to qualify, if they were able enough to do so, on the basis of study without taking courses. Assuming that the department had the same total resources and manpower is under the first alternative, these resources could then be thrown wholly into the training of graduate students in small groups through individual conferences, on research projects, etc. The resulting rise in the standard of our graduate teaching and in the quality of our product, as embodied in the successful Ph.D. Candidates — and also indeed, in those who get the Master’s degree — would, in my opinion, be marked. Moreover, since all of the graduate students would have shown proficiency in the elementary branches of economics, the could and should be encouraged to branch out in allied fields of graduate work: philosophy, psychology, etc. This alternative, however, has the disadvantage of borrowing from the graduate school able students who have taken little or no economics in their undergraduate days. I look upon this I look upon this as a necessary cost that must be paid if we are really to step up, in any marked degree, the quality and intensity of our graduate training. I wish it did not have to be paid, but I think that we shall be unrealistic if we think that we can change the present situation greatly without incurring that cost. It would, of course, still be possible for an able student, who had decided that he wanted to switch to economics, to get enough economics to pass the entrance examinations by six months or so of intensive study by himself. Only the very able ones could do this, but I doubt whether we should make much effort to get the merely average student who has had no economics at all in his undergraduate days.

 

 

  1. Standards of admission to graduate study in economics should be reviewed with the Office of Admissions. Tightening up may be possible, but fairly liberal principles of admission should prevail for the present.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I Agree.

 

Carl Goodrich

Yes

 

Carl S. Shoup

If we follow the first alternative outlined in number 1 above, I should agree that the general standards of admission should be tightened up somewhat. If the second alternative is followed, the nature of the qualifying examinations would pretty much settled this question.

 

  1. A nuclear program of first-year courses is to be planned. Provision should be made for some flexibility, but most students would be expected to take three or four basic first-year courses (including theory, statistics, money and banking, and economic history). Requirements in these courses would be fairly rigorous, and all students would take examinations and receive letter grades. A special reading course might be taken in view of a basic course by the student already reasonably well-prepared in that subject.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree with some interpretations and qualifications. (a) The essential thing is that in his first year a student attend to certain basic courses (a list to be discussed). (b) If a student has had satisfactory training at college in any one or all of these courses (the latter, of course, is rather unlikely), he should not be required to take them again. (c) Whether letter grades are to be given in these courses should be decided on the basis of the general policy in regard to letter grades. Note also that there are bound to be second-and third-year students in the basic courses. (d) Special reading courses are a very doubtful educational expedient, unless the faculty is willing to give real time to the work.

 

Carter Goodrich

On the whole, yes, as long there is 5 to provide flexibility and provided that at some stage we really encourage a considerable number of our students to take relevant work outside the Department.

 

Carl S. Shoup

The program of first-year courses is necessary only under the first alternative in number 1. A student who is already reasonably well prepared in a subject should not, I think, be required to take even a special reading course. He should, instead, be admitted at once to the advanced seminars.

 

 

  1. M.A. candidates should be required to have letter grades of B or better in courses carrying 21 points of credit. Department members should be requested to test first-year students systematically and grade rigorously.

 

A.F. Burns

I am inclined to agree, but I do not expect very much from this proposal. It may merely mean that we will now say B where we formerly said P.

 

Carter Goodrich

Like Walton Hamilton on monogamy, “I suppose I’d vote for it but I’ll be damned if I’d electioneer for it.”

 

Carl S. Shoup

I suggest that we give only a “P” grade with the understanding that the passing level is “B” rather than “C”. Under the first alternative in number 1, I would be willing to go so far as to require passing grades in all of the thirty points, both for candidates for M:A. and for those who are not taking the M.A. but want to go on to the Ph.D. If we are to assume real responsibility for the product that we turn out, I do not see how we can afford to give a degree to anybody who is not good enough to pass all of the courses that he takes. (Do the medical schools give degrees to people who are unable to pass all of the courses?)

 

  1. We should provide seminar courses for first-year students of outstanding ability and satisfactory preparation. Admission would be by consent of the instructor. Admission would be restricted to men of clear promise. Such a man might have a first-year program consisting of three basic courses and two seminars.

 

A. F. Burns

I think it is desirable to admit qualified first-year students to seminars. But it would be unwise and impractical to run one special seminar for first-year students and another for second-year students. It is an artificial distinction. (However, it might be well to organize a seminar for M.A. students who are writing their theses, one requirement (among others) for admission being that a student have a definite topic that he already has done a little work on and that he expects to complete within the year. This suggestion raises serious questions as to administration, teaching load, etc.)

