Tag: HicksU

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

Chicago. Notes on conversation with U Chicago president Colwell by T.W. Schultz, 1946

Biblical Greek Scholar/Theologian Ernest Cadman Colwell served under Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins as the president of the University of Chicago from 1945 to 1951. Theodore W. Schultz was the relatively new head of the Department of Economics who met with Colwell in late September 1946 to brief the president on developments in the economics department, especially with respect to efforts being made in pursuit of several economists needed to fill the gaps left by Henry Simons’ death (1946), Chester W. Wright’s retirement (1944), resignations by Jacob Viner (1946) and Simeon E. Leland (1946), and Oskar Lange’s leave of absence (1945-).

We see in the memorandum of conversation transcribed below that John and Ursula Hicks posed a spousal hire issue needing a creative solution before an actual offer could be made and that sixty year old Frank Knight was due some sort of a “senatorial courtesy” to get him on board with the majority of the department who badly wanted to extend an offer to thirty-one year old Paul Samuelson. 

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

Mitch, David. “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946.” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (2016): 1714–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26549915. Especially the online supplemental materials, where the following memo is quoted in part.

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

Harro Maas, “Making Things Technical: Samuelson at MIT” in E. Roy Weintraub (ed.) MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014), pp. 272-294.

Roger Backhouse. Founder of Modern Economics: Paul A. Samuelson. Vol. I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948 (Oxford University Press, 2017), Chapter 28 “Commitment to MIT.”

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

This discussion with President Colwell was highly satisfactory in that we considered in some detail and carefully, a number of important developments affecting the Department of Economics as follows:

1. I indicated to Mr. Colwell that the role of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago should be reviewed, with the view of achieving a better division of labor among universities within the U. S. and internationally. An increasing number of universities can do creditable undergraduate work in economics, and also satisfactory graduate work up to and beyond the master’s. There are upwards of two score of such institutions in the U. S. Meanwhile, the number of students seeking training at the undergraduate level, and also in graduate work, has increased rapidly, and the post war promises further growth in numbers. Meanwhile, many Western countries are looking to the U.S. for some of their advanced education in other fields as well as in economics), this along with the development that is taking place within the U. S., suggests that the time has come for the University of Chicago to allocate its resources even more largely to the most advanced reaches of economics. I proposed that we examine carefully the implications of this kind of refocusing of our program. I was pleased that Mr. Colwell found himself drawn to the kind of analysis I was presenting. He made several contributions to it and concurred with the analysis itself. He very cordially urged the Department to examine this thesis and reconstitute itself to serve more effectively, taking full account of the division of labor within American academic institutions.

2. I reviewed in some detail the state of the Department, pointing out the losses that have come as the result of the death of Simons, the retirement of Wright, the resignations of Viner and Leland, and the leave of absence of Lange. I expressed our pleasure in achieving the appointment of Friedman and Blough, and reaffirmed my confidence in our judgment in seeking these appointments.

With regard to additional appointments, the following individuals were discussed.

(1) Mr. and Mrs. Hicks. I reviewed the agreements we had with Mr. Hutchins, which were the foundation of negotiations last spring. I indicated that the Hicks would arrive this week to be with us the fore-part of the fall quarter. If as a result of this opportunity of being together during part of the fall quarter, the Hicks see a real opportunity for their professional efforts at the University of Chicago, and we continue to be genuinely interested in bringing them to this University, would we be permitted to offer Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the salaries and positions that we had discussed last spring realizing we might have to go higher in the case of Mr. Hicks, for I was convinced his standing warranted our paying the maximum. Mr. Colwell said he was willing to authorize an offer of $10,000 to Mr. Hicks, and probed with me for a while the merit of making it higher instead of offering a position to both individuals. It was my judgment that our bargaining power would be at a maximum if we would offer both individuals a position, but that we could escape the liability of dual membership in one family by making the offer to Mrs. Hicks a term appointment — perhaps that of a Lecturer or Research Associate, say for three years at $3,000, and then reconsider at the end of three years, where she would have the privilege of withdrawing or redefining her relationship, and the Department would likewise have that privilege. Thus, the commitment would be permanent in the case of Mr. Hicks, but meaningful in terms of time turned into professional task to Mrs. Hicks and yet allowing flexibility in her case. Mr. Colwell accepted my proposal to proceed with an offer to both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks along the lines I have outlined.

(2) I reported Mr. Viner’s observations that it was not likely Mr. Robbins would leave the London School of Economics, and that, at least for a year, there was no point in making an indirect approach again to see whether or not he might feel free to accept an appointment in this country. Mr. Colwell fully concurred.

(3) I reviewed our offer to Mr. Colin Clark to come to the University of Chicago as guest professor for a year. I also pointed out we had included in the offer $1000 for travel expenses. I Indicated further that several of my colleagues were disposed to feel that we should now make an offer of a permanent appointment to Mr. Clark, since he is not able to obtain leave of absence to come as visiting professor. I then indicated why I felt, although tentatively, that it was unwise to make this move for a permanent relationship with the Department until we had a chance to become personally acquainted with Mr. Clark, although I continue to have a high regard for his professional work as evidenced by his major writings. Mr. Colwell concurred with the view I expressed, namely, we should not make an appointment on a permanent basis, but should try to get Mr. Clark to come as a visiting professor, if not this year, perhaps next year.

(4) I reviewed the case of Albert G. Hart, indicating that he had accepted a position at Columbia before we could approach him with an offer, and that it was important to his own growth to take the position at Columbia for a year. My plan is to approach him at the end of the year, let him weigh alternatives, including the opportunities as he sees them at Columbia. My proposal to Mr. Colwell was that we approach Hart along in February or March in order to induce him to come to Chicago. We discussed Hart’s background in some detail, Mr. Colwell concurred in the procedure I outlined to him.

(5) I then outlined at some length the case of Paul Samuelson of M.I.T. Mr. Colwell had not had the privilege of visiting with Samuelson at the time he was here. Samuelson visited with Hutchins and Gustavson, as far as Central Administration was concerned. I stated it was my judgment that Samuelson is one of the younger men in economics who has a high probability of achieving a distinguished career as an economist, and that in this respect his promise is most outstanding; that I had no doubt of the merits of the case intellectually and would press for an appointment, were that the only consideration, without delay, but that I had to achieve, however, an acceptance of Mr. Samuelson in the Department, not that a majority was lacking; a mandate existed satisfying the University administrative requirements. But the obstacle lies in what in substance is a matter of “senatorial courtesy” in behalf of the most distinguished and senior member of the Department, Professor Frank Knight. I expressed the hope it would be possible to have Professor Knight concur in the appointment and feel it was being made without any discourtesy to him and his professional role and standing in this University and in the profession. I felt this end must and could be achieved and that I was going to give a great deal of effort to it in the coming months. Pending the full exploration of what can be done in this connection I wanted to reserve decision as to whether or not to recommend the appointment of Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Colwell discussed at some length his own appraisal of the problem I had presented. He seemed to be pleased with the approach that was implicit in what I was relating to him. He made the point, and made it explicitly, that if the intellectual stature of Samuelson is as high as my judgment indicated, that it was exceedingly important the University move toward an appointment. I felt sure, though, that he was disposed to await the wishes of the Department, weighing carefully the factors I had tried to describe to him.

  1. At this point Mr. Colwell took me back to my general thesis, namely, the refocusing of the goals of the Department and the use of its resources, urging me to give active attention to this task. Whereupon I suggested the achievement of this role might well mean the setting up of 5 to 7 positions in the Department for individuals to spend 2 to 5 years at this university in what would be essentially a post-doctoral role as scholars, then accept positions elsewhere consistent with their accomplishments and promise. Mr. Colwell was drawn to the proposal as I had put it and referred briefly to similar planning and developments in other fields.

T. W. Schultz.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder “3”.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Marschak on potential hires for department, 1946

 

In his magnificent article about the departmental politics behind the appointment of Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1946, David Mitch refers in passing to a February 1946 memo written to the Chancellor and President of the University by Vice-President Rueben G. Gustavson in which the Vice-President reports on a discussion he had with Jacob Marschak about various economists being considered for appointment.

Mitch’s online Appendix to his article provides an excellent selection of archival artifacts to which the transcription of the Gustavson memo below may be added. In this memo it looks like we are observing active lobbying (at least providing his “spin”) on Marschak’s part rather than a senior faculty member summoned by an administrator to provide deep background on prospective hires.

It is worth noting that the names of five future Nobel prize winners in economics can be found in a single 1946 memo. It is also interesting that the last two candidates mentioned in the memo, namely Lloyd Metzler and Milton Friedman, were the only two to turn out to become permanent acquisitions of the department.

 

See: David Mitch, “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946,” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (December 2016): 1714-1734. [working paper version (ungated)]

__________________________________

Biographical Note of Rueben Gilbert Gustavson

Rueben Gilbert Gustavson was born (April 6, 1892-February 24, 1974) to Swedish immigrants James and Hildegard Gustavson. As a young man Gustavson developed a strong belief in moral responsibility to others. After a childhood injury made following in his father’s footsteps as a carpenter impossible he attended high school where he excelled in his studies. In deference to his father’s wish he learn practical skills Gustavson took courses in typing and stenography. These classes enabled Reuben to gain employment with Colorado and Southern Railroad where he became secretary to the auditor. The monies Gustavson earned working at the railroad enabled him to enroll in at the University of Denver, DU. After obtaining his bachelor’s degree DU Gustavson decided to pursue a master’s degree in chemistry. He received his MS in chemistry in 1917 and briefly became a chemist at the Great Western Sugar Company. He accepted an offer to teach at the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort Collins but became disillusioned when told that as a professor he could not teach and conduct research. Gustavson returned to DU where he remained for the next seventeen years. During that time he spent summer breaks working toward his PhD at the University of Chicago. Initially, specializing in radioactivity the loss of his advisor enabled him to change to biochemistry. Gustavson received his PhD in 1925 and taught at the University of Chicago during the 1929-30 academic year. A disagreement over what Gustavson felt were unethical practices involving student athletes led to him leaving DU. University of Colorado President, George Norlin, invited Gustavson to join the faculty as a professor of chemistry. He was appointed chairman of the chemistry department and remained in that position from 1937-42. In 1942 the Dean of the Graduate School became ill and Gustavson was chosen as a temporary replacement but when the dean died the position became permanent. Now involved in the academic administration of the university Gustavson was chosen to substitute for the new president of the University of Colorado, Robert L. Stearns, during World War II. Stearns was commissioned as an officer in the Army Air Corps. Gustavson accepted the position with the understanding that Stearns would resume the presidency when he returned. After the war Gustavson became the Vice President and Dean of Faculties at the University of Chicago for a short time in 1945-46. During Gustavson’s time at the University of Chicago he worked with Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller on the atomic bomb project. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Gustavson the only hope for human survival was the promotion of peace through education that taught appreciation of other peoples and cultures. In 1946 Gustavson moved to the University of Nebraska where he remained as Chancellor until 1953. After leaving the University of Nebraska Gustavson became the first president of Resources for the Future where he served from 1953-1959. An outgrowth of his work on the atomic bomb project this organization conducted economic research and analysis to help craft better policies on the use and preservation of natural resources. Gustavson then resumed teaching at the University of Arizona and was a member of the chemistry department from 1960 until his death in 1974.

Source: John Patrick McSweeney. The Chancellorship of Reuben G. Gustavson at the University of Nebraska, 1946-1953. Lincoln: Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska, 1971.

__________________________________

Gustavson Memorandum of Discussion with Jacob Marshak

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date February 19, 1946

To:     RMH [Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago (1929-45); Chancellor (1945-51)]; ECC [Ernest Cadman Colwell, President of the University of Chicago (1945-51)]
From: RGG [Reuben G. Gustavson, Vice-President of the University of Chicago (1945-1946)]

Professor Marschak came in to talk to me about possible recommendations for men in the Department of Economics. He discussed the following:

  1. John Hicks of London. He is now at Oxford but is coming to this country. He is about forty years of age. He is quite well known, especially for his book called the “Brainwork of Social Economy.” [sic, The Social Framework: An Introduction to Economics] This book is now being used in the College.
  2. Paul Samuelson is a much younger man than Hicks. He is now an associate professor at M.I.T. He is known for his work in the general theory of disequilibrium.
  3. Arthur Smithies is professor at the University of Michigan. He is now in the Bureau of the Budget at Washington. Marschak describes him as a man who is concerned with economic policies. He takes the empirical approach to the study of economics.

Marschak states that Mr. Hicks is also a good man in local finance [Hicks’ wife, Ursula Hicks, probably mentioned by Marschak]. He says also that T. Koopmans, Research Associate with the Cowles Commission, who has been recommended for an associate professorship, is a very fine man. He is in mathematical statistics. He speaks highly of Lionel Robbins of the London School. Marschak says he is an all-around personality. He has been of great service to the English government during the war.

He thinks very highly of Lloyd Metzler. He was an instructor at Harvard. He as applied the modern methods of Samuelson to international trade.

Professor Marschak also thinks very highly of Milton Friedman, who is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

I shall discuss all these men with Schultz.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 284, Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

 

Image Source: Reuben G. Gustavson from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06588, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.