Tag: Haig

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

Columbia. Preparation for Graduate Economics, 1941

Up through the 1941-1942 Course Announcements of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science did not provide prospective graduate students of economics any guidance with respect to their undergraduate preparation. Late in the Fall of 1941 the Executive Officer of the Department of Economics, i.e. chairman, Robert Murray Haig received suggestions and comments that were discussed at the December 2, 1941 faculty meeting that resulted in the insertion of two paragraphs into the Course Announcements that address undergraduate preparation in general and mathematical preparation in particular. Horace Taylor’s suggestion for the general preparation was taken over with only minor revisions. However we can see that the suggestion for mathematical preparation by Harold Hotelling and Frederick Mills was significantly toned down.

_________________________________

12 copies send around
Nov.

Dear Colleague:

Will you kindly examine the attached exhibits relating to material to be inserted in the announcements of the Faculty of Political Science and of Columbia College and be prepared to pass judgment at the meeting on December 2nd?

 

(A) The Proposed Statement on Mathematical Preparation to be Inserted in the “Announcement of Courses” of the Faculty of Political Science.
Hotelling, Mills. October 13, 1941

Mathematical Preparation. The use of mathematics, including higher mathematics, has become important in several branches of economics and advanced statistics. Calculus, probability, the algebra of matrices and quadratic forms and the calculus of variations, for example, have important applications in economic study. Since the acquisition of an adequate mathematical training requires several years, students planning work that entails the use of advanced mathematics should include in their undergraduate studies courses providing the mathematical foundation essential to these advanced studies.

 

(B) Suggestion from Horace Taylor for Paragraph to be Inserted in the Columbia College Announcement and Comment on Hotelling and Mills’ Statement

October 20, 1941

 

Professor Robert M. Haig,
Fayerweather Hall.

Dear Professor Haig:

I enclose* two copies of a tentative paragraph intended to give effect in the Announcement to the recommendation made at our last departmental dinner. I would be glad to amend or amplify this in any way that seems desirable.

I have one or two misgivings as to the statement on mathematical preparation that has been prepared for the Announcement. In the first place it almost never happens that an undergraduate student decides to study economics in the graduate school earlier than the end of his junior year. Very often it happens at the end of his senior year. This lateness makes it impossible for such students to get the amount of mathematical training that is presented as desirable in this statement. In the second place, even those students who do decide to go in for graduate study at some point fairly early in their college careers are not likely to refer to our Announcement until a very short time before their actual application for admission as graduate students. Consequently the message presented in this statement would not reach them until too late. In the third place, I believe that the indefiniteness of the statement as it now stands might serve to frighten well qualified people away from graduate study of economics – at least in our department. Perhaps this difficulty would be relieved by making it more explicit as to just the fields of work in which such intensive mathematical preparation is a desirable prerequisite.

I doubt if we can accomplish very much in this regard by our own individual effort. I wonder if a broader attack in which it would be attempted to get the understanding and support of collegiate departments of economics would not be more successful. If, for example, the economics departments at Columbia, Chicago, Harvard, and perhaps two or three other principal graduate schools would agree on a general statement of what is desirable in the way of mathematical training and would publicize this through one or another of the Journals or by some other means, I think that better results would ensue. As I understand it, this question may come up for consideration at one of our later dinner meetings.

Sincerely,

HORACE TAYLOR

* “Undergraduate preparation. Since graduate study in economics necessarily entails a high degree of concentration in this field, students planning to enter graduate work are advised not to specialize narrowly in economics during their undergraduate study. Basic training in economics and a knowledge of its general literature and methods is desirable, but for the purposes of the more advanced work in graduate school, there is greater advantage in the study of history, philosophy, modern languages and mathematics than in narrowly specialized courses in economics taken as undergraduates.”

 

(C) Memorandum to Professor Haig from Professor Wolman: November 11, 1941

Professor Wolman agrees to the last paragraph typed on the page containing the memorandum from Professor Taylor. Doesn’t care how much Mathematics they are getting, no time to scare students away.