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes. These seminars would not in all case have to be for first-year students only.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This problem is covered in the discussion under number 1 above. I should add that even under the second alternative, I should visualize fairly frequent and rigorous examinations of some kind or other to be sure that the graduate student was not losing his grasp of his tools of analysis and his basic information, and was, indeed, improving them as he went along.

 

  1. There should be a rigorous weeding out of graduate students at the end of the first graduate year. At the end of the spring term a committee of the department should review the records of all candidates for degrees. Only those of clear merit should be permitted to carry forward studies for the doctorate. We should have a restricted group of second and third-year graduate students of high ability.

 

A. F. Burns

I agree heartily.

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, decidedly.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree with this proposal, whether under the first or second alternatives in number 1 above.

 

  1. We should consider introducing comprehensive written matriculation examinations, to come before more than 45 residence credits have been acquired.

 

A. F. Burns

I feel handicapped because I don’t know precisely what matriculation means or involves. Would the comprehensive examination come six months after a student has been encouraged to try for the doctorate? If so, is the interval too short?

 

Carter Goodrich

Not with this timing. It would be too late for the privileges of matriculation and I think too early for a comprehensive test. Possibly such examinations might supplement the oral on subjects and replace certification.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I agree that it is desirable to have comprehensive written examinations from time to time through the graduate work (see comments under numbers 4 and 5 above).

 

 

  1. Doctoral candidates should be required to pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position. This year should be given to rigorous research training, under the supervision of the department.

 

Arthur F. Burns

I agree if “Rigorous research training” means the writing of a dissertation on the premises, or at least working on it for a year under the supervision of the department. But there is a good deal to think through before making a definite proposal. For example, would the orals have to be taken before this research year?

 

Carter Goodrich

Yes, as an ideal to press for as rapidly as possible. In my judgment, this is the direction that promises the most significant improvement.

 

Carl S. Shoup

This is an excellent idea; if doctoral candidates would pass a third year in residence or in an approved research position, many of our difficulties at the thesis level would disappear.

 

 

  1. A sum equivalent to approximately 10 per cent of the departmental budget for salaries should be allocated to research. This would be available to members of the department for employment of research assistants on research activities approved by a departmental committee on research, and for meeting other research costs. It is to be expected that some portion of this research fund could be used for the employment of doctoral candidates during their period of internship.

 

Arthur F. Burns

Clearly, financial provision for research work is important. I am not sufficiently familiar with the needs of the department (even its boundaries: is the college included?) to have any judgment as to a specific figure. The whole problem should be surveyed before definite recommendations are made.

 

Carter Goodrich

I am not sure of the ten per cent, but I like the general idea. Something of this sort must be done to make 8 possible.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I do not think there would be a marked increase in the research work under this proposal (to allocate, say, 10 per cent of the departmental budget to research) since it does not touch what seems to me the real problem; namely, the desire of many faculty members — especially in the younger group — to supplement their University salaries by research fees and salaries. It is possible that the solution may be found in some form of split salary schedule whereby the faculty member is paid a certain basic amount, viewed as compensation chiefly for teaching services, and, upon application, might be granted an additional amount as compensation for devoting his time to unpaid research, thus foregoing outside paid activities. The tendency to grant the supplementary amount almost automatically to anybody who happened not to be doing outside work would be a real difficulty, but it might be met by having the supplementary amounts granted only upon approval by some outside board, specially constituted for this purpose.

 

 

  1. The department should consider adding the following courses to its curriculum:

1. First-year graduate course in money and banking
2. A course in accounting, designed to meet the needs of economists
3. A course in comparative economic systems (to be given in cooperation with the School of Business)
4. An additional course in international economics (subject matter to be adapted to that of the present course on international trade).

 

Arthur F. Burns

10a. Definitely yes

10b. Probably yes. But the man must precede the course.

10c. Probably, no. Who is an expert on such questions? I can’t think of any. I doubt if the department ought to try to develop one, and I doubt if it would succeed if it tried (the man, if he is any good, would soon specialize). If there is a gap here, we might perhaps try a lecture course to be given by several specialists and coordinated by some instructor. This has at least the negative advantage that the department’s hands will not be tied.

10d. Probably, yes. I would want to know the scope of the course before expressing a more definite opinion.

 

Carter Goodrich

Certainly d, probably the others.

 

Carl S. Shoup

I should like to discuss these prospective courses further before venturing an opinion, especially with respect to the first-year course in money and banking. I believe there is no unnecessary duplication in this field already than in almost other part of our curriculum.

 

 

Source: Columbia University Archives.Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection. Box 1. Folder: “Committee on Instruction”.