Today’s artifact provides a collection of suggestions from three young faculty members of the University of Chicago department of economics in 1957 regarding (inter alia) thesis writing, linkages with business/law/statistics faculty, long-term staffing, and the creation of a working-papers series. After reading the report, I guess one should not be terribly surprised that all three of these young turks would ultimately end up spending the lion’s share of the rest of their working lives elsewhere than Chicago. Basically what we have below is a young insider’s view of how to proceed in promoting excellence at Chicago, though it does not really have the ring of a majority view of that faculty. For fans of Saturday Night Live, one might say Christ et al. wanted “less cowbell” but the “more cowbell” faction was stronger. [An alternate source for the SNL sketch]
The following report was written by Carl Christ who incorporated assessments by his fellow committee members Martin J. Bailey and Zvi Griliches. These guys were only ca. 34, 30, and 27 years old, respectively, in 1957. One suspects that the acting chair of the department of economics at the University of Chicago, D. Gale Johnson, was hoping to tap the minds of the younger faculty members for some fresh ideas. Both Friedman and Stigler had already entered mid-life at 45 and 46 years of age, respectively.
I have added footnotes to the text in square brackets, e.g. [1], where descriptions of the reader’s markings by T. W. Schultz are provided.
_______________________
T. S. Schultz’s handwritten notes attached to Report
I. Christ-G-B
- dust off Master’s (hold)
- treatment of the weak
- rec[commend?] students with more enthusiasm
- more history (underway)
- combine workshops?
II. Business –Law-Statistics
O.K. more cross listing of courses. List of faculties for use in assigning committees (underway)
III. Information
prong 1. Special seminar (tied to more visitors)
prong 2. more 1 & 2 year visitors
prong 3. dist our staff (2 v.G.
prong 4. reprint service (underway)
_______________________
copy of T. W. S.
REPORT OF THE BAILEY-CHRIST-GRILICHES COMMITTEE*
*The committee was appointed by D. Gale Johnson, acting chairman of the Department, pursuant to a motion passed at a department meeting late in the spring quarter of 1957. The report was written by Carl F. Christ, chairman of the committee, and has been approved in substance by Martin J. Bailey and Zvi Griliches, the other two committee members.
The committee has met together several times. In addition, each of us has “held hearings” with colleagues on numerous informal occasions. Our original terms of reference centered on a long range view of the question of staffing the department. But in our discussions we have ranged very widely.
We have dealth [sic] with five broad topics, some of which are interconnected. The five are, loosely speaking:
- Instruction, training and placement of students.
- Relations with the business, law, and statistics faculties.
- Information about the department for its members, for the economics profession and for prospective students.
- The allocation of resources in economics research.
- Kinds of economists the department ought to try to hire.
On some of these topics we have concrete suggestions, on some we have vague suggestions, and on some we merely have questions. This report provides a brief account of our discussions, and in the course of it it the suggestions and questions will appear.
(1) Instruction, training and placement of students.
This topic has not been a major one in our discussions. However we have several points under it.
First, the M.A. degree ought to be dusted off and made more respectable and more meaningful to students, so that those who do not choose or are not able to continue for the Ph.D. can go away from here with the feeling that they have made a worthwhile investment, to our credit as well as theirs.
Second, we ought to do a better job with our relatively weak Ph.D. aspirants in two respects: First, in discouraging or prohibiting from Ph.D. work any student who, in our opinion, is not capable of success by our standards. Second, once a student has been permitted to go ahead on his thesis, in encouraging and assisting him so that he is able to finish within a reasonable period of time and to have the feeling that he has been treated fairly. The reason for mentioning this point is that we have come across reports of several students who worked long and hard on theses and went through several revisions, with the result that they felt we had been unreasonably exacting and had unnecessarily delayed their degrees. [1] If the M.A. degree is made more respectable as suggested above, there should be less difficulty in maintaining our Ph.D. standards and at the same time avoiding long-drawn-out struggles with marginal Ph.D. students. [2]
Third, we ought to be more vigorous and more liberal in recommending our students for jobs. There appears to be some evidence that in making recommendations we typically assume that the prospective employer has standards as high as ours, and so sometimes fail to place some of our people in jobs that instead are filled by less qualified students from elsewhere. [3]
Fourth, we ought to give at least some of our students a better knowledge of history and inability to make use of it in economics. Too many of our students go away with only poor knowledge in this area. At the same time, in Earl Hamilton and John Nef, not to mention others, the department has access to some of the best historical talent that is to be found anywhere. Can it not be turned to the advantage of more students? [4]
Fifth, we ought to economize our resources a bit by combining into one the workshop appearance in the thesis seminar of those students whose workshop performances appear ex post to have served the purpose of the thesis seminar. It might also be possible to combine the Ph.D. oral examination with the seminar appearance in some cases, thus making a further saving.