 

(D) Comment of Dean Calkins

 

Columbia University
in the City of New York

School of Business
Local

November 11, 1941

Professor R. M. Haig
Fayerweather

Dear Professor Haig

Your request for my comments on the proposed recommendation of undergraduate preparation for graduate study in economics and on Professor Taylor’s observations with respect to it prompts the following response:

  1. I am impressed by the three points raised by Professor Taylor. They represent my own views after experience at California and Stanford. No satisfactory system now exists for detecting undergraduates who will later pursue graduate work in economics, and hence advice can rarely be given in time to be effective. It is my impression that most students who undertake graduate work in economics are as undergraduates either unacquainted with the opportunities in the field, unaware of their own interest in it, uncertain of their academic abilities to pursue graduate work, without prospects of financing graduate study, or forced by financial circumstances to utilize their four years of undergraduate study for instruction which might lead to employment upon graduation. Moreover many of these conditions also apply to first year graduate students and candidates for the master’s degree.

            That there is no easy way to overcome the foregoing conditions is evident. Ordinarily a student needs to proceed some distance in the subject as an undergraduate to convince himself that he wishes to go on for graduate study, that he has the ability to go on, and that his opportunities in the field are sufficiently promising to justify the effort. I am impressed, too, with the number of cases in which graduate students receive their first impulse to go on for advanced study from an interest in a specialized course.

  1. No statement in the Columbia College catalog alone can produce more than a small effect on the preparation of your graduate students, who are recruited so largely from other institutions. It is too vague to mean very much to the average undergraduate and will be interpreted by advisers according to their own predilections.
  2. While I agree that more graduate students ought to have more of the sort of preparation recommended, we cannot be certain that this prescription is the only, best, or preferred preparation for either the students who may wish to undertake the graduate study of economics or who should be encouraged to do so.

            In guiding the preparation of students who will be able to excel in economics we seek to produce graduates who can maintain high standards of competence, not standardized products.

  1. I have no serious objection to the statement as a guide for one type of preparation, but this is clearly not the only desirable type of preparation. Its value probably lies in the prospect that a few will heed it, and that may be desirable, and the great majority will ignore it and that may also be desirable.

I shall be glad to discuss this with you if you desire an amplification of these opinions.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Robert D. Calkins
Dean

 

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

_________________________________

Recommended preparations printed in the 1942-43 Course Announcements

General Undergraduate Preparation. Since graduate study in economics necessarily entails a high degree of concentration in this field, students planning to enter graduate work are advised not to specialize narrowly in economics during their undergraduate study. Basic training in economics and a knowledge of its general literature and methods is desirable, but for the purposes of the more advanced work on the graduate level, there is greater advantage in the study of history, philosophy, modern languages and mathematics than in narrowly specialized courses in economics taken as undergraduates.

Mathematical Preparation. The use of mathematics, including higher mathematics, has become important in several branches of economics and statistics. Much of the recent important literature of general economics is written in a language not easily understood without some knowledge of the differential and integral calculus. Students planning to work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in economics will therefore find it advantageous to acquire familiarity with the calculus and with higher algebra before beginning their graduate studies in economics.

 

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Sociology. Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1942-1943. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, Forty-second Series, No. 24, May 23, 1942, p. 18.

_________________________________

 

The 1948 Directory of the American Economic Association. American Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 1 (January 1949).

HAIG, Robert Murray, Columbia Univ., Fayerweather Hall, New York 27, N.Y. (1911) Columbia Univ., McVikar Prof. of Polit. Econ., teach., res.; b. 1887; A.B., 1908, LL.D., 1925, Ohio Wesleyan; M.A., 1909, Illinois; Ph.D., 1914, Columbia; LL.D., 1944, Rollins. Field 9 [Public Finance]. Doc.dis. History of general property tax in Illinois ([Flanigan-Pearson Company, Printers] Univ. of Illinois, 1914). Pub. “Taxation of excess profits in Great Britain,” A.E.R., 1920; Economic factors in metropolitan growth and arrangement (Russell Sage Found., 1927); Sales tax in American states (with Shoup) (Columbia Univ. Press, 1929). Res. Concept of taxable income; federal state financial relations. Dir. W.W. in Amer., Dir. of Schol., Lead. in Educa. Int. W.W. [p. 77]

MILLS, Frederick Cecil, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1920) Columbia Univ., prof of econ. and statis.; Nat. Bur. of Econ. Res., memb. res. staff; teach., res., govt. serv.; b. 1892; B.L., 1914, M.A., 1916, LL.D., 1947, California; Ph.D., 1917, Columbia; 1919, London School of Econ. Fields 3 [Statistics and Econometrics], 6 [Business Fluctuations], 5 [National Income and Social Accounting]. Doc dis. Contemporary theories of unemployment (Columbia Univ. Press, 1917). Pub. Behavior of prices (1927), Economic tendencies in U.S. (1932) (Nat. Bur. of Econ. Res.); Statistical Methods (Holt, 1924, 1938). Res. Prices in business cycles; industrial productivity. Dir. W.W. in Amer., Dir. of Schol. [p. 129]

WOLMAN, Leo, 993 Park Ave., New York 28, NY. (1915) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ.; Nat. Bur. of Econ. Res., res. staff; b. 1890; A.B., 1911, Ph.D., 1914, LL.D., 1948, Johns Hopkins. Fields 16 [Labor], 6 [Business Fluctuations], 3c [Economic Measurements]. Doc. dis. Boycott in American trade unions (Johns Hopkins Press, 1916). Pub. Growth of American trade unions, 1880-1923 (1924), Planning and control of public works (1930), Ebb and flow in trade unionism (1936) (Nat. Bur. of Econ. Res.). Res. Wages in U. S. since 1860; changes in union membership. Dir. W.W. in Amer., Dir. of Schol. Lead in Educa. [p. 204]

 

CALKINS, Robert D., 445 Riverside Dr., New York 27, N.Y. (1930) Gen. Educa. Bd., dir.; B.S., 1925, LL.B., 1942, William and Mary; M.A., 1929, Ph.D., 1933, Stanford. Fields 11a [Business Organization, Administration, Methods, and Management], 12a [Industrial Organization and Market Controls; Policies Concerning Competition and Monopoly], 14a [Industry Studies: Manufacturing]. Doc. dis. Price leadership among major wheat futures markets (Wheat Studies, Nov., 1933). Dir. W.W. in Amer. [p. 30]

_________________________________

 

The 1942 Directory of the American Economic Association. American Economic Review, Vol. 33, No. 1, Part 2, Supplement (March 1943).

TAYLOR, Horace, Columbia Univ., New York City. (1924) A [Institution, rank, nature of activity]Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., TRA [teaching, research, administration]. B [Degrees] A.B., 1922, Oklahoma; A.M., 1924, Ph.D., 1929, Columbia. C [doctoral dissertation]Making goods and making money (Macmillan, 1929). D [Fields] 1 [Economic theory; general works], 10 [Public control of business; public administration; national defense and war], 3 [Economic systems; national economics]. E [Research projects underway] Systematic economic theory. F [Most significant publications]Main currents in modern economic life (Harcourt, Brace, 1941). G [Directories cross referenced] SE [Biographical Directory of American Scholars, Leaders in Education].  [p. 11]

 

_________________________________

 

Harold Hotelling. Professor of Economics

A.B. Washington, 1919; M.S., 1921; Ph.D., Princeton, 1924.

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Sociology. Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1942-1943. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, Forty-second Series, No. 24, May 23, 1942, p. 4.

_________________________________

Image Source: Columbia Spectator Archive. Left: Horace Taylor (14 April 1959). Right: Frederick C. Mills (11 February 1964)

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia Fields Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. Reading List in Public Finance. Bullock and Burbank, 1934.

In an earlier posting I posted the public finance reading list for the Ph.D. field exam in public finance prepared some time during the fall semester 1933-34 which was in a Harvard economics department folder along with reading lists for other fields (railroads, corporations, and banking). In this posting we find the identical reading list along with a cover letter from Professor Charles Bullock of Harvard to Prof. Haig, the public finance expert, at Columbia asking for comments. I have added Haig’s suggestions for deletions and additions in blue-boldface.

___________________________________

[Bullock to Haig, 15 January 1934]

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
January 15, 1934

Prof. R. M. Haig
Columbia University
New York City

My dear Haig:

Burbank and I have been conferring recently about the reading that ought to be done by our graduate students who offer public finance as their special field for the doctorate. After considering books and the results students apparently get from reading them, we have got up the enclosed list. If you would be interested in reading it and commented commenting upon it, I should be greatly indebted to you.

In particular I would be glad to have you note any books which you have found useful for your students but which we have omitted.

Some of the books we list, like Miss Comstock’s “Taxation in the Modern State”, are pretty light-weight affairs; but they have some information in them which students can’t readily get elsewhere; also, of course, some misinformation.

If there are any books listed here that you would strike out, I should be very glad if you would indicate deletions.

Another question is that of the division of the books into the three groups. The first group mostly is intended to give the general approach, though the last thing in it, the Colwyn Report, is put there because Burbank has found it extremely useful with his students. Mine have not found it so useful; and I would have preferred to put that title in Group II.

I would be glad to have your comments also on the amount of reading. I am inclined to think the requirement of all the books in Group I, six or eight books in Group II, and three or four books in Group III is excessive; but the first two titles in Group I are really read in class. Do you think the total amount of reading excessive?

For your convenience I am sending along two copies, so that you can jot down in lead pencil on one of them additions, deletions, criticisms, and any other comment, and then mail the damned thing back to me without even going to the trouble of dictating a letter. In the present state of the literature in public finance, I have found it very difficult to know what to do; and so has Burbank. Perhaps you may be sufficiently in the same frame of mind so that you will not find this polite request I make too much of an imposition!

Yours sincerely,

[signed]

Charles J. Bullock

 

CJB/AMB

___________________________________

Readings in Public Finance for General and Special Examinations

Students preparing for the special examination in public finance should read all the references listed under I. In II the student should read a substantial portion of six or eight books, selecting topics which he considers of most interest and value to him. In III the student should read a substantial portion of three or four of the books listed, again following his own requirements or interests.

 

I. Required Reading

A. Smith Wealth of Nations, Book 5
J. S. Mill Principles of Political Economy, Book 5, ch. 1-8
C. F. Bastable Public Finance (3rd edition). Read pages: 1-149; 153-257; 261-421; 425-442; 443-464; 465-468; 469-494; 504-573; 611-711.
H. L. Lutz Public Finance
C. J. Bullock Selected Readings in Public Finance (3rd edition). Read pages: 1-51; 76-147; 156-268; 278-379; 445-490; 533-607; 755-902; 921-982
A. Wagner Finanzwissenschaft, Vol. II. Read all the coarse print; use judgment on the fine print.
P. Leroy-Beaulieu Traité des Finances, Vol. I (8th edition, 1912). Read pages: 1-10; 28-92; 92-133; 134-143; 172-249; 367-387; 394-437; 439-482; 483-517; 539-626; 626-703
[Haig note: Substitute Allix]
D. R. Dewey Financial History of the United States
The Colwyn Report Great Britain: Report of the Committee on National Debt and Taxation, 1927. Read pages: 73-244. (Cmd. 2800; Econ. 5389.27)

[Haig note: Add.—H. Dalton—Principles of Public Finance]

 

 

II. Reading Recommended

Mills and Starr Readings in Public Finance and Taxation. Read Pages: 41-150; 168-195; 205-264; 369-453; 482-607; 763-808
A. C. Pigou A Study in Public Finance
B. Moll Lehrbuch der Finanzwissenschaft (1930)
[Haig note: I was surprised by the low rating given Moll’s Lehrbuch by his German colleagues]
E. Allix

 

 Traité élementaire de Science des Finances (6th edition, 1931). Read pages: 1-81; 151-204; 216-256; 285-312; 341-382; 437-573; 870-902; 910-958; 1011-1050;1091-1134.
L. Suret Théorie de l’Impôt progressif
[Haig note: Subsitute Seligman]
J. Stamp Fundamental Principles of Taxation
T. G. Shearman Natural Taxation
[Haig note: “?” (a question mark)]
H. L. Lutz State Tax Commissions
S. Leland The Classified Property Tax
A. L. Harding Double Taxation of Property and Income
E. Cannan History of Local Rates
A. F. Macdonald Federal Aid
J. W. Grice National and Local Finance
A. E. Buck Municipal Finance
The May Report Great Britain: Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, 1931 (Cmd. 3290; Econ. 5389.31)
National Tax Association Proceedings, 1933, Report of Committee on Model System of State and Local Taxation

 

 

III. Other Reading

G. F. Shirras Science of Public Finance
[Haig note: Elim. in view of incl. of Bastable]
E. R. A. Seligman Progressive Taxation
——————— Essays in Taxation
——————— Income Tax (chapters on Great Britain, Germany, France, U.S.A.)
——————— Shifting and Incidence of Taxation
H. A. Silverman Taxation, Its Incidence and Effects
A. Comstock Taxation in the Modern State
J. P. Jensen Property Taxation in the United States
W. G. Schultz Taxation of Inheritances
R. G. Blakey Taxation in Minnesota
[Haig note: Eliminate]
R. M. Haig The Taxation of Excess Profits in Great Britain
National Industrial Conference Board General Sales or Turnover Taxation
National Industrial Conference Board Sales Tax
A. G. Buehler General Sales Taxes
[Haig note: Substitute C. Shoup: Sales Tax in France]
R. Magill, editor Lectures on Taxation
R. Stourm The Budget
W. F. Willoughby The National Budget System
H. S. Adams
[Haig note: “C” (i.e. not S.)]		 Public Debts
M. L. Walker Municipal Expenditure
Britain’s Industrial Future, pp. 426-447.
H.U. Library, Econ 6069.28.5
Joseph Sykes British Public Expenditures, 1921-1931
Report of New York Commission for Revision of the Tax Laws, 1932, Part III.

[Haig note:  Add.

W. F. Willoughby. The Financial Condition and Operations of the National Government.
H. C. Adams, Science of Finance.
H. Higgs. The Financial System of the UK.
Taxation of Foreign and National Enterprises. Fiscal Commission, League of Nations.]

 

Source:   Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. R. M. Haig Collection, Box 15, “Lecture Notes”; Folder, “Reading—Suggestions—Econ.101”.

Image Source:  Harvard Album 1932.

Categories
Columbia Salaries

Columbia. 1931-50 graduate economics alumni survey 1950

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

June 20, 1951

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Highest Standing Attained
Years

Total Replies

 M.A. Passed Orals

Ph.D.

1931-35

 39 18 4 17

1936-40

 60 26 11

23

1941-45

 68 26 12

30

1946-50

 210 126 48

36
1931-1950 377 196 75

106

 

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

 

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

Years

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

Orals to Ph.D.

1931-35

 2.8 6.2 9.4 3.7 6.3 2.5

1936-40

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

3.7
1946-50 3.6 6.6 11.7 2.2 9.3

5.6

1931-1950a

  

3.0

 

 5.8 10.6 2.8 7.8

4.1
Number of observations before adjustment

324

 155 98 145 87

78
Number omitted

20

 6 3 9 2

3
1931-50: unadjusted averagesa

3.8

 6.4 11.2 3.5 8.4

4.5
 

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

 

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

Number of Years Elapsed

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

Orals to Ph.D.

1-2

 179 31 0 78 3 28

3-4

 56 32 2 31 12 18

5-6

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

8

9-10

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

4

13-14

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

0

17-19

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

0
30-40 1 1 2 0 1

0
Totals

 

 324 155 98 145 87

78

Medians

 2 6 11 2 8

4

 

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

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

 

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

1900

 1910 1930

1940
Natural Sciences

Columbia

 7.6 8.0 9.4 9.2
Harvard 6.8 8.3 6.2

6.1
Social Sciences

Columbia

 4.3 9.8 10.3 12.9
Harvard 4.8 4.5 10.5

8.7
Human-ities

Columbia

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

[8.8]
All Fields

Columbia

 6.3 9.2 10.8 11.7
Harvard 6.2 8.4 8.0

7.8

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

1946-50
M.A.
Teaching

29.1

 27.8 23.1 23.1

31.7
Govern-ment

24.5

 11.1 46.2 34.6

19.8
Other economic work

25.5

 33.3 11.5 34.6

25.4
All other

20.9

 27.8 19.2 7.7

23.1

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Passed Orals
Teaching

53.3

 0 36.4 50.0

62.5
Govern-ment

21.3

 50.0 27.2 50.0

10.4
Other economic work

22.7

 50.0 36.4 0

22.9
All other

2.7

 0 0 0

4.2

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Ph.D.
Teaching

59.4

 58.8 47.8 63.3

63.9
Govern-ment

17.9

 11.8 26.2 16.7

16.7
Other economic work

17.0

 17.6 21.7 20.0

11.1
All other

5.7

 11.8 4.3 0

8.3

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0
Totals
Teaching

42.4

 38.5 35.0 45.6

44.3
Govern-ment

22.0

 15.4 35.0 29.4

17.1
Other economic work

22.6

 28.2 20.0 22.1

22.4
All other

13.0

 17.9 10.0 2.9

16.2

100.0

 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0

 

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

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

 

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

Highest Academic
Standing Attained

Entire Period 1931-50

 1931-
35		 1936-
40		 1941-
45

1946-
50
M.A.: aver-ages

$4,772

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

$3,988
Teaching

3,891

 5,294 5,525 3,980

3,503
Govern-ment

5,436

 8,113 6,867 5,881

4,110
Other economic work

5,123

 7,890 11,150 5,371

4,240
All other

4,660

 4,625 4,900 12,000

3,935
Passed Orals: aver-ages  

5,862

 

 11,375 7,055 6,738

4,709
Teaching

4,066

 — 5,438 4,737

3,783
Govern-ment

6,993

 7,250 6,450 8,340

5,760
Other economic work

7,887

 15,500 8,975 —

5,711
All other

16,000

 — — —

16,000
Ph.D.: aver-ages  

7,175

 8,593 7,719 6,691

6,622
Teaching

5,964

 7,700 6,009 6,077

5,017
Govern-ment

8,936

 8,350 8,900 9,360

8,808
Other economic work

9,494

 17,250 10,300 6,480

11,167
All other

10,900

 — — —

10,900
Totals: aver-ages  

5,714

 

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

4,806

 7,023 5,786 5,531

3,979
Govern-ment

6,523

 7,904 7,358 7,628

5,331
Other economic work

6,592

 10,495 9,973 5,833

5,031
All other

5,963

 6,166 4,900 12,000

5,747

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Men

 Women

All Graduates
 

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies  

Num-ber

 Aver-age Salar-ies

M.A.: aver-ages

134

 $4,843 30 $4,455 164

$4,772
Teaching 43 3,923 7 3,695 50 3,891
Govern-ment 34 5,758 12 4,524 46 5,436
Other economic work 37 5,129 8 5,125 45 5,123
All other 20 4,734 3 4,173 23 4,660

Passed Orals: aver-ages

 62 5,939 6 5,066 68

5,862
Teaching 37 4,066 — — 37 4,066
Govern-ment 10 7,480 4 5,775 14 6,993
Other economic work 13 8,538 2 3,650 15 7,887
All other 2 16,000 — — 2 16,000

Ph.D.: aver-ages

 86 7,368 13 5,892 99

7,175
Teaching 53 6,033 10 5,600 63 5,964
Govern-ment 18 8,936 — — 18 8,936
Other economic work 13 10,100 3 6,666 16 9,494
All other 2 10,900 — — 2 10,900

Totals: aver-ages

282

 5,854 49 4,912 331

5,714
Teaching 133 4,803 17 4,816 150 4,805
Govern-ment 62 6,959 16 4,837 78 6,523
Other economic work 63 6,858 13 6,300 76 6,592
All other 24 6,186 3 4,173 27 5,963

 

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

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

 

Categories
Columbia Courses Economists Harvard Transcript

Columbia. Search Committee Report. 1950

This report is fascinating for a couple of reasons. The search committee understood its task to identify “the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located” from which a short list of three names for the replacement of Louis M. Hacker in Columbia College was selected. Organizationally, Columbia College is where undergraduate economics has been taught so that teaching excellence, including participation in Columbia College’s legendary Contemporary Civilization course sequence, was being sought as well as was potential for significant scholarship. Appendix C provides important information on James Tobin’s graduate economics education. In a later posting, I’ll provide information on others in the long-list of seventeen economists identified by the search committee.

___________________

January 9, 1950

 

Professor James W. Angell, Chairman
Department of Economics
Columbia University

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Committee appointed by you to canvass possible candidates for the post in Columbia College that is made available by the designation of Professor Louis M. Hacker as Director of the School of General Studies submits herewith its report.

As originally constituted, this committee was made up of Professors Taylor, Barger, Hart and Haig (chairman). At an early stage the membership was expanded to include Professor Stigler and from the beginning the committee had the advantage of the constant assistance of the chairman of the department.

In accordance with the suggestions made at the budget meeting in November, the committee has conducted a broad inquiry, designed to raise for consideration the names of the most promising young economists, wherever trained and wherever located. In addition to the men known personally to the members of the committee, suggestions were solicited from the authorities at other institutions, including Harvard, Chicago, California and Leland Stanford. By mid December, scrutiny of the records and publications by the committee to the following seventeen:

 

Name Suggested by
Alchian, Armen A. Haley
Bronfenbrenner, Martin Friedman
Brownlee, O. H. Friedman
Christ, Carl L. Angell
Dewey, D. J. Friedman
Du[e]senberry, [James] Stigler
Goodwin, Richard M. Burbank
Harberger, J. H. Friedman
Ho[s]elitz, Bert Friedman
Lewis, H. Gregg Hart
Machlup, Fritz Stigler
Nicholls, William H. Stigler
Nutter, J. W. Friedman
Pancoast, Omar Taylor
Schelling, Thomas Burbank
Tobin, James Burbank
Vandermeulen, D. C. Ellis

[p. 2]

The meeting of the American Economic Association in New York during the Christmas holidays offered an opportunity to meet many of the men on the above list and to make inquiries regarding them. As a consequence, it has been possible for your committee to make rapid progress with its appraisals. Although the committee is continuing to gather information and data, it is prepared at this time to make a series of definite recommendations, with a high degree of confidence that these recommendations are not likely to be greatly disturbed by its further inquiries.

It is the unanimous opinion of the members of your committee that the most eligible and promising candidate on our list is Martin Bronfenbrenner, associate professor of economics at the University of Wisconsin, at present on leave for special service in Tokyo.

Should Bronfenbrenner prove to be unavailable the committee urges consideration of D. J. Dewey, at present holding a special fellowship at the University of Chicago, on leave from his teaching post at Iowa. As a third name, the committee suggests James Tobin, at present studying at Cambridge, England, on a special fellowship from Harvard.

Detailed information regarding the records of these three men will be found in appendices to this report.

Bronfenbrenner, the first choice of the committee, is 35 years old. He received his undergraduate degree from Washington University at the age of 20 and his Ph.D. from Chicago at 25. During his war service, he acquired a good command of the Japanese language. He taught at Roosevelt College, Chicago, before going to Wisconsin and undergraduate reports of his teaching are as enthusiastic as those of the authorities at Chicago. He happens to be personally well known to two of the members of your committee (Hart and Stigler) and to at last two other member of the department (Shoup and Vickrey), all four of whom commend him in high terms.

The following statement from Hart, dated December 6, 1929, was prepared after a conference with Friedman of Chicago:

“Bronfenbrenner is undoubtedly one of the really powerful original thinkers in the age group between thirty and thirty-five. He has always very much enjoyed teaching; my impression is that his effectiveness has been with the upper half of the student body at Roosevelt College and at Wisconsin. He is primarily a theorist but has a wide range of interest and a great deal of adaptability so it would not be much of a problem to fit him in somewhere [p. 3] in terms of specialization. He would do a good deal to keep professional discussion stirring in the University. My impression is that he tends to be underrated by the market, and that a chance at Columbia College might well be his best opportunity for some time ahead. The difficulty is, of course, that there is no chance of arranging an interview; though Shoup and Vickrey, of course, both saw him last summer.”

In a letter dated December 15, Shoup wrote as follows:

“I have a high regard for Martin Bronfenbrenner’s intellectual capacities, and I think he would fit in well in the Columbia scene. He has an excellent mind and a great intellectual independence. In his writings he sometimes tends to sharp, almost extreme statements, but in my opinion, they almost always have a solid foundation, and in conversation he is always ready to explore all sides of the question. When we had to select someone to take over the tax program in Japan, after the report had been formulated, and oversee the implementation of the program by the Japanese government, it was upon my recommendation that Bronfenbrenner was selected. He arrived in Japan in the middle of August and his work there since that time has confirmed me in my expectations that he would be an excellent selection for the job, even though he did not have very much technical background in taxation. I rank him as one of the most promising economists in his age group in this country, and I should not be surprised if he made one or more major contributions of permanent value in the coming years.

“He has gone to Japan on a two year appointment, after having obtained a two year leave of absence from the University of Wisconsin. My understanding is that on such an appointment he could come back to the United States at the end of one year, provided he paid his own passage back. It might be possible that even this requirement would be waived, but I have no specific grounds for thinking so. I believe the major part of his work with respect to implementing the tax program will have been completed by next September. If the committee finds itself definitely interested in the possibility of Bronfenbrenner’s coming to Columbia, I should not let the two year appointment stand in the way of making inquiries.”

The breadth and rang of his interests recommend Bronfenbrenner as a person who would probably be highly [p.4] valuable in the general course in contemporary civilization and the quality of his written work suggests high promise as a productive scholar in one or more specialized fields.

Your committee considers that the appropriate rank would be that of associate professor.

Respectfully submitted,

[signed]

Robert M. Haig

 

______________________________

Appendix A – Martin Bronfenbrenner

The following data regarding Bronfenbrenner are taken chiefly from the 1948 Directory of the American Economic Assoication:

Born: 1914

Education and Degrees:

A.B. Washington University, 1934
Ph.D. University of Chicago 1939
1940-42, George Washington School of Law

Fields: Theory, mathematical economics, statistical methods, econometrics

Doctoral dissertation: Monetary theory and general equilibrium

Publications:

“Consumption function controversy”, Southern Economic Journal, January, 1948
“Price control under imperfect competition”, American Economic Review, March, 1947
“Dilemma of Liberal Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1946

Additional publications:

“Post-War Political Economy: The President’s Reports”, Journal of Political Economy, October, 1948
Various book reviews including one on W. I. King’s The Keys to Prosperity, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948, and A. H. Hansen’s Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, Annals

Additions to list of publications circulated, January 9, 1950

“The Economics of Collective Bargaining”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 1939.
(with Paul Douglas) “Cross-Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function”, Journal of Political Economy, 1939.
“Applications of the Discontinuous Oligopoly Demand Curve”, Journal of Political Economy, 1940.
“Diminishing Returns in Federal Taxation” Journal of Political Economy, 1942.
“The Role of Money in Equilibrium Capital Theory”, Econometrica (1943).

______________________________

Appendix B – D. J. Dewey

On leave from Iowa.

In 1948 studied at Cambridge, England.
1949-50, at Chicago on special fellowship.

Bibliography:

Notes on the Analysis of Socialism as a Vocational Problem, Manchester School, September, 1948.
Occupational Choice in a Collectivist Economy, Journal of Political Economy, December, 1948.

Friedman and Schultz are highly enthusiastic.

Statement by Hart, dated December 6, 1949:

“Friedman regards Dewey as first rate and points to an article on ‘Proposal for Allocating the Labor Force in a Planned Economy’ (Journal of Political Economy, as far as I remember in July 1949) for which the J.P.E. gave a prize as the best article of the year. I read the article, rather too quickly, a few weeks ago and it is definitely an imaginative and powerful piece of work. How the conclusions would look after a thorough-going seminar discussion, I am not clear; but the layout of questions is fascinating.”

______________________________

Appendix [C] – James Tobin

Statement by Burbank of Harvard, dated December 14, 1949:

“We have known Tobin a good many years. He came to us as a National Scholar, completed his work for the A.B. before the war and had advanced his graduate work very well before he went into the service. He received his Ph.D. in 1947. Since 1947 he has been a Junior Fellow. He was a teaching fellow from 1945 to 1947. He is now in Cambridge, England, and will, I believe, begin his professional work by next fall. Since Tobin has been exposed to Harvard for a very long time I believe that he feels that for his own intellectual good he should go elsewhere. I doubt if we could make a stronger recommendation than Tobin nor one in which there will be greater unanimity of opinion. Certainly he is one of the top men we have had here in the last dozen years. He is now intellectually mature. He should become one of the handful of really outstanding scholars of his generation. His interests are mainly in the area of money but he is also interested in theory and is competent to teach at any level.”

Data supplied by Harvard:

Address:    Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University, England

Married:   Yes, one child

Born:          1918, U.S.

Degrees:

A. B. Harvard, 1939 (Summa cum laude)
A.M. Harvard, 1940
Ph.D. Harvard, 1947

Fields of Study: Theory, Ec. History, Money and Banking, Political Theory: write-off, Statistics

Special Field: Business Cycles

Thesis Topic: A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving

Experience:

1942-45 U.S. Navy
1945-47 Teaching Fellow, Harvard University
1947- Junior Fellow, Society of Fellows

[p. 2 of Appendix C]

Courses:           1939-40

Ec. 21a (Stat.)                  A
Ec. 121b (Adv. St.)          A
Ec. 133 (Ec. Hist)            A
Ec. 147a (M&B Sem)      A
Ec. 145b (Cycles)             A
Ec. 113b (Hist. Ec.)       Exc.
Gov. 121a (Pol.Th.)         A

1940-1941

Ec. 121a (Stat.)                A
Ec. 164 (Ind. Org.)          A
Ec. 20 (Thesis)                A
Ec. 118b (App. St.)          A
Math 21                             A
Ec. 104b (Math Ec.)       A

1946-47 Library and Guidance

Generals:       Passed May 22, 1940 with grade of Good Plus
Specials:         Passed May 9, 1947 with grade of Excellent.

 

Data from 1948 Directory of American Economic Association:

Harvard University, Junior Fellow

Born:                1918

Degrees:           A. B., Harvard, 1939; Ph.D., Harvard, 1947j

Fields: Business fluctuations, econometrics, economic theory, and mathematical economics

Dissertation: A theoretical and statistical analysis of consumer saving.

Publications:

“Note on Money Wage Problem”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1941.
“Money Wage Rates and Employment”, in New Economics (Knopf, 1947).
“Liquidity Preference and monetary Policy”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 1947.
[pencil addition] Article in Harris (ed.), The New Economics, 1947.

______________________________

Source: Columbia University Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Department of Economics Collection, Box 6, Folder “Columbia College”

Image Source: The beyondbrics blog of the Financial Times.