Tag: JohnsonA

Categories
Bryn Mawr Columbia Economists Germany Pennsylvania

Columbia. Appointments of H. L. Moore, H. R. Seager, and A. S. Johnson, 1902

 

 

Memorial minutes of the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science for both Henry L. Moore and Henry R. Seager have been transcribed earlier here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror. This post takes us back to the start of their Columbia University careers, namely the 1902-03 academic year. Professor Richmond Mayo-Smith’s suicide in November 1901 left a significant gap in Columbia’s economics faculty which was then closed with the appointment of Henry L. Moore.

_______________________

Columbia Announcement of the appointments of Henry L. Moore (Prof.) and Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.), 1902

It seems fitting to introduce to the acquaintance of the readers of the QUARTERLY those who come from other universities to occupy professors’ chairs in our own. Professors Moore and Seager enter the service of the University in the School of Political Science…

Professor Henry L. Moore, who comes to us from Smith College, is thirty-two years of age; a native of Maryland and a graduate of Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. His special training in economics was received at the Johns Hopkins University, from which he received, in 1896, the degree of Ph.D., and in Vienna, where he was a pupil of Professor Karl [sic, “Carl”] Menger. He was appointed to an instructorship in economics in the Johns Hopkins University in 1896, and to a professorship in Smith College in 1897, though he continued after this, for a time, to give, in the Johns Hopkins University, lectures which treated of the application of mathematical principles to economic problems.

His chief published work is an essay on Von Thünen’s “Theory of Natural Wages,” which, beside throwing new light on a scientific problem, offers to the English reading student the best introduction to the study of the works of Von Thünen and of the extensive literature which has grown up about them.

Henry R. Seager, the new adjunct-professor of political economy, was graduated from the University of Michigan in 1890. During the next four years he studied at Johns Hopkins, Halle, Berlin, Vienna and the University of Pennsylvania, receiving the degree of Ph.D. from the last-named institution in 1894. From that date he was on the teaching force of the University of Pennsylvania, holding successively the titles of instructor and assistant professor of economics, till he accepted the call to Columbia. Professor Seager was for three years Secretary of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, and in 1900 he became editor-in-chief of the Annals, the magazine published by the Academy. His publications in periodicals have been numerous, and his more important works include “The Finances of Pennsylvania,” “The Teaching of Economics at Berlin and Vienna,” [JPE, March 1893] “The Fallacy of Saving,” and “The Teaching of Economics and Economic History.”

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, v. 4, June 1902, pp. 293-94.

_______________________

Announcement of the Columbia appointments of Henry R. Seager (Adjunct Prof.) and Alvin Saunders Johnson (Reader), 1902

Columbia University.- Doctor Henry R. Seager has resigned his position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Pennsylvania, and has accepted the position of Adjunct Professor of Political Economy in Columbia University. His duties in Columbia University will begin with the opening of the coming academic year.

Mr. Seager has published the following papers:

“German Universities and German Student Life.” The Inlander, June, 1892.

“Economics at Berlin and Vienna.” Journal of Political Economy, March, 1893.

“Philippovich’s Grundriss der Politischen-Oekonomie.” ANNALS, July, 1893.

“Pennsylvania Tax Conference.” Ibid., March, 1894.

“Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association.” Ibid., March, 1895.

“Malloch’s Labour and the Popular Welfare, and Dyer’s The Evolution of Industry.” The Citizen, June, 1895.

“Cunningham’s Outlines of English Industrial History.” ANNALS, January, 1896.

“Bruce’s Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.” Ibid., 1896.

“The Fallacy of Saving.” Supplement to Economic Studies, American Economic Association, April, 1896.

“Smart’s Studies in Economics.” The Citizen, August, 1896.

“Stray Impressions of Oxford.” The Pennsylvanian, February, 1897.

“Higgs’ The Physiocrats.” ANNALS, July, 1897.

“Gibbins’ Industry in England.” Ibid., September, 1897.

“Bullock’s Introduction to the Study of Economics.” Ibid., November, 1897.

“The Consumers’ League.” Bulletin of American Academy, April, 1898.

“George’s Political Economy.” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1898.

“Devine’s Economics.” ANNALS, March, 1899.

“Hull’s The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty.” Ibid., May, 1900.

“Smart’s The Distribution of Income.” Ibid., July, 1900.

“Clark’s The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits.” Ibid., September, 1900.

Editorial. Ibid., January, 1901.

“Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid., March1901.

“Professor Patten’s Theory of Prosperity.” Ibid., March, 1902.

Editorial. Ibid.

“Meeting of American Economic Association.” Ibid.

“Crowell’s The Distribution and Marketing of Farm Products.” Report of United States Industrial Commission, Vol. VI, 1901. Political Science Quarterly, March, 1902.

Mr. Alvin Saunders Johnson, at present Reader in Economics at Bryn Mawr College, Pa., has been appointed Tutor in Economics at Columbia University, New York City. His work in Columbia will begin at the opening of the coming academic year.

Source: Personal Notes, Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 19 (May, 1902), pp. 103-104.

Image Sources: Henry Moore (left) Smith College, Classbook of 1902, p. 11. and Henry Seager (right) Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economics Programs Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Splitting the costs. Department of Economics v. Barnard College, 1906-9

 

The growing pains of the modern university can be seen in attempts to mould ad hoc understandings made earlier into long-term, binding, and explicit rules and regulations. We see this in E. R. A. Seligman’s untiring reminders to the Columbia University central administration and to Barnard College deans as to how to manage the legacy of having first hired John Bates Clark to fill a Barnard position while swapping Clark Barnard hours with the Department of Economics in the Faculty of Political Science hours, either by having department professors offer courses in Barnard College or by allowing Barnard women to take Columbia College or graduate courses. It was complicated, leaving plenty of room for misunderstandings. Seligman can be seen in the following memo and letters to have been one smooth intra-university operator. Still we come away (at least hearing his side of the story) that he would neither give nor take an inch. His motto apparently: Pacta sunt servanda.

____________________

MEMORANDUM AS TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BARNARD COLEGE AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. [Carbon copy, 1906]

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

In 1895 a friend of Barnard College established for three years the Professorship of History and the Professorship of Economics, on the understanding that each of these departments should offer a corresponding amount of separate instruction to Barnard seniors and graduates, and that the Barnard Corporation would endeavor to maintain these Professorships after the expiration of such term. It was arranged that these professors should lecture at Columbia as well as at Barnard, and that for every course given by them at Columbia, a course should be given at Barnard by them or their departmental associates. The normal number of lectures by a professor was fixed at six; so that the Professor of Economics gave 2 hours at Barnard, the other four being supplied by his colleagues.

In 1898 Barnard College agreed to continue those professorships; and as a recognition of the action of the Barnard Trustees, the Faculty of Political Science decided to open to women holding a first degree, the graduate courses in History and Economics.

When Barnard College was incorporated into the educational system of the University, this arrangement was perpetuated. The 5th and 6th Sections of the Agreement of June 15, 1900, read in part, as follows:

“On and after January 1st, 1904, all of the instruction for women leading to the degree of B.A. shall be given separately in Barnard College……Barnard College will assume as rapidly as possible all of the instruction for women in the Senior year ****** and undertakes to maintain every professorship established thereof or an equivalent therefor shall be rendered in Barnard College; and when means allow, establish additional professorships in the University which shall be open to men and women, to the end that opportunities for higher education may be enlarged for both men and women.

The University will accept women who have taken their first degree on the same terms as men, as students of the University and as candidates for the degree of M.A. and Ph.D. under the Faculty of Philosophy, Political Science and Pure Science, in such courses as have been or may be designated by those Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses.

From the foregoing it is clear that so far as the Faculty of Political Science is concerned the opening of the University courses to women was in return for the establishment and maintenance of the professorships, and Barnard College thus declared itself ready to pay one-third of the salary of the professors of Economics, at that time three in number. In addition, Barnard College paid for the Junior work under the Department of Economics.

On this basis the whole system has reposed and has been continued. Changes in the personnel have been made in the mean time, and the instruction given to Juniors by the Department of Economics has been strengthened. Two professors, (or as during this year a professor and an instructor) have taken the place of what was originally an assistant. These changes, which called for an additional outlay on the part of Barnard College, were made with the consent of Barnard.

The Department of Economics and Social Science as it existed up to last spring, has kept strictly to the letter of the agreement. At an earlier period Professor Giddings had agreed to give at Barnard College a course in sociology in return for a suitable compensation. In 1900, however, he ceased to be paid an additional sum and his two hours were counted with the consent of Barnard College toward the six due from the Department, the other four being provided by Professors Seligman and Clark. In 1902 two additional hours were given at Barnard College by the new instructor, Professor Moore. Since then the Department has provided six hours of instruction at Barnard College, (two hours by Professor Clark, two by Professor Seager, and two by Professor Giddings.) It has given an additional two hours by Professor Moore to the Seniors, and it has put the Junior work in the hands of Professors Moore and Johnson (this year [word torn off from corner] Moore and Dr. Whitaker.) Every course given to the Columbia College undergraduates is duplicated at Barnard College, with the exception that it seemed unwise to the Barnard authorities to give the course on Taxation and Finance as being somewhat too remote from the interests of the Barnard undergraduates. The substance of this course is however included in that given by Professor Seager. This explains the fact that 12 hours are given at Barnard College whereas 14 hours are given at Columbia College. This arrangement was made with the consent of the Barnard authorities. In 1906 again with the consent of Barnard College, Barnard Seniors were admitted to the course of Prof. Giddings at Columbia, the Barnard course being discontinued. This arrangement has, however, not yet received the permanent sanction of the Faculty of Political Science.

Although Barnard College is not only getting all that was bargained for at the time, and although it has in addition the services of a full professor for both Senior and Junior work (Prof. Moore.), and although the proportion of the original expense of the Department of Economics paid by Barnard College was at the outset considerably over e4%,–being one-third of the salaries of the professors plus a payment for the Junior work, the proportion of the total expense of the Department of Economics and Social Science borne by Barnard College has now been reduced to 29.19%, Barnard paying at present $8350 out of a total budget of $28,600.

 

Barnard pays:

Columbia pays:
Seligman $5000
Giddings $5000
Seager $3500
Moore $1750
Clark $5000 Devine $3500 University Courses
Moore $1750 Simkhovitch $500
Whitaker $1600 Tenney $1000
$8350 $20250 Total $28600

 

In other words Barnard College receives more than it originally did and pays proportionately less.

 

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

Up to the year 199[blank] Barnard College made a money contribution to Columbia for each of the women graduate students enrolled, under the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science. In that year the money contribution was abandoned, and since then women graduate students have paid their fees directly to Columbia. It might be claimed by Barnard College that this new arrangement absolved it in future from all financial responsibility for or interest in the purely university (graduate) work. This claim is however, negatived by the provisions of the agreement of June 15, 1900 still in force, whereby Barnard College obligated itself to “maintain every professorship established at its instance” and to “establish additional professorships in the University upon foundations providing for courses which shall be open to men and women.” These contractual obligations are in no wise impaired or weakened by the modification subsequently introduced in the method of payment of fees by women students.

It might again be claimed that the financial obligations of Barnard are reduced whenever a Senior course, hitherto repeated at Barnard, is given only at Columbia, but open to Barnard Seniors. This claim, however, is likewise inadmissible if the change be made by and with the consent of Barnard College. For as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the instruction, and as long as the Barnard authorities consent for any reason, that this instruction be given at Columbia, the financial obligation cannot be deemed to be impaired. As a matter of fact, this situation has not permanently arisen in the department of Economics and Social Science. In only one case, that of the Senior course by Professor Giddings, has a purely provisional arrangement been made for the year 1906-’07, with the understanding and the express statement on the part of the Barnard authorities that this would make no difference whatever in the financial arrangement for the year. It was on this understanding that the scheme was provisionally ratified by the Faculty of Political Science.

No opinion is here expressed by the Department of Economics as to the desirability of opening Senior courses at Columbia to Barnard students. It may be that for pedagogical reasons it is desirable in some cases to repeat courses at Barnard, or in other cases to admit Barnard Seniors to the Columbia courses. It may also be desirable to utilize the services of a professor, hitherto repeating a Senior course at Barnard for instruction in one of the lower classes at Barnard. But whatever decision may be reached by the Barnard authorities in conjunction with the Department of Economics, it is clear that this will not change the financial obligations of Barnard, as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the same amount of instruction as before.

If it be maintained that the existing contract should be abrogated, the question arises: What share should Barnard College in equity contribute to the expenses of the Department? This question may be discussed on the basis of the number of hours given by the members of the department at Barnard College, at Columbia College, and in the University courses which are open to men and women graduates.

In any such computation it must be recognized that some part of the cost of the graduate instruction should be borne by Barnard College. For, irrespective of the existing contract, it cannot be claimed that women ever possessed a right to share in the advantages offered by an institution, originally established and endowed for the instruction of men without making some proportionate contribution to the support of that institution. The force of this argument is strengthened when it is remembered that every student costs the University more than he or she pays and that every increase in the student body entails the necessity of increasing the teaching course and of providing additional lecture rooms, educational appliances and library facilities.

It is for this reason that in any estimate of the share of the University expenses which is to be borne by Barnard College, a proportionate share of the expense of graduate instruction should be allotted to that institution.

On this assumption, the figures would be as follows:

 

Hours given

Barnard College

 Columbia College

University
Clark

2

 2 (109-110)

3 (205-6 & 291)
Seligman

—

 3 (1 & 101-102)

3 (203-4 & 292)
Seager

2

 2 (105-106)

2 (233 & 289)
Moore

3

 1 (104)

2 (210 & 255)
Whitaker

3

 4 (1-2)

—
Giddings

2

 2 (151-152)

3 (251-2 & 279)

12

 14

13

 

For undergraduate instruction

For Professors giving undergraduate instruction

Barnard pays:

Columbia pays:
Seligman

$5000
Clark

$5000

 Moore

$1750
Moore

$1750

 Seager

$3500
Whitaker

$1600

 Giddings

$5000

$8350

$15250

 =Total $23600
In addition Columbia pays for Purely University work

$5000
Grand Total

$28600

Total hours given as above by Professors giving undergraduate instruction = 41.

There is thus chargeable to:

The University 15/41 of $23600 = $8635 + $5000 = $13,635
Columbia College 14/41 of $23600 = $8,058
Barnard College should pay 12/41 of $23,600= $6907
                                                + 1/3 of $13,635= $4543[sic]
$11450

 

Barnard gets 12 hours to Columbia’s 14 and both share equally in the University work, although Barnard is here charged with only 1/3, not ½ of the purely university expenses. Yet Barnard pays $8350 instead of $11,450.

In the above computation Barnard College is charged with 1/3 of the purely university instruction because this was the proportion as arranged when the original professorship was established. On the basis, however, of the actual enrolment of women students the obligation of Barnard College would be slightly less. In the year 1906-07 there re-enrolled (not counting duplicates) in the purely university courses 60 women out of 251 students or 23.90%, i.e. roughly ¼. The contribution of Barnard College on this basis ought then to be: 12/41 of $23,600 = $6,907 + ¼ of $13,635 = $3,490 [sic, should be $3409] or a total of $10,316 in lieu of $8350, the present payment.

 

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

Although the authorities of Barnard College have not yet formulated any definite scheme it is understood that they have in contemplation a plan which calls on the one hand for a considerable reduction of the contribution, and on the other hand, the opening to Barnard Seniors of several Senior courses at Columbia College to make good the reduced facilities at Barnard College. In other words, Barnard College does not propose more opportunities with the same contribution as hitherto, nor does it demand the same opportunities with a smaller contribution; but it suggests more opportunities with a smaller contribution.

In considering the contemplated proposition of Barnard College it must finally be remembered that the Department of Economics has been built up on the assumption that the original scheme would be adhered to. All the instructors giving courses in Barnard College have been called with the advice and consent of Barnard College. Some of them have been put in part on the Barnard salary list. The contractual obligation “to maintain the professorships established at its instance” clearly attaches to the new professorships, which were established in 1902 in the department of Economics at the joint instance and expense of Barnard and Columbia. Any financial comparison between the Department of Economics and other departments on the basis of relative hours of instruction given at Barnard College is not pertinent in view of the contractual obligations hereinbefore recited. Barnard College entered at the outset into a definite contractual relation which has been perpetuated by the agreement of 1900 and which has not been impaired by the minor changes of 190[blank] hereinbefore referred to. Above all, the admission of women to university courses was arranged as a quid pro quo, and is specifically restricted in the agreement of 1900 to such courses “as have been or may be designated by these Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses”.

It is sincerely hoped that no action will be taken that might imperil this arrangement and that Barnard College may see its way, if not to make what it here suggested as an equitable contribution, at all events to maintain the status quo so that on the one hand Columbia may not be made to assume a still heavier burden, or that on the other hand the department of Economics may not be seriously crippled in its endeavor to provide adequate instruction at Columbia and Barnard alike.

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Papers of Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman. Box 36, Folder “Barnard 36-37”.

____________________

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

New York, December 30, 1906.

Miss Laura D. Gill, Dean,
Barnard College, Columbia University
New York City.

My dear Miss Gill:

Your letter of December 13th was received shortly before the Holidays. In reply, I would say that several weeks ago, at the request of the University authorities I submitted to the Committee on Education of Columbia University a detailed memorandum giving facts and suggestions as to the financial arrangements between Barnard College and Columbia University so far as the Department of Economics is concerned. That matter has now passed out of my hands entirely.

Let me however call your attention to the fact that these suggestions contained in your letter will require action not alone by the Department of Economics, but also by the Faculty of Political Science, as well as by the Faculty of Columbia College. If the recommendation contained in my memorandum to the Trustees were carried out, I think that I could urge the Department of Economics to prevail upon the Faculties concerned to take action in accordance with your wishes; but I am quite decidedly of the opinion that until some definitive financial arrangement is entered into between Barnard College and Columbia University, so far as the Department of Economics is concerned, it will be hopeless for the Department of Economics to expect any action whatever on the part of the Faculties concerned; and without such action nothing could of course be done.

Again assuring you of my readiness to co-operate with you and to take up the matter with the Department and with the respective Faculties as soon as we can learn from the Committee on Education what the financial arrangements are for next year,

I remain
Very respectfully yours

[E.R.A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

December 28, 1908

Professor E. R. A. Seligman,
324 West 86 Street,
New York

My dear Professor Seligman:

I beg to hand you for your information an important letter which I have received today from the Acting Dean of Barnard College. Mr. Brewster points out that Barnard, under the present arrangement, is not securing its just due in the matter of economics teaching. Will you give this matter your attention and offer such suggestions as seem to you appropriate as to how the situation can be bettered?

Very truly yours,
President

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to President Butler

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Political Science

January 4, 1909

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University, City.

My dear President Butler:

In reply to your letter of December 24th, 1908, I take pleasure in stating that I had a very satisfactory talk with Acting Dean Brewster a few days ago. I am enclosing to you herewith copy of the letter which I have sent to him as to the historical development, and which explains itself.

As to the new scheme, permit me to state that in my Budget letter I assumed that there would be hereafter in the second term in the Junior course at Barnard, four sections, as is now the case in the first term. It was on that assumption that I made the recommendations as to assistants.

I quite agree with Acting Dean Brewster that if the situation is to remain as at present, namely, nine hours in the first term and five hours in the second term, the new Adjunct Professor will be entirely competent to take charge of this. That would mean an average of seven hours per week, and as he is to do three hours’ work at Columbia that would mean a total of ten hours per week, which is not excessive. This would, however, reduce the Budget at Barnard from $2,700 to $2,500.

On the other hand, if, as there now seems to be some possibility, the Committee on Instruction of Barnard College decides to make the second term work nine hours (with four sections) the Acting Dean of Barnard agrees with me that the work will be a little too much for one man, and that he ought to have the aid of at all events the part time of an assistant.

Upon the decision to be reached, however, depends therefore the final recommendation of the Department for the assistants in the University as a whole. If no assistance is required at Barnard College the Department of Economics will be able to get on, although with some difficulty, with one high-class tutor, for his work will be to take charge not only of three of the four sections at Columbia, but also of the three new sections in the School of Mines, and this would mean the assumption by Columbia of his salary of $1,000. On the other hand, if the additional work is taken up at Barnard, it will be imperative to have a second man as assistant, at a salary of $500., as the amount of work to be done will be entirely too much for one tutor. We should then arrive at the final conclusion reached in my original Budget letter, which is the employment of two men, at a joint salary of $1,500., in addition to the new Adjunct Professor. What part of this salary of $1,500 is to be paid by Barnard, is, of course a matter on which I am not asked to express an opinion.

Permit me to say in conclusion that I am deeply sensible of the cordial way in which the Acting Dean of Barnard has accepted the propositions of the Department for the improvement of the work. Under the scheme as outlined not only will the work be, I think, entirely satisfactory to the authorities of Barnard College, but it will also be a considerable improvement at Columbia. The Department of Economics will be very glad indeed to adjust itself to whichever of the two alternative schemes may be adopted by Barnard: the one being the maintenance of the present situation calling for an appropriation for assistants of $1,000., to be paid entirely by Columbia, the other—involving additional work at Barnard—calling for an appropriation of $1,500 for assistants, to be defrayed in part by Barnard College.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

January 4, 1909

Professor William T. Brewster,
Acting Dean, Barnard College, City.

My dear Sir:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a letter of December 24, 1908, from President Butler, enclosing your letter of December 23, 1908, in which you refer to the courses offered by the Department of Economics at Barnard College.

As the existing situation is the result of steps taken by the administrative authorities of Barnard College and Columbia University, and as these agreements and instructions were never embodied in formal written documents, I venture to send you a written statement of the history of the case, in the hope that this letter may be put on file with the original agreement, in order that the question as to the interpretation of the original agreement may be settled, if it should again arise in the future.

The original agreement made with Professor Clark and the Faculty of Political Science, when he was called to the University in 1895, was to the effect that for every hour given by him at Columbia a member of the existing Columbia staff should give an hour at Barnard College. Under this agreement it was arranged that Professor Clark should give two hours at Barnard and four hours at Columbia. Of the four exchange hours due to Barnard, two were given by Professor Giddings and two by Professor Seligman. Several years later, when Professor Seager was called to Columbia, he took the courses previously given by Professor Seligman.

In the year 1905 when the Chair of the History of Civilization was founded at Columbia University, an arrangement was effected between the Dean of Barnard and the President of Columbia University, whereby the two hour course of Professor Giddings, given at Barnard, was transferred to Columbia, the Columbia course being now, however, open to Barnard students. This was recognized as a substantial equivalence, and since that time the Barnard students have been coming to Professor Giddings’ course at Columbia.

When Professor Henry L. Moore was called to the University in 1902 an arrangement was made whereby a portion of his work was to be done at Barnard in return for the payment of aa portion of his salary b Barnard College. Under this arrangement Professor Moore offered a two hour course to the Seniors at Barnard College, and took general supervision of the Junior work in Economics, which was, however, actually carried on by assistants. Several years later, as the Junior work at Barnard was not entirely satisfactory, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that Professor Moore give up his Senior course and in exchange take an active part in the lecturing and teaching of the Juniors at Barnard. This suggestion was adopted, and as the number of sections gradually increased at Barnard the work was finally divided between Professor Moore and two assistants, the class being divided into four sections in the first term and into two sections in the second term. As a compensation for the Senior course which was now dropped by Professor Moore, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that courses 107-108, given by Professor Seligman at Columbia University be open to Barnard students. This suggestion was adopted by the Department, and ratified by the Columbia Faculty, and has continued ever since.

What I desire especially to emphasize is the fact that in no case did the initiative for any of these changes come from the Department of Economics, but that in every case the initiative came either from the Dean of Barnard College or from the President of Columbia University in conjunction with the Dean of Barnard College. The Department of Economics has been at all times willing and anxious to live up to the terms of the original and supplemental agreements, and has in every case been glad to adopt the suggestions of the authorities of Barnard College. It so happens that during the present year Professor Seager is on his Sabbatical leave of absence, and that Courses 107-108 were not given at Columbia; but this is an exceptional situation, including the $5,000 salary of Professor Clark, with the corresponding work given in exchange at Barnard, the number of hours of instruction given at Barnard are economics A, 9 hours, Economics 4, 5 hours, or an annual average of seven hours per week. The salary list has been $2,700.,–$1,700 for Professor Moore and $1,000 for two assistants. This is an average of less than $400 per hour, and if we include Courses 107-108 at Columbia, which were open to the Barnard students when the supplemental agreement was made, it would reduce the cost per year to considerably less than $400, which I understand is the average in other Departments.

The new scheme of courses which has been elaborated by the Dean of Barnard College to take effect next year, meets with the entire approval of the Department of Economics, and is outlined in another letter a copy of which I have the honor of submitting herewith. I venture to hope, however, that this statement of the historical development of the situation may be put on file, in order to show that the Department of Economics has at all times endeavored to abide loyally by the spirit of the agreement between Barnard College and Columbia University.

Respectfully submitted,
[stamped signature: Edwin R. A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source:  Barnard College, Columbia University. Boston Public Library, The Tichnor Brothers Collection.

 

 

 

Categories
Columbia

Columbia. Alvin S. Johnson recounts exams with Franklin Giddings, 1951

 

Perhaps I lived a blessed student life. I never felt that I had been particularly ill-treated in an examination, though I should add that I have fortunately been spared the trauma of an oral examination, except for matters involving my dental health. I once spoke with Kenneth Arrow, on the day before his 90th birthday, and was surprised to hear just how salient a memory was of an injustice that had been inflicted upon him by John Maurice Clark in an oral examination some seven decades earlier. Apparently Alvin Johnson nursed an analogous decades-long grudge as a result of his oral exam at the hands of the sociologist Franklin Giddings. In his letter to Joseph Dorfman transcribed in this post, we see that he was later able to leverage a poor exam performance of a Giddings’ student into a sweet payback of sorts. 

____________________

Letter from Alvin Johnson to Joseph Dorfman

THE NEW SCHOOL
66 West 12th St. New York 11
[Tel.] Oregon 5-2700

August 21, 1951

Dear Joe:

You haven’t answered my query as to whether it wouldn’t suit your purpose better to substitute for the piece I sent you on the School of Political Science my experience of the economics department proper.

I think my second minor was in Constitutional History under Burgess. At my doctor’s exam Burgess asked me three questions, but to be fair he elaborated them so much that he answered them himself, and I had only to nod assent.

Not so with Giddings. He was having a feud with Seligman and set about taking it out of my hide. I had attended a course with him on the English Poor Laws, a course that bored Giddings stiff. He came to my exam with a sheet of details he couldn’t have remembered himself.

“What was the Statute of Laborers? What year of what reign?
“What law was enacted in the third year of Edward VI?
“What was the ‘Speenhamland Act?’ What year of what reign?”

            About forty such questions. After I had retired for the Faculty to vote[,] Giddings, who after all was my friend, came out first, slapped me on the back and said:

“Well you passed. But by God, I made you sweat.”
“I’d have made you sweat yourself if I had had the written sheet and you hadn’t loaded up for me.”
“You bet.”

            I had my revenge a few months later, when one of Giddings’ protégés came up with a thesis on Puerto Rico. He was a theologue [sic], savagely Protestant, who ascribed all the woes of Puerto Rico to the Catholic Church. His book was full of fishy figures, the worst on the food situation. The Puerto Ricans were starved; they produced practically no food but lived on imported rice, the figures for which the thesis gave. I used my arithmetic and found that the figures gave fifty pounds of rice daily per capita.

“And you say they are underfed,” I added, not very humanely.

            When the candidate had retired Goodnow moved, first that the candidate be flunked; second that Giddings be censured for bringing such a fool before the Faculty; third that I be censured for making a Faculty member laugh right out in meeting. All three votes carried.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Alvin Johnson

Dr. Joseph Dorfman
Columbia University
Faculty of Political Science
New York 27, N.Y.

aj:ar

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection, Box 13, Folder “C.U. Dept.al history”.

Image Source: From the cover of Alvin S. Johnson’s 1952 autobiography.

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Career of A.M. in economics alumnus, Arthur Morgan Day (1867-1942)

 

This post began as a simple transcription of two typed pages that Alvin S. Johnson sent to Joseph Dorfman, who at the time was collecting material on the history of economics at Columbia University. The Columbia economics instructor who was the subject of Johnson’s letter, Arthur Morgan Day, was new to me, and I presume something of an unknown even to Joseph Dorfman. My curiosity sparked a chase through a variety of genealogical sources accessible at Ancestry.com, then a search through yearbooks of Barnard College and Columbia University catalogues at archive.org, and eventually a discovery of the reports of the Harvard Class of 1892 (available at hathitrust.org) that taken together provide us a fairly good account of Day’s life and career through age 55.

I have located only a single source that gives the year of his death: “Arthur Morgan Day (1867-1942)” in the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. 31. New York: James T. White & Co., 1944.

_______________

Alvin Johnson’s recollection of Arthur Morgan Day at Columbia College

THE NEW SCHOOL
66 West 12th St. New York 11
[Tel.] Oregon 5-2700

July 17, 1951

Dear Joe Dorfman:

This is the best I can do on Day. If you don’t like it, throw it into the waste-basket.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Alvin Johnson

encl.

Dr. Joseph Dorfman
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York 27, N.Y.

[Handwritten addition by Johnson]

I’m trying to write
something on the
Faculty
AJ

* *  *  * *

Alvin Johnson’s attachment to his letter to Joseph Dorfman of July 17, 1951

When I presented myself to Dean Burgess for registration in November 1898 and announced that I wished to study economics, the Dean advised me to register for the Marshall course by Mayo-Smith, the course on History of Economics by E. R. A. Seligman, the course on theory by John Bates Clark. I confessed that my training had been in classics; that I had never attended a course, nor even a single lecture in economics. I asked whether I ought not to take the course in elementary economics, under an instructor, Arthur Morgan Day. No, said Dean Burgess, that course was only for undergraduate cubs, who had no desire to know economics. The Committee on College Requirements had seen fit to make a required course out of it; but a mature man would be wasting his time under Day.

I did not register for Day’s course. I’m sorry I did not. For Day was a true representative of the old, solid economics of Adam Smith and Malthus and Ricardo, of Senior and Cairnes and John Stuart Mill. He made shift to comprehend the marginal utilitarianism of Marshall, but it gave him no inspiration. He saw no advance in Clark’s theory and he regarded Seligman’s Historismus as merely a change of venue in economic reasoning.

Day detested me, for my ardent devotion to J. B. Clark, for my eager acceptance of Seligman’s wide explorations in all literatures. He pitied me for my destiny of going forth into the world equipped only with fluff and froth, with no sense of the grand old economists who looked facts in the face and wrote in language that the most unlicked cub of a business man could understand. When I was awarded a fellowship Day proposed that I should have the privilege of reading and grading all his examination papers, a privilege I was too immature to appreciate. The President of the University vetoed the proposal. I had my year of complete freedom, to follow my teachers, Clark and Seligman, with uncrippled ardor.

Yet I came to realize that Day was a better economist than we then assumed. It was not possible for him to follow the marginal utility calculus into a field of abstractions divorced from the comprehension of the ordinary citizen. Any man, however sodden in business thinking, could follow John Stuart Mill, agreeing, or most likely disagreeing. Only the intellectual elite could follow Menger and Wieser and Böhm[-]Bawerk, Marshall and Clark, Fisher and Fetter.

If Day were living he would find justification for his repugnance to the marginal utility theories. Keynes, an adept in marginal theory, shifted the emphasis from value to price.

Said Chesterfield, “In mixed company I always talk bawdy, for that is something in which all men can join.” Keynes always talked price. Day, prematurely, talked price, believed in talking price. There was no place for him in the marginal utility universe of talk, of those days. But I surmise, Day was a good deal of a man.

[signed]
Alvin Johnson

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Joseph Dorfman Collection, Box 13, Folder “C.U. Dept.al history”.

_______________

From the Columbia College Catalogue, 1898-99

Economics A—Outlines of Economics—Recitations, lectures, and essays. 3 hours, second half-year. Professor Mayo-Smith and Mr. Day. [Economics A was required of juniors in the College, and open to sophomores who have taken economics I.]

Economics 1—Economic history of England America—Selected textbooks, recitations, essays, and lectures. 3 hours, first half-year. Professor Seligman and Mr. Day. [Economics I was open to juniors and qualified sophomores in the College.]

[Note: p. 11 under officers of instruction, Assistants. Address given as 128 West 103d Street.]

Source:  Columbia University in the City of New York. Catalogue 1898-99, p. 74.

_______________

1900 U.S. Census

Name: Arthur M Day
Age:    33
Birth Date:     Apr 1867
Birthplace:      Connecticut
Home in 1900:           Danbury, Fairfield, Connecticut
Ward of City: 2
Street: Westoria Avenue
House Number:          28
Race:   White
Gender:           Male
Relation to Head of House:   Son
Marital Status:           Single
Father’s name:            Josiah L Day
Father’s Birthplace:    New York
Mother’s name:          Ellen L Day
Mother’s Birthplace:  Connecticut
Occupation:    College Instructor
Months not employed:         0
Can Read:       Yes
Can Write:      Yes
Can Speak English:    Yes
Household Members:

Josiah L Day  60
Ellen L Day    58
Arthur M Day           33

_______________

From Mortarboard 1902
[Barnard College Yearbook]

Leisure Hours of Great Men
or
Intimate Glimpses of the World’s Workers at Play

Arthur Morgan Day

It is certainly pathetic
How he smothers the aesthetic
Under money, banking, trusts and corporations,
But he soothes his longing heart,
Studying dramatic art,
And high tragedy completes his aspirations.

Source: 1902 Mortarboard , p. 71.

_______________

From the Columbia Daily Spectator, 1902

Mr. Day Resigns

Mr. A. M. Day, Instructor in Economics, has resigned his position at Columbia to take a position on the new Tenement House Commission of New York City. He is to serve as one of two men to take charge of registration and compilation of statistics of tenement houses in the boroughs of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Mr. Henry Raymond Mussey, Fellow in the Department, has taken Mr. Day’s position as instructor in Economics for the time being. Mr. Mussey has already acquired much popularity and confidence among the students in his classes.

*  *  *  *  *

Congratulations for Mr. Day.

The members of the Course Economics I have sent the following message of congratulation to their instructor, upon his appointment as chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the New York City Tenement House Commission. “We the undersigned members of the course, Economics I, of the current University year, having heard with pleasure of the great honor which has been conferred upon our former instructor Mr. Arthur Morgan Day, desire to extend to him our sincere congratulations and to assure him of our best wishes for a successful career in his new office.

 

Source:  Columbia Daily Spectator, Volume XLV, Number 42, 21 March 1902, page 1.

_______________

From Harvard College Class of 1892 Reports

Arthur Morgan Day (1892)

[Joined the Harvard Class of 1892 in the junior year, received A.B. together with the degree of A.M.]
Honorable Mention: English Composition; Political Economy; History.

 

Source:  Secretary’s Report Harvard College Class of 1892, Number I, (1893), pp. 6, 27, 29.

 

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1896)

“1892-93, graduate student in History and Economics, H.U.; 1893-94, graduate student in History and Economics and assistant in History, H.U.; 1894-95, assistant in Economics, School of Political Science, Columbia College; 1895-96, assistant and lecturer in Economics, School of Political Science, Columbia College, and lecturer in Economics, Barnard College.”

Published “Syllabus of six lectures on ‘Money’ for Extension Department of Rutgers College, 1895.”

Delivered “six lectures on ‘Money,’ Univ. Ex. course, New Brunswick, N.J., December-January, 1894-95; two lectures on ‘Monetary Literature in U.S.’ in course of ‘Free Lectures to the People,’ under direction of Board of Education, N.Y.”

Source:  Secretary’s Report Harvard College Class of 1892, Number II, (1896), pp. 30-31.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1902)

From 1892 to 1894 was graduate student in History and Economics at Harvard; 1893-4, was assistant in History at Harvard; 1894-1902, was successively assistant lecturer, and instructor in Economics at Columbia and Barnard Colleges, and also assistant editor of “Political Science Quarterly” and “Columbia University Quarterly “; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become Registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond.

Has given numerous courses of lectures for the New York Board of Education; has lectured also in extension department of Rutgers College and in the Educational Alliance. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History”, signed reviews in the “Political Science Quarterly” and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation”, Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire “, Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.”

Source:  Harvard College, Record of the Class of 1892. Secretary’s Report No. III for the Tenth Anniversary (1902),  pp. 46-47.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1907)

Son of Josiah Lyon Day and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Born at Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867. Prepared for college at the Danbury High School.

Received A.M. in 1892. From 1892 to 1894 was a graduate student in History and Economics at Harvard; 1893-94, was Assistant in History at Harvard; 1894-1902, was successively Assistant, Lecturer, and Instructor in Economics at Columbia and Barnard Colleges; also Assistant Editor of Political Science Quarterly and Columbia University Quarterly; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become Registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. In May, 1902, resigned Registrarship to become Assistant to President of Manhattan Trust Co.; in July, 1903, was made Secretary and Treasurer of Casualty Company of America; in January, 1905, entered publicity business. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and ” Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.” Belongs to Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Fifteenth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number IV, (1907), p.48.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1912)

Son of Josiah Lyon Day and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Born at Danbury, Connecticut, April 12, 1867. Prepared for college at the Danbury High School.

Attended Harvard 1888-92, A.B. and A.M.; Graduate School 1892-94.

1892 to 1894, graduate student in history and economics at Harvard; 1893-94, assistant in history at Harvard; 1894-1902, successively assistant, lecturer, and instructor in economics at Columbia and Barnard colleges; also assistant editor of Political Science Quarterly and Columbia University Quarterly; in March, 1902, resigned from Columbia to become registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. In May, 1902, resigned registrarship to become assistant to president of Manhattan Trust Company; in July, 1903, was made secretary and treasurer of Casualty Company of America; in January, 1905, entered publicity business; in June, 1906, employed by United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia; in August, 1906, serious attack of typhoid caused long absence from business; in June, 1908, with Blair & Co., bankers, New York; in April, 1910, began independent work as financial agent for various clients; in January, 1912, entered bond department of Prudential Insurance Company at Newark. Has published syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.” Belongs to Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Twentieth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, [Number V, (1912)], p.54.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1917)

Born at Danbury, Conn., April 12, 1867. Son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Prepared for College at Danbury High School, Danbury, Conn.

Attended Harvard:  1888-92; Graduate School, 1892-94.

Degrees: A.B. and A.M. 1892.

Occupation: Investments.

Address: (home) 28 Westville Ave., Danbury, Conn.; (business) 37 Wall St., New York, N.Y

FROM 1892 to 1894 I was a graduate student in history and economics at Harvard, and during 1893-94 I was assistant in history at Harvard. From 1894 to 1902 I was successively assistant, lecturer, and instructor in economics at Columbia and Barnard colleges; also assistant editor of the Political Science Quarterly and the Columbia University Quarterly. In March, 1902, I resigned from Columbia to become registrar of the Tenement House Department of New York City for Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond. I held this position until May, 1903, when I resigned to become assistant to the president of the Manhattan Trust Company. In July, 1903, I was made secretary and treasurer of the Casualty Company of America; and in January, 1905, I entered publicity business. I was employed by the United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia in June, 1906, but a serious attack of typhoid fever in August of that year caused a long absence from business. In June, 1908, I was with Blair & Co., bankers, in New York, and in April, 1910, I began independent work as financial agent for various clients. In January, 1912, I entered the bond department of the Prudential Insurance Company at Newark, and since December 1, 1915, I have been with Wood, Struthers & Co., bankers, 37 Wall St., N. Y.

Publications: Syllabi of lectures on “Money” and “Economic History,” signed reviews in the Political Science Quarterly and elsewhere, and editorials in a New York daily. Assisted in the preparation of Seligman’s “Essays in Taxation” and “Incidence of Taxation,” Giddings’ “Democracy and Empire,” Clark’s “Distribution of Wealth,” and the second edition (rewritten) of White’s “Money and Banking.”

Clubs and Societies: Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Secretary’s Report for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number VI, (1917), pp. 68-69. Includes Graduation picture.

*  *  *  *  *

Arthur Morgan Day (1922)

Born at Danbury, Conn., April 12, 1867. Son of Josiah Lyon and Ellen Louisa (Baldwin) Day. Prepared for College at Danbury High School, Danbury, Conn.

Attended Harvard: 1888-92; Graduate School, 1892-94.
Degrees: A.B. and A.M. 1892.

Occupation: Investments.
Address: (home) 152 Deer Hill Ave., Danbury, Conn.; (business) 5 Nassau St., New York, N.Y.

Since December 1, 1915, I have been with Wood, Struthers & Co., bankers, 5 Nassau Street, New York.

Clubs and Societies: Harvard Club of New York.

Source:  Harvard College Class of 1892, Thirtieth Anniversary Report, Number VIII, (1922), p. 70.
[note: Number IX, June 19-22, 1922 is the Supplementary Report of the Thirtieth Anniversary Celebration]

_______________

From the State of Connecticut, Military Census of 1917

State of Connecticut

By direction of an act of the Legislature of Connecticut, approved February 7th, 1917, I am required to procure certain information relative to the resources of the state. I therefore call upon you to answer the following questions.

MARCUS H. HOLCOMB, Governor.

TOWN or CITY: Danbury
DATE: March 4, 1917
POST OFFICE ADDRESS: 28 Westville Ave.

  1. What is your present Trade, Occupation or Profession ? Banking and Brokerage
  2. Have you experience in any other Trade, Occupation or Profession? College Professor
  3. What is your Age? 49
    Height? 5 ft 8 in
    Weight? 165
  4. Are your Married? Single? or Widower? Single
  5. How many persons are dependent on you for support? None wholly
  6. Are you a citizen of the United States? Yes
  7. If not a citizen of the United States have you taken out your first papers? [not applicable]
  8. If not a citizen of the United States, what is your nationality? [not applicable]
  9. Have you ever done any Military or Naval Service in this or any other Country? No
    Where? [not applicable]
    How Long? [not applicable]
    What Branch? [not applicable]
    Rank? [not applicable]
  10. Have you any serious physical disability? Yes
    If so, name it. Near sighted
  11. Can you do any of the following:
    Ride a horse? [No]
    Handle a team? [No]
    Drive an automobile? [No]
    Ride a motorcycle? [No]
    Understand telegraphy? [No]
    Operate a wireless? [No]
    Any experience with a steam engine? [No]
    Any experience with electrical machinery? [No]
    Handle a boat, power or sail? [No]
    Any experience in simple coastwise navigation? [No]
    Any experience with High Speed Marine Gasoline Engines? ? [No]
    Are you a good swimmer? [Yes]

I hereby certify that I have personally interviewed the above mentioned person and that the answers to the questions enumerated are as he gave them to me.

[signed]
Chas A Stallock[?]
Military Census Agent

Source: Connecticut Military Census of 1917. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut State Library. [available as database on-line at Ancestry.com]

 

Image Source: Class portrait and current portrait (ca 1917) of Arthur Morgan Day from Secretary’s Report for the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary. Harvard College Class of 1892, Number VI, (1917), pp. 68-69.

 

Categories
Barnard Exam Questions

Barnard. Exam for one-semester outlines of economics course. Moore and Johnson, 1903

 

 

 

The following introductory economics exam from Barnard College in 1903 comes from a student’s college scrapbook that had been donated to the archives of her alma mater. The scrapbook belonged to Gertrude Helen Clark, who, according to  the Register of the Associate Alumnae of Barnard College (1925), married Frederick M. Hitchcock in 1917. Because such random singletons are quickly forgotten, I prefer to post them immediately. Similar to Radcliffe, Barnard could count on faculty from the patriarchal side of campus to provide instructors. Professor Henry L. Moore and the up and coming Alvin S. Johnson were definitely prime offerings for Barnard.

Incidentally, there is a nice website set up to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the founding of Barnard where one finds a list of the names of all Barnard College economics faculty starting with John Bates Clark up to most recent times.

______________________

Course Announcement

Economics and Social Science

Economics A—Outlines of Economics. Study of the characteristics of modern industrial society and of the fundamental economic principles. Professor [Henry L.] Moore and Mr. [Alvin Saunders] Johnson [Tutor in Political Economy and Sociology]. One and one-half points, first half-year.

Section I, Tu., Th., S., 9.30; Section II, Tu., Th., 11.30, S. 9.30; Section III (if needed), Tu., Th., 1.30, S., 9.30.

Prescribed for Juniors. Open to qualified Sophomores who take Course I.
This course is given in two or, if necessary, in three sections. Students are assigned to the sections in alphabetical order, but for reasons of weight, with the consent of the Dean, a student may be transferred to a section other than that to which she properly belongs.

 

Source: Columbia University, Barnard College Catalogue, 1901-02. Announcement 1902-1903, p. 59. 

______________________

BARNARD COLLEGE
Economics A
Mid-year Examination, [Jan. 27,] 1903

 

  1. Define wealth, capital, land; rent, demand, utility, marginal utility, value, price.
  2. What determines market value? normal value?
  3. State the law of diminishing returns.
  4. What are the economic reasons for the concentration of industry?
    Is there an economic limit to concentration?
  5. State the law of monopoly value.
  6. What determines the value of money?
  7. Assuming that the United States has a monetary circulation of 500,000,000 in gold, what will be the effect of an issue of 100,000,000 in legal tender paper money
    1. On prices within the United States
    2. On the foreign trade of the United States
    3. On the value of gold throughout the world.
  8. If a day’s labor in America will produce more yards of cotton cloth than a day’s labor in England, will the cotton industry need protection? Should it receive protection?
  9. How does a high standard of living affect wages?
  10. Discuss the “scope” of Economics.

 

Source:  Barnard College Archives. Gertrude C. Clark Hitchcock Scrapbook, 1898-1906, p. 48.

Image Source: Art and Picture Collection, The New York Public Library. “Barnard College, western boulevard” New York Public Library Digital Collections. Accessed February 24, 2018.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market Economists NYU

Chicago. Chester Wright recounts J. Laurence Laughlin to Alfred Bornmann in 1939

 

 

In 1939 a NYU graduate student, Alfred H. Bornemann, wrote to the University of Chicago economic historian Chester W. Wright requesting any of the latter’s personal memories of the first head of the Chicago Department of Political Economy, J. Laurence Laughlin. Bornemann’s letter and Wright’ response are transcribed below. Results from Bornemann’s project were published in 1940 as J. Laurence Laughlin: Chapters in the Career of an Economist. I have added Bornemann’s AEA membership data from 1948 and his New York Times obituary to round out the post.

Reading Wright’s letter it is easy to convince oneself that any oral history interview is more likely to extract something from a witness than is an open-ended request for a written statement. Still, an artifact is an artifact and Wright’s response is now entered into the digital record.

________________________________

1948 Listing in the AEA Membership Roll

BORNEMANN, Alfred H., 1618 Jefferson Ave., Brooklyn 27, N. Y. (1939). Long Island Univ., teach., res.; b. 1908; B.A., 1933, M.A., 1937, Ph.D., 1941, New York. Fields 7 [Money and Banking; Short-term Credit; Consumer Finance], 6 [Business Fluctuations].

Source:   “Alphabetical List of Members (as of June 15, 1948).” The American Economic Review 39, no. 1 (1949): 1-208. .p. 20.

________________________________

Alfred Bornemann, 82, Economist and Author
New York Times Obituary of May 3, 1991

Alfred H. Bornemann, an economist who taught at several colleges and who wrote extensively on economics, died on Friday at his home in Englewood, N.J. He was 82 years old.

He died of liver and colon cancer, his family said.

Dr. Bornemann was a professor at Norwich University and chairman of its department of economics and businness administration from 1951 to 1958. He taught at C. W. Post College of Long Island University from 1960 to 1966 and at Hunter and Kingsborough Colleges of the City University of New York from 1967 to 1974.

He wrote, among other books, “Fundamentals of Industrial Management,” published in 1963; “Essentials of Purchasing” (1974) and “Fifty Years of Ideology: A Selective Survey of Academic Economics” (1981).

Dr. Bornemann was born in Queens and received bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees from New York University. He was an accountant with Cities Service and with the American Water Works and Electric Company before beginning his teaching career at N.Y.U. in 1940.

He is survived by his wife, the former Bertha Kohl; a son, Alfred R., of Bayonne, N.J., and a brother, Edwin, of Liberty, N.Y.

Source: New York Times Obituaries, May 3, 1991.

________________________________

Bornemann’s book and doctoral thesis about J. Laurence Laughlin

Alfred Bornemann. J. Laurence Laughlin: Chapters in the Career of an Economist. Introduction by Leon C. Marshall. (Washington,: American Council on Public Affairs,1940).

Chief sources: Agatha Laughlin’s recollections of her father; Letters from numerous colleagues and students; Laughlin papers in the University of Chicago and in the Library of Congress. His 300 odd books and articles published, 1876-1933.

Source: FRASER. Committee on the History of the Federal Reserve System. Biographies, Memoirs, Personal Reminiscences: American: U. Economists (Date 1956).

Downloadable doctoral thesis

Bornemann’s 1940 NYU PhD thesis (degree awarded in 1941) on J. Laurence Laughlin. 420 typewritten leaves (LOC: LD3907/.G7/1941/.B6). Downloadable pdf copy of the dissertation for libraries with access to ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global!

________________________________

Handwritten letter from Alfred Borneman to Chester W. Wright requesting personal observations of J. L. Laughlin and the Department of Political Economy of the University of Chicago

1618 Jefferson Ave.,
Brooklyn, NY.
Jan 12, 1939.

Professor C. W. Wright,
University of Chicago,
Chicago, Illinois.

Dear Professor Wright,

I am writing a thesis on J. Laurence Laughlin, as I believe Professor Mayer has already told you. What I am trying to do, among other things, is to write a chapter on “Faculty, Fellows and Students” in Laughlin’s Department at Chicago. In this chapter, I hope to tell as much as I can about the background in the Department and about the men connected with it.

As I understand it, you were appointed instructor in 1907, assistant professor in 1910, and associate professor in 1913. Can you tell me anything of interest in connection with your original appointment, that is, where you were teaching and where you got the Ph.D.? Marshall, I think, was also appointed in 1907, but even though he did not have the Ph.D. he was made a professor in 1911. Can you suggest the reason for his more rapid advancement?

On the other hand, I may suggest that apparently you and Marshall and Field were the first to be advanced so rapidly. In any event you seem to have been advanced more rapidly than Veblen and Hoxie. It is possible that in the early days he had a different attitude.

Of course there is so much which you experience under Laughlin that would be of value to me to know about that I scarcely know how to ask you anything. Alvin Johnson has suggested that Laughlin was a neurotic and he would explain him in psychological terms, which, of course, I shall not do. But his characterization may suggest some thoughts to your mind. Moulton, incidentally, says Johnson could never have known Laughlin well enough to arrive at his conclusion, because Laughlin had few intimate friends.

I do not know, of course, how much interest you had in Laughlin’s public work or his theories, so that what I am asking you largely concerns his Department. If you care to give me any observations with respect to these two phases, however, I should naturally greatly appreciate your doing so.

But I believe you could give me most invaluable information by your recollections of your years under Laughlin and how he saw the Department, as well as possibly some of the background.

For anything which you can find the time to tell me I shall be grateful.

Cordially yours,

Alfred Borneman

 

Carbon copy of Chester W. Wright’s reply to Alfred Borneman

February 27, 1939

Mr. Alfred Borneman
1618 Jefferson Avenue
Brooklyn, New York

My dear Mr. Borneman:

I am sorry to have been so long in replying to your inquiry, but have been very rushed the last few weeks and assumed there was no need for an immediate answer.

I presume Professor Laughlin’s attention was called to me by the staff at Harvard as it seems to have been his policy to make inquiries there when he had positions to be filled. I received my Ph.D. degree at Harvard in 1906 and during the following year taught at Cornell University. It was while I was there that I received a request from Professor Laughlin to meet him for an interview in Philadelphia, following which he offered me the appointment at Chicago which I decided to accept.

Professor Marshall came to Chicago at the same time. As I recollect, he had been teaching at Ohio Wesleyan for several years after completing two or three years of graduate work at Harvard, though he did not remain there to write a thesis and get his Ph.D. degree. Since he was recognized as an excellent teacher and very competent in administrative work, the fact that he did not have a Ph.D. degree was never considered an obstacle to his promotion any more that in the case of J. A. Field, who only held a Bachelor’s degree. I presume the explanation for the more rapid advancement of the men who came to the Department at Chicago about this time is that they proved to be more of the type in whom Laughlin had confidence. President Judson, I believe, had unusual confidence in Laughlin, so the latter was able to get his recommendations approved.

Of the men already in the Department when I came, Cummings and Hill were not conspicuous successes either as teachers or productive scholars. I suspect there was no pressure either to promote them or to keep them when they had chances to go elsewhere. Just why Davenport left, I never knew. Hoxie was eventually made a full professor on the strength of his recognized success as a teacher and a student of labor problems despite views on these problems which must have seemed rather questionable to one of Laughlin’s conservatism.

Professor Laughlin was very much a gentleman of the old school and placed considerable emphasis on what he called “a sense of form.” Possibly the fact that he thought the men coming into the Department about my time and later had more of this sense of form may have been a factor in their advancement. It has never occurred to me that Laughlin was of the neurotic type, though Hoxie was.

As Laughlin’s theoretical and public work was entirely outside of my field of special interest, I cannot very profitably discuss it.

In his conduct of the Department, I had no feeling that he was autocratic or unreasonable. My recollection is that most matters of general interest were discussed among the members of the Department and commonly acted upon as decided by the group. I suspect that this may have been more generally the case after about the time I came to the Department here than it had been formerly, but I have no definite knowledge on this point.

Sincerely yours,

Chester W. Wright

CWW-W

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 41, Folder 12.

Image Source:  Dr. Alfred Bornemann in C. W. Post College Yearbook, 1966.

Categories
Amherst Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. John Maurice Clark. Autobiographical notes, 1949

 

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

______________________

June 8, 1949

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________

J.M.C. later history.

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

 

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

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

1912 ed. of Control of Trusts

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

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

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

 

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

Modern Psych.

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

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

Ayres, Knight on faculty.

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

Social Control [of Business]

 

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

 

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

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

Categories
Barnard Columbia Courses Curriculum

Columbia. Economics Courses with Descriptions, 1905-07

 

 

From time to time I mistakenly repeat the preparation of an artifact, as is the case with this list of instructors and courses offered in economics and social sciences by the Columbia University Faculty of Political Science in 1905-07. Still, I am getting better with respect to formatting, so I am replacing the V1.0 with this V2.0 today.

________________________________

OFFICERS OF INSTRUCTION
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[Economics and Social Sciences (1905-07)]

EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Ph.D., LL.D., McVickar Professor of Political Economy
[Absent on leave in 1905-06.]
FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Sociology
JOHN B. CLARK, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Economy
HENRY R. SEAGER, Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy, and Secretary
HENRY L. MOORE, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Political Economy
VLADIMIR G. SIMKHOVITCH, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Economic History
EDWARD THOMAS DEVINE, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Social Economy

OTHER OFFICERS

ALVIN S. JOHNSON, Ph.D., Instructor in Economics
GEORGE J. BAYLES, Ph.D Lecturer in Ecclesiology [A.B., Columbia, 1891; A.M., 1892; LL.B., 1893; Ph.D., 1895.]
ELSIE CLEWS PARSONS, Ph.D., Lecturer in Sociology in Barnard College

________________________________

GROUP III—ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

GRADUATE COURSES

It is presumed that students who take economics, sociology or social economy as their major subject are familiar with the general principles of economics and sociology as set forth in the ordinary manuals. Students who are not thus prepared are recommended to take the courses in Columbia College or Barnard College designated as Economics 1 and 2 (or A and 4) and Sociology 151-152.

The graduate courses fall under three subjects: A—Political Economy and Finance; B—Sociology and Statistics; C—Social Economy.

Courses numbered 100 to 199 are open to Seniors in Columbia College.

Courses numbered 200 and above are open to graduate women students upon the same terms as to men.

All the courses are open to male auditors. Women holding the first degree may register as auditors in Courses numbered 200 and above.

Subject A—Political Economy and Finance

ECONOMICS 101-102—Taxation and Finance. Professor SELIGMAN.
M. and W. at 1.30. 422 L.

This course is historical, as well as comparative and critical. After giving a general introduction and tracing the history of the science of finance, it treats of the various rules of the public expenditures and the methods of meeting the same among civilized nations. It describes the different kinds of public revenues, including the public domain and public property, public works and industrial undertakings, special assessments, fees, and taxes. It is in great part a course on the history, theories, and methods of taxation in all civilized countries. It considers also public debt, methods of borrowing, redemption, refunding, repudiation, etc. Finally, it describes the fiscal organization of the state by which the revenue is collected and expended, and discusses the budget, national, state, and local. Although the course is comparative, the point of view is American. Students are furnished with the current public documents of the United States Treasury and the chief financial reports of the leading commonwealths, and are expected to understand all the facts in regard to public debt, revenue, and expenditure contained therein.

Given in 1906-07 and in each year thereafter.

ECONOMICS 103—Money and Banking. Professor H. L. MOORE.
Tu. and Th. at 10.30, first half-year. 415 L.

The aim of this course is (1) to describe the mechanism of exchange and to trace the history of the metallic money, the paper money, and the banking system of the United States; to discuss such questions as bi-metallism, foreign exchanges, credit cycles, elasticity of the currency, present currency problems, and corresponding schemes of reform; (2) to illustrate the quantitative treatment of such questions as variations in the value of the money unit, and the effects of appreciation and depreciation.

ECONOMICS 104—Commerce and Commercial Policy. Dr. JOHNSON.
Tu. and Th. at 10.30, second half-year. 415 L.

In this course the economic bases of modern commerce, and the significance of commerce, domestic and foreign, in its relation to American industry, will be studied. An analysis will be made of the extent and character of the foreign trade of the United States, and the nature and effect of the commercial policies of the principal commercial nations will be examined.

ECONOMICS 105—The Labor Problem. Professor SEAGER.
Tu. and Th. at 11.30, first half-year. 415 L.

The topics considered in this course are: The rise of the factory system, factory legislation, the growth of trade unions and changes in the law in respect to them, the policies of trade unions, strikes, lockouts, arbitration and conciliation, proposed solutions of the labor problem, and the future of labor in the United States.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

ECONOMICS 106—The Trust Problem. Professor SEAGER.
Tu. and Th. at 11.30, second half-year. 415 L.

In this course special attention is given to the trust problem as it presents itself in the United States. Among the topics considered are the rise and progress of industrial combinations, the forms of organization and policies of typical combinations, the common law and the trusts, anti-trust acts and their results, and other proposed solutions of the problem.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

[ECONOMICS 107—Fiscal and Industrial History of the United States. Professor SELIGMAN.
M. and W. at 3.30, first half-year. 415 L.

This course endeavors to present a survey of national legislation on currency, finance, and taxation, including the tariff, together with its relations to the state of industry and commerce. The chief topics discussed are: The fiscal and industrial conditions of the colonies; the financial methods of the Revolution and the Confederation; the genesis of the protective idea; the fiscal policies of the Federalists and of the Republicans; the financial management of the War of 1812; the industrial effects of the restrictive and war periods; the crises of 1819, 1825, and 1837; the tariffs of 1816, 1824, and 1828; the distribution of the surplus and the Bank war; the currency problems before 1863; the era of “free trade,” and the tariffs of 1846 and 1857; the fiscal problems of the Civil War; the methods of resumption, conversion and payment of the debt; the disappearance of the war taxes; the continuance of the war tariffs; the money question and the acts of 1878, 1890, and 1900; the loans of 1894-96; the tariffs of 1890, 1894, and 1897; the fiscal aspects of the Spanish War. The course closes with a discussion of the current problems of currency and trade, and with a general consideration of the arguments for and against protection as illustrated by the practical operations of the various tariffs.

Not given in 1905-07.]

[ECONOMICS 108— Railroad Problems; Economic, Social, and Legal. Professor SELIGMAN.
M. and W. at 3.30, second half-year. 415 L.

These lectures treat of railroads in the fourfold aspect of their relation to the investors, the employees, the public, and the state respectively. A history of railways and railway policy in America and Europe forms the preliminary part of the course. The chief problems of railway management, so far as they are of economic importance, come up for discussion.

Among the subjects treated are: Financial methods, railway constructions, speculation, profits, failures, accounts and reports, expenses, tariffs, principles of rates, classification and discrimination, competition and pooling, accidents, and employers’ liability. Especial attention is paid to the methods of regulation and legislation in the United States as compared with European methods, and the course closes with a general discussion of state versus private management.

Not given in 1905-07.]

ECONOMICS 109 — Communistic and Socialistic Theories. Professor CLARK.
Tu. and Th. at 2.30, first half-year. 406 L.

This course studies the theories of St. Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Rodbertus, Marx, Lassalle, and others. It aims to utilize recent discoveries in economic science in making a critical test of these theories themselves and of certain counter-arguments. It examines the socialistic ideals of distribution, and the effects that, by reason of natural laws, would follow an attempt to realize them through the action of the state.

ECONOMICS 110 — Theories of Social Reform. Professor CLARK.
Tu. and Th. at 2.30, second half-year. 406 L.

This course treats of certain plans for the partial reconstruction of industrial society that have been advocated in the United States, and endeavors to determine what reforms are in harmony with economic principles. It treats of the proposed single tax, of the measures advocated by the Farmers’ Alliance, and of those proposed by labor organizations, and the general relation of the state to industry.

ECONOMICS 201—Economic Readings I: Classical English Economists. Professor SEAGER.
Tu. and Th. at 11.30, first half-year. 415 L.

In this course the principal theories of the English economists from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill are studied by means of lectures, assigned readings and reports, and discussions. Special attention is given to the Wealth of Nations, Malthus’s Essay on Population, the bullion controversy of 1810, the corn law controversy of 1815, and the treatises on Political Economy of Ricardo, Senior, and John Stuart Mill.

Given in 1905-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

ECONOMICS 202—Economic Readings II: Contemporary Economists. Professor SEAGER.
Tu. and Th. at 11.30, second half-year. 415 L.

In this course the theories of contemporary economists are compared and studied by the same methods employed in Economics 201. Special attention is given to Böhm-Bawerk’s Positive Theory of Capital and Marshall’s Principles of Economics.

Given in 1905-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

ECONOMICS 203-204—History of Economics. Professor SELIGMAN.
M. and W. at 3.30. 415 L.

In this course the various systems of political economy are discussed in their historical development. The chief exponents of the different schools are taken up in their order, and especial attention is directed to the wider aspects of the connection between the theories and the organization of the existing industrial society. The chief writers discussed are:

I. Antiquity: The Oriental Codes; Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Cato, Seneca, Cicero, the Agrarians, the Jurists.

II. Middle Ages: The Church Fathers, Aquinas, the Glossators, the writers on money, trade, and usury.

III. Mercantilists: Hales, Mun, Petty, Barbon, North, Locke; Bodin, Vauban, Boisguillebert, Forbonnais; Serra, Galiani ; Justi, Sonnenfels.

IV. Physiocrats: Quesnay, Gournay, Turgot, Mirabeau.

V. Adam Smith and precursors: Tucker, Hume, Cantillon, Stewart.

VI. English school: Malthus, Ricardo, Senior, McCulloch, Chalmers, Jones, Mill.

VII. The Continent: Say, Sismondi, Cournot, Bastiat; Herrmann, List, von Thünen.

VIII. German historical school: Roscher, Knies, Hildebrandt.

IX. Recent Development—England: Rogers, Jevons, Cairnes, Bagehot, Leslie, Toynbee, Marshall; Germany: Wagner, Schmoller, Held, Brentano, Cohn, Schäffle; Austria: Menger, Sax, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser; France: Leroy Beaulieu, Laveleye, Gide, Walras; Italy: Cossa, Loria, Pantaleoni; America: Carey, George, Walker, Clark, Patten, Adams.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

ECONOMICS 205—Economic Theory I. Professor CLARK.
M. and W. at 2.30, first half-year. 406 L.

This course discusses, first, the static laws of distribution. If the processes of industry were not changing, wages and industry would tend to adjust themselves according to certain standards. A study of the mechanism of production would then show that one part of the product is specifically attributable to labor, and that another part is imputable to capital. It is the object of the course to show that the tendency of free competition, under such conditions, is to give to labor, in the form of wages, the amount that it specifically creates, and also to give to capital, in the form of interest, what it specifically produces. The theory undertakes to prove that the earnings of labor and of capital are governed by a principle of final productivity, and that this principle must be studied on a social scale, rather than in any one department of production. The latter part of this course enters the field of Economic Dynamics, defines an economic society and describes the forces which so act upon it as to change its structure and its mode of producing and distributing wealth.

ECONOMICS 206—Economic Theory II. Professor CLARK.
M. and W. at 2.30, second half-year. 406 L.

This course continues the discussion of the dynamic laws of distribution. The processes of industry are actually progressing. Mechanical invention, emigration and other influences cause capital and labor to be applied in new ways and with enlarging results. These influences do not even repress the action of the static forces of distribution, but they bring a new set of forces into action. They create, first, employers’ profits, and, later, additions to wages and interest. It is the object of the course to show how industrial progress affects the several shares in distribution under a system of competition, and also to determine whether the consolidations of labor and capital, which are a distinctive feature of modern industry, have the effect of repressing competition. It is a further purpose of the course to present the natural laws by which the increase of capital and that of labor are governed and to discuss the manner in which the earnings of these agents are affected by the action of the state, and to present at some length the character and the effects of those obstructions which pure economic law encounters in the practical world.

ECONOMICS 207—Theory of Statistics. Professor H. L. MOORE.
Tu. and Th. at 1.30, first half-year. 418 L.

The aim of this course is to present the elementary principles of statistics and to illustrate their application by concrete studies in the chief sources of statistical material. The theoretical part of the course includes the study of averages, index numbers, interpolation, principles of the graphic method, elements of demography, and statistical principles of insurance. The laboratory work consists of a graded series of problems designed to develop accuracy and facility in the application of principles. (Identical with Sociology 255.)

ECONOMICS 208—Quantitative Economics I: Advanced Statistics. Professor H. L. MOORE.
W. and F. at 11.30, second half-year. 418 L.

Quantitative Economics I and II (see Economics 210) investigate economics as an exact science. This course treats economics from the inductive, statistical side. It aims to show how the methods of quantitative biology and anthropology are utilized in economics and sociology. Special attention is given to recent contributions to statistical theory by Galton, Edgeworth, and Pearson. Economics 207, or an equivalent, is a prerequisite.

Given in 1905-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

ECONOMICS 210—Quantitative Economics II: Mathematical Economics. Professor H. L. MOORE.
W. and F. at 11.30, second half-year. 418 L.

This course treats economics from the deductive side. It aims to show the utility of an analytical treatment of economic laws expressed in symbolic form. The work of Cournot is presented and used as a basis for the discussion of the contributions to the mathematical method by Walras, Marshall, and Pareto. Economics 207, or an equivalent, is a prerequisite.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

ECONOMICS 241—The Economic and Social Evolution of Russia since 1800. Professor SIMKHOVITCH.
M. and F. at 9.30, first half-year. 418 L.

This course describes the economic development of the country, the growth of slavophil, liberal and revolutionary doctrines and parties, and the disintegration of the autocratic régime. (Identical with History 281.)

ECONOMICS 242—Radicalism and Social Reform as Reflected in the Literature of the Nineteenth Century. Professor SIMKHOVITCH.
M. at 9.30 and 10.30, second half-year. 418 L.

An interpretation of the various types of modern radicalism, such as socialism, nihilism, and anarchism, and of the social and economic conditions on which they are based.

ECONOMICS 291-292—Seminar in Political Economy and Finance. Professors SELIGMAN and CLARK.
For advanced students. Tu., 8.15-10.15 P.M. 301 L.

 

Subject B—Sociology and Statistics

SOCIOLOGY 151-152—Principles of Sociology. Professor GIDDINGS.
Tu. and Th. at 3.30. 415 L.

This is a fundamental course, intended to lay a foundation for advanced work. In the first half-year, in connection with a text-book study of theory, lectures are given on the social traits, organization, and welfare of the American people at various stages of their history and students are required to analyze and classify sociological material of live interest, obtained from newspapers, reviews, and official reports. In the second half-year lectures are given on the sociological systems of important writers, including Montesquieu, Comte, Spencer, Schäffle, De Greef, Gumplowicz, Ward, and Tarde. This course is the proper preparation for statistical sociology (Sociology 255 and 256) or for historical sociology (Sociology 251 and 252).

SOCIOLOGY 251—Social Evolution—Ethnic and Civil Origins. Professor GIDDINGS.
F. at 2.30 and 3.30, first half-year. 415 L.

This course on historical sociology deals with such topics as (1) the distribution and ethnic composition of primitive populations; (2) the types of mind and of character, the capacity for coöperation, the cultural beliefs, and the economic, legal, and political habits of early peoples; (3) early forms of the family, the origins, structure, and functions of the clan, the organization of the tribe, the rise of the tribal federations, tribal feudalism, and the conversion of a gentile into a civil plan of social organization. Early literature, legal codes, and chronicles, descriptive of the Celtic and Teutonic groups which combined to form the English people before the Norman Conquest, are the chief sources made use of in this course.

SOCIOLOGY 252—Social Evolution—Civilization, Progress, and Democracy. Professor GIDDINGS.
F. at 2.30 and 3.30, second half-year. 415 L.

This course, which is a continuation of Sociology 251, comprises three parts, namely: (1) The nature of those secondary civilizations which are created by conquest, and of the policies by which they seek to maintain and to extend themselves; (2) an examination of the nature of progress and of its causes, including the rise of discussion and the growth of public opinion; also a consideration of the policies by which continuing progress is ensured,—including measures for the expansion of intellectual freedom, for the control of arbitrary authority by legality, for the repression of collective violence, and for the control of collective impulse by deliberation; (3) a study of the nature, the genesis, and the social organization of modern democracies, including an examination of the extent to which non-political associations for culture and pleasure, churches, business corporations, and labor unions, are more or less democratic; and of the democratic ideals of equality and fraternity in their relations to social order and to liberty. The documents of English history since the Norman Conquest are the chief sources made use of in this course.

SOCIOLOGY 255—Theory of Statistics. Professor H. L. MOORE.
Tu. and Th. at 1.30, first half-year. 418 L.

This course is identical with Economics 207 (see [above]).

SOCIOLOGY 256—Social Statistics. Professor GIDDINGS.
Tu. and Th. at 1.30, second half-year. 418 L.

Actual statistical materials, descriptive and explanatory of contemporaneous societies, are the subject-matter of this course, which presupposes a knowledge of statistical operations (Sociology 255) and applies it to the analysis of concrete problems. The lectures cover such topics as (1) the statistics of population, including densities and migrations, composition by age, sex, and nationality, amalgamation by intermarriage; (2) statistics of mental traits and products, including languages, religious preferences, economic preferences (occupations), and political preferences; (3) statistics of social organization, including families, households, municipalities, churches, business corporations, labor unions, courts of law, army, navy, and civil service; (4) statistics of social welfare, including peace and war, prosperity, education or illiteracy, vitality, and morality, including pauperism and crime.

SOCIOLOGY 259—Ecclesiology. Dr. BAYLES.
Tu. and F. at 4.30, first half-year. 405 L.

The purpose of this course is to define the present relations of the ecclesiastical institutions to the other institutions of American society: the state, the government, marriage, family, education, and public wealth. An analysis is made of the guarantees of religious liberty contained in the federal and commonwealth constitutions; of the civil status of churches in terms of constitutional and statute law; of the methods of incorporation, of the functions of trustees, of legislative and judicial control; of denominational polity according to its type; of the functional activity of churches in their departments of legislation, administration, adjudication, discipline, and mission; of the influence of churches on ethical standards; of the distribution of nationalities among the denominations, of the territorial distribution of denominational strength, of the relation of polity to density of population, and of the current movements in and between various organizations tending toward changes of functions and structure.

SOCIOLOGY 279-280—Seminar in Sociology. Professor GIDDINGS.
W. at 3.30 and 4.30, bi-weekly. 301 L.

The Statistical Laboratory, conducted by Professors GIDDINGS and H. L. MOORE, is equipped with the Hollerith tabulating machines, comptometers, and other modern facilities.

Subject C—Social Economy

SOCIAL ECONOMY 281—Poverty and Dependence. Professor DEVINE.
Th. and F. at 4.30, first half-year. 418 L.

The purpose of this course and of Social Economy 282, which follows, is to study dependence and measures of relief, and to analyze the more important movements which aim to improve social conditions. An attempt is made to measure the extent of dependence, both in its definite forms, as in charitable and penal institutions, and in its less recognized and definite forms, as when it results in the lowering of the standard of living or the placing of unreasonably heavy burdens upon children or widows. Among the special classes of social debtors which are studied, besides the paupers, the vagrants, the dissipated, and the criminals, who require discipline or segregation as well as relief, are: Orphans and other dependent children; the sick and disabled; the aged and infirm; the widow and the deserted family; the immigrant and the displaced laborer; the underfed and consequently short-lived worker.

Given in 1905—06 and in alternate years thereafter.

SOCIAL ECONOMY 282—Principles of Relief. Professor DEVINE.
Th. and F. at 4.30, second half-year. 418 L.

In this course the normal standard of living is considered concretely to secure a basis from which deficiencies may be estimated. A large number of individual typical relief problems are presented, and from these, by a “case system,” analogous to that of the modern law school, the principles of relief are deduced. Among the larger movements to be considered are: Charity organization; social settlements; housing reform; the elimination of disease; the restriction of child labor; and the prevention of overcrowding, and especially the congestion of population in the tenement-house districts of the great cities.

Given in 1903-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

SOCIAL ECONOMY 283—Pauperism and Poor Laws. Professor SEAGER.
M. at 3.30 and 4.30, first half-year. 418 L.

This is an historical and comparative course intended to supplement Social Economy 281 and 282. Lectures on the history of the English poor law are followed by discussions of farm colonies, the boarding-out system for children, old-age pensions, and other plans of relief currently advocated in England. On this basis the public relief problems of New York State and City and the institutions attempting their solution are studied by means of excursions, lectures, and discussions.

SOCIAL ECONOMY 285—The Standard of Living. Professor DEVINE.
Th. and F. at 4.30, first half-year. 418 L.

A concrete study of the standard of living in New York City in the classes which are above the line of actual dependence, but below or near the line of full nutrition and economic independence. While this course will not be given in the year 1905-06, assignments will be made in the School of Philanthropy for research in such portions of this field as suitably prepared students may elect to undertake.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

SOCIAL ECONOMY 286—The Prevention and Diminution of Crime. Professor DEVINE.
Th. and F. at 4.30, second half-year. 418 L.

This course will deal with the social function of the penal and police systems. Special attention will be given to such subjects as juvenile courts; the probation system; indeterminate sentence; treatment of discharged prisoners; the system of local jails; segregation of incorrigibles, and prison labor.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

SOCIAL ECONOMY 290—Crime and Criminal Anthropology. Professor GIDDINGS.

Students desiring to make a special study of crime, criminal anthropology, and the theory of criminal responsibility may take the lectures of Sociology 256 or of Social Economy 286 and follow prescribed readings under the direction of Professor GIDDINGS.

SOCIAL ECONOMY 299-300—Seminar in Social Economy. Professor DEVINE.
Two hours a week. Hours to be arranged.

The work of the Seminar for 1905-07 will be a study of recent developments in the social and philanthropic activities of New York City; e. g., the social settlements; parks and playgrounds; outside activities of public schools; children’s institutions; relief societies; agencies for the aid of immigrants, and the preventive work of organized charities.

COURSES IN THE SCHOOL OF PHILANTHROPY

The School of Philanthropy, conducted by the Charity Organization Society, under the direction of Professor Devine, offers courses* aggregating not less than ten hours a week throughout the academic year, and also a Summer School course of six weeks in June and July. These courses are open to regular students of Columbia University who satisfy the director that they are qualified to pursue them with profit, and are accepted as a minor for candidates for an advanced degree.

The program of studies for 1905-06 is as follows:

            A—General survey (forty lectures) ; B—Dependent families (fifty lectures); C—Racial traits and social conditions (thirty-five lectures); D—Constructive social work (fifty lectures) ; E—Child-helping agencies (forty lectures); F—Treatment of the criminal (thirty lectures); G—Administration of charitable and educational institutions (thirty lectures); H—The State in its relation to charities and correction (forty lectures).

* These courses are given in the United Charities Building, corner Fourth Avenue and 22d Street.

 

COURSES IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE

ECONOMICS 1-2—Introduction to Economics—Practical Economic Problems. Professors SELIGMAN and SEAGER, and Dr. JOHNSON.
Section 1, M. and W. at 9.30, and F. at 11.30. Section 2, M., W., and F. at 11.30. M. and W. recitations in 415 L. F. lecture in 422 L.

 

COURSES IN BARNARD COLLEGE

ECONOMICS A—Outlines of Economics. Professor MOORE and Dr. JOHNSON.
Three hours, first half-year.
Section 1, Tu., Th., and S. at 9.30. Section 2, Tu. and Th. at 11.30, and S. at 9.30.

ECONOMICS 4—Economic History of England and the United States. Professor MOORE and Dr. JOHNSON.
M., W., and F. at 10.30, second half-year.

ECONOMICS 105—The Labor Problem. Professor SEAGER.
Tu. and Th. at 1.30, first half-year.

The topics treated in this course are the rise of the factory system, factory legislation, the growth of trade unions and changes in the law in respect to them, the policies of trade unions, strikes, lockouts, arbitration and conciliation, proposed solutions of the labor problem, and the future of labor in the United States.

ECONOMICS 120—Practical Economic Problems. Professor SEAGER.
Tu. and Th. at 1.30, second half-year.

The topics treated in this course are the defects in the monetary and banking systems of the United States, government expenditures and government revenues, protection vs. free trade, the relation of the government towards natural monopolies, and federal control of trusts.

ECONOMICS 121—English Social Reformers. Professor MOORE.
W. and F. at 1.30, first half-year.

A critical study of the social teachings of Carlyle, Ruskin, John Stuart Mill, Kingsley, and Thomas H. Green.
Open to students that have taken Course A or an equivalent.

ECONOMICS 122—Economic Theory. Professor MOORE.
W. and F. at 1.30, second half-year.

A critical study of Marshall’s Principles of Economics. The principal aim of this course is to present the methods and results of recent economic theory.
Open to students that have taken Course A or an equivalent.

ECONOMICS 109—Communistic and Socialistic Theories. Professor CLARK.
Tu. and Th. at 11.30, first half-year.

In this course a brief study is made of the works of St. Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Owen, and Lassalle, and a more extended study is made of Marx’s treatise on capital. Recent economic changes, such as the formation of trusts and strong trade unions, are examined with a view to ascertaining what effect they have had on the modern socialistic movement.

ECONOMICS 110—Theories of Social Reform. Professor CLARK.
Tu. and Th. at 11.30, second half-year.

In this course a study is made of modern semi-socialistic movements and of such reforms as have for their object the improvement of the condition of the working class. Municipal activities, factory legislation, the single tax, recent agrarian movements and measures for the regulation of monopolies are studied.

SOCIOLOGY 151-152—Principles of Sociology. Professor GIDDINGS.
Tu. and Th. at 2.30.

This is a fundamental course, intended to lay a foundation for advanced work. In the first half-year, in connection with a text-book study of theory, lectures are given on the social traits, organization, and welfare of the American people at various stages of their history, and students are required to analyze and classify sociological material of live interest, obtained from newspapers, reviews, and official reports. In the second half-year, lectures are given on the sociological systems of important writers, including Montesquieu, Comte, Spencer, Schäffle, De Greef, Gumplowicz, Ward, and Tarde.

SOCIOLOGY 153-154 —Family Organization. Dr. ELSIE CLEWS PARSONS.
Tu. at 3.30, bi-weekly.

Field work in the study of family groups. Consultations.
Open to Seniors.

In connection with the lectures and field work of this course opportunities are given to students to become acquainted with the more important private institutions for social betterment in New York City, and to study the organization and activity of the various public agencies charged with the welfare of the community.

 

COURSES IN THE SUMMER SESSION

sA—Economic History of England and America. Lectures, recitations, and essays. Dr. JOHNSON.
Five hours a week at 1.30. 501 F. Credit I
(Equivalent, when supplemented by prescribed reading, to Economics 4.)

sB—Principles of Economics. Lectures and class discussions. Dr. JOHNSON.
Five hours a week at 2.30. 501 F. Credit I.
(Equivalent, when supplemented by prescribed reading, to Economics 1.)

sA1—Principles of Sociology. Descriptive and theoretical. Professor GIDDINGS.
Five hours a week at 10.30. 415 L. Credit I, II.
(Equivalent to Sociology IS1-)

sA2—Principles of Sociology. History of sociological theory. Professor GIDDINGS.
Five hours a week at 9.30. 415 L. Credit I, II.
(Equivalent to Sociology 152.)

Source: Columbia University. Bulletin of Information. Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science and the Several Undergraduate Faculties. Announcement 1905-07. pp. 3, 24-36.

Image Source: Roberto Ferrari, Unveiling Alma Mater [Sept 23, 1903]. Columbia University Libraries. July 15, 2104.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Visiting Economics Professors, 1896-1943.

__________________________

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

The memorandum deserves reproduction in its entirety sometime (and will probably be done by somebody else), but I intend to serve at least several blogpost-sized portions from Leland’s memo. So look forward for more tables/excerpts to come.

Today we have (1) a list compiled by Leland of visiting professors to the department of economics who had not been absorbed into the faculty as of 1945 (e.g. George Stigler was still at Minnesota at the time of the memo was written. Later posts include (2) data on economics faculty 1944/45 and the trend of enrolments and (3) talent-scouting lists for possible permanent, visiting and joint appointments.

__________________________

 

List of visiting professors
(excluding faculty members who frequently were visitors before joining the University)

[An asterisk (*) for deceased colleagues]

Visiting Professor

 Year Institution

Present Location
G. W. S. Adams

1902
Henry C. Adams*

1902

 Michigan
Clarence E. Ayers

1923

 Amherst

Texas
Stephan Bauer

1899

 Chamber of Commerce, Brünn, Austria
Spurgeon Bell

1920

 Texas

National Resources Planning Board
E. L. Bogart

1910

 Princeton

Illinois (Emeritus)
Arthur J. Boynton*

1914

 Kansas
Harry G. Brown

1917

 Missouri

Missouri
J. B. Canning

1924

 Stanford

Stanford
T. N. Carver

1908

 Harvard

Harvard (Emeritus)
Paul T. Cherington

1914

 Harvard

McKinsey & Co., Management Consultants, 60 East 42nd St., N.Y.C.
F. E. Clark

1921

 Northwestern

Northwestern
F. R. Clow*

1904

 State Normal, Oshkosh, Wisconsin
J. B. Condliffe

1941

 California

California
Frederick E. Croxton

1926

 Ohio State

Columbia
E. E. Day

1910

 Harvard

Cornell
F. S. Deibler

1917

 Northwestern

Northwestern (Emeritus)
J. C. Duncan

1913

 Illinois
J. F. Ebersole

1914

 Minnesota

Harvard
Donald English

1916

 Cornell

Cornell
Frank A. Fetter

1926

 Princeton

Princeton (Emeritus)
Martin G. Glaeser

1930

 Wisconsin

Wisconsin
John Paul Good

1899

 Eastern Ill. State Normal, Charleston
Frank D. Graham

1930

 Princeton

Princeton
Waldo E. Grimes

1939

 Kansas State College

Kansas State College
Lawrence H. Grinstead

1926

 Ohio State
Walton H. Hamilton

1917

 Amherst

Yale
Matthew B. Hammond*

1921

 Ohio State
Max S. Handman*

1928

 Texas
Lewis H. Haney

1914

 Texas

New York
Charles O. Hardy

1923
1925)
1929)
1933)

 State Univ. of Iowa

Brookings Institution

Federal Reserve Bank, Kansas City, Missouri
Ernest L. Harris

1904
Grover G. Heubner

1926

 Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania
Jens P. Jensen*

1920)
1930)

 Kansas
Alvin S. Johnson

1909

 Texas

New School for Social Research
Eliot Jones

1925

 Stanford

Stanford
Albert S. Keister

1926)
1927)

 North Carolina Woman’s College

North Carolina Woman’s College
William S. Krebs

1921

 Washington University

Washington University
Robert R. Kuczynski

1923

 Statistical Office, Berlin

12 Lawn Rd., London, N.W. 3, England
Ben W. Lewis

1931)
1937)

 Oberlin

Oberlin
H. L. Lutz

1915

 Oberlin

Princeton
Leverett S. Lyon

1926)
1927

 Brookings Institution

Chicago Association of Commerce
James D. Magee

1916

 Cincinnati

New York
T. W. Mitchell

1911

 Minnesota
Bernard Moses*

1898

 California
Edwin G. Nourse

1931

 Brookings Institution

Brookings Institution
T. W. Page*

1898

 Randolph-Macon
Maffeo Pantaleoni*

1896

 Naples
C. A. Phillips

1931

 State Univ. of Iowa

State Univ. of Iowa
H. H. Preston

1924

 Univ. of Washington

Univ. of Washington
Benjamin M. Rastall

1910

 Wisconsin
H. L. Reed

1923

 Washington University

Cornell
R. R. Renne

1940

 Montana State

Montana State
Edward V. Robinson*

1908

 Minnesota
Clyde O. Ruggles

1916)
1920)

 Ohio State

Harvard
William J. Shultz

1926

 College of the City of New York

College of the City of New York
Guy E. Snider

1915

 College of the City of New York

College of the City of New York
A. E. Staley

1941

 Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy

School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, D.C.
George J. Stigler

1943

 Minnesota

Minnesota
Walter W. Stewart

1915

 Missouri

Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.
R. H. Tawney

1939

 London

London
George O. Virtue*

1915

 Nebraska
Norman J. Ware

1942

 Wesleyan

Wesleyan
G. S. Wehrwein*

1940

 Wisconsin
Louis Weld

1916

 Yale

McCann-Erikson Co., New York
Albert C. Whitaker

1912)
1913)

 Stanford

Stanford (Emeritus)
Nathaniel R. Whitney

1921

 Cincinnati

Proctor and Gamble, Cincinnati
Murray S. Wildman*

1909

 Missouri
John H. Williams

1921

 Northwestern

Harvard
Milburn L. Wilson

1923

 Montana

Chief, Nutrition Programs Branch, Office of Distribution, War Food Administration
Ambrose P. Winston

1913

 Pekin
A. B. Wolfe

1915

 Texas

Ohio State
Holbrook Working

1928

 Stanford

Stanford
Bruce Wyman*

1903

 Harvard
Allyn A. Young*

1912

 Washington University
Ernest C. Young

1939

 Purdue

Purdue

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., “Post-War Plans” Simeon E. Leland, 1945″.

Image Source: Detail of Simeon E. Leland photograph. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03717, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

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”.