Sixth, we ought to take more advantage of the resources in the business, law, and statistics faculties, and be prepared to let them do the same with us (see topic 2 below). [5]
(2) Relations with the business, law, and statistics faculties.
The committee met for an hour with Allen Wallis, James Lorie, and Arnold Harberger to discuss informally the probable future course of relations between the department and the school. From this it appeared that the school intends to continue to send many of its advanced students to the department for training in price theory and monetary and income theory, and also that the school will welcome students from the department who wish to study topics that are offered in the school. [6] It also appeared that the school intends to invest fairly heavily in staff in the areas of industrial and market organization in the public regulation of business (this interested us because we feel that one of the main weaknesses in the department’s coverage lies here; see topic 5 below). [7]
We discussed the fact that while relations between the department and the school have always been cordial, there has not been as much flow back and forth as desirable, and in particular that some of our students would be interested in the business school’s work fail to follow up this interest because our demands on their time are quite heavy. We concluded that if there were more cross-listing of courses in the catalog and time schedules (the business school now does a better job of this than we do), and if some of their faculty came to our seminars and oral examinations and vice versa, and if there were more preliminary examination committees and thesis committees with members from both the school and the department, then in the course of meeting their degree requirements, any interested economics department students will find it easier to draw on the resources of the business school and vice versa.[8]
A similar approach to law and statistics would appear promising.
(3) Information about the department for its members, for the economics profession, and for prospective students.
One of the most commonly recurring themes in our discussions with each other and with “witnesses” in our “hearings” was that we do not provide good enough information for each other and for outsiders about the kind of work that is going on here, and the advantages we believe we have. Our discussions on this point have led to one of the two major suggestions we have to offer (the other appears below in section 5).
The suggestion is to set up a four-pronged program something like the following. (We will quickly list the four prongs, and then return with some comments.) First, set up a sort of special seminar (which might be called the Economics Research Center Seminar) to meet more or less regularly about twice a month, at which the best work that students and faculty and guests are doing would be presented to the department and its guests. Second, have a larger number of one-year or two-year visitors from all over the U. S. and the world, either as post-doctoral fellows or research associates or the like, whose main responsibility here would be to work on their own research and participate in the special seminar, as well as to take part in one or more workshops and research projects. Third, distribute dittoed copies of our essentially finished work to a selected mailing list of economists in the US and abroad, as the Agricultural Economics group already does informally. And fourth, have a reprint series that would carry the best published articles and papers by our faculty, students, and guests.
It is clear that if such a special seminar is set up and no cut is made in the number of meetings of the other workshops and seminars, the faculty workload will increase. Since we feel that it is already pretty high, it seems sensible to suggest that each workshop skip one meeting each month. This should approximately compensate for the extra load created by the special seminar.*
*A crude survey of the faculty attendance at the Agricultural Economics Seminar and the Chile, Labor, Money, Public Finance, and Econometrics Workshops yields the estimate that about 40 faculty-hours (that is, about 20 man-seminars) per week go into these workshops. Assuming that about 10 faculty members would come to each special seminar, about every two weeks, this would require a weekly average of about 10 faculty-hours (or about 5 man-seminars), which would be released if the frequency of meetings of the workshops were reduced about 25%. Another economy measure in this direction is mentioned under topic (2), fifth item.
(In response to the special seminar idea, some colleagues have suggested that the important thing is to circulate advance notice of particularly good work that is about to be presented, so that interested faculty members and others can attend, and that if this can be done, there is no need to have a special seminar; the regular workshop sessions will suffice. If the idea is accepted that particularly good work ought to be publicized within the department before it is presented, then the question of whether to do this via notices of regular workshop meetings or via a special seminar can be discussed as a procedural matter.) [9]
The special seminar idea is tied in with the idea of more visitors, for one of the results we hope for is that the visitors will see our best work, and will spread the word about what kinds of things are being done here, when they leave and go elsewhere. [10]
The reprint series and the distribution of the dittoed manuscripts will, we hope, have a similar effect. Further, but dittoed manuscripts will enable some members of the profession at large to become familiar with our results many months before they can be brought out in published form. [11]
Other simpler measures that might improve the flow of information are the following: Putting out a special department circular or flyer describing the department, the workshops, the interchange of research among faculty and advanced students, and the large amount of faculty attention paid to students; returning to the practice of giving brief descriptions of courses in the catalog (and in the above-mentioned circular), instead of merely course titles as our department has been doing recently; and publishing an annual report for the Economics Research Center. [12] The matter of job recommendations for our students, which is related to the topic of providing information, was touched on under topic (1) above.
(4) The allocation of resources and economics research.
The area of economics that is the most fully developed, the most systematic, the most firmly established, and probably the most reliable for understanding and controlling economic events is the more or less traditional theory of prices, distribution, and the allocation of resources, based on the tools of supply, demand, and marginal analysis. Because it’s postulates (including utility maximization, profit maximization, and a fairly widespread knowledge of market alternatives) appear to be rather unrealistic, this theory has the reputation among many people of being dry, abstract, and of little or no practical value. In the opinion of the committee and of many economists in our department and elsewhere, this theory is a powerful one and can lead to highly useful results when applied to real-world problems. Indeed, one of the most productive kinds of activity for economists appears to be to apply this theory to situations where public and private policies are inappropriate to the goals people have in mind. [13]
In our opinion, the main strength of our department lies in just this kind of activity. We have a group of people who are very devoted to and very good at discovering important, unsolved economic problems that can be solved with the aid of this kind of theory, and solving them. [14]
Our agricultural economists’ approach to the farm problem is one example. Their work on optimum storage rules and on the development of natural resources or others. Our department’s work on economic growth in a sense is another, since when we find that the growth in national product is not fully accounted for by inputs of labor and capital is usually measured, we begin to look for some missing input, either in the form of something that shifts the production function, or in the form of some quality improvements that we have missed in the labor and/or capital: knowledge in either case. This is related to work by Friedman, Becker, in the labor workshop on the value of education as an investment, and to Knight’s concept of human beings as a form of capital. Harberger’s work on depletion allowances, and on the welfare costs of the U.S. tax system, are other examples. Friedman’s and Cagan’s work on the demand and supply of money are examples too, in the sense that attention is focused on the behavior of economic units seeking to maximize their utility or profit in their holding of money and their borrowing and lending operations. Friedman’s and Reid’s consumption work is similar in that into rests on the same view of individual behavior. The whole Chile project is an example par excellence. Friedman’s suggestions for allowing the price system more scope in the fields of education, military recruiting, and the like, for which Friedman and indirectly, the department are so well known, are still others, as is Becker’s free banking scheme, though there is probably more disagreement among economists generally about questions like these that about the other work mentioned above.
While it is clear to us that applications of the familiar theory of allocation of resources very productive, it seems equally clear that the real frontiers of economics lies elsewhere. Some areas that have claimed attention so far are economic history, political science, sociology and social psychology and cultural anthropology, psychology (including learning theory), information theory, statistical decision theory, linear programming, the theory of games. It seems at least as likely that major advances in economics will come by one of these routes or some as-yet-unidentified route as they will come from applications of the familiar resource-allocation theory.
The foregoing statement is so broad that it is almost certain to be true, and almost useless as a guide to research workers interested in major advances. The committee polled itself as to where it thinks pay dirt lies, and where it does not lie, with results something like the following: Among the areas particularly likely to be fruitful are the borderland with learning theory and psychology concerning choice and decision-making [15], the borderland with statistics concerning decision theory and game theory [16], the borderland with anthropology concerning culture and values [17], the borderland with political science concerning political institutions [18]. Also promising, we feel, are mathematical approaches generally, including mathematical approaches to some of the above mentioned borderlands. [19] None of us wanted to rule out linear programming, though none of us was enthusiastic about input-output.
In summary of this topic, we have two statements: First, the familiar resource allocation theory is a powerful tool and there remains a rich field for its application. Second, it seems to us that if some resources are invested in related but different areas such as those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, there is now a worthwhile chance of that substantial pay-off in the form of new knowledge relevant to economics.
(5) Kinds of economists the department ought to try to hire.
Over the past few years several members of the department (and a good many outsiders!) have expressed the view that our department is too homogeneous in several ways. [20] Most of us rely heavily on resource allocation theory, as suggested in the preceding section of this report, and do not emphasize peripheral and possibly frontier areas such as decision theory, learning theory, information theory, psychology, anthropology, and the like. [21] Most of us were trained at Chicago at some stage, are essentially anti-socialist, [22] have essentially similar views about monetary and fiscal policy, have similar views about how far public policy should rely on the price mechanism and how far it should interfere with it, and are primarily theoretically and analytically oriented as opposed to institutionally oriented.
In recent department meetings, our discussion of this matter has often gone something like this: First, we more or less agree that we ought to diversify by seeking a socialist, or an institutionalist, or something of the sort. [23] Then we considered names of economists who might qualify, and one by one we reject them on the ground that they are not really good economists. The discussion ends when someone says, “There’s really nobody good in that category.”
Granted that we want to maintain a high level of quality in the department, there are at least two difficulties involved in any attempt to diversify. One is that in hiring people we like to feel that we know them pretty well, so as to make informed decisions. And the younger people whom we know the best, by and large, are our own former students and fellow-students. This creates and perpetuates a bias in favor of people trained at Chicago. [24] The bias is not so strong, of course, in the cases of people who have published and made reputations, but even here it appears to exist (look at the people who were brought here as associate professor from elsewhere, and ask how many have had training at Chicago).
A second difficulty is simply that it is hard to separate judgment about the quality of an economist from judgment about his position on questions of research strategy and of economic policy. We agree in principle that high quality is very important, and also that it is possible for powerful and prolific minds to disagree in good faith concerning research strategy and public policy. Still there is a temptation to feel that one’s own views sincerely arrived at are best, and that somehow an economist who disagrees strongly with them cannot really be a very good economist. [25]
It seems to the committee that the real issue is not diversification per se. We see the issue somewhat as follows: As we said in the foregoing section of the report, we believe that the real frontiers of economics lie in directions that are somewhat unorthodox by the lights of the department. [26] We also believe that there are high-quality economists who are unorthodox in the same sense. If these two premises are correct, then our interest as a department in pushing forward the frontiers of economics must prompt us to make a serious attempt to add a few such people to our staff. It is only in this sense the diversification seems to be a worthwhile aim. [27]
The question of what sort of people the department ought to try to hire includes not only the problem of finding economists of high quality who appeared to have productive unorthodox approaches. [28] It also includes the problem of rounding out the subject-matter coverage of the department.
The committee pulled itself again, this time as to the subject matter areas that the department ought to pay special attention to, in seeking new faculty. The results were as follows.
For replacement of staff lost in recent years, the two high-ranking fields were mathematical economics-econometrics, and industrial and market organization in social control of business. [29] (The second of these seems less urgent for us, in the light of the business school’s intention to invest in it; see topic 2 above.) Ranking almost as high was the history of economic thought. [30]
For expansion, we thought of business fluctuations, the economics of the firm, and American economic history (the latter mainly so as to free Earl Hamilton to give work in his real specialty, European economic history, without sacrificing our offering in the American field).
The last two sections of the report may be summarized thus (and here is the second major suggestion referred to earlier). It is the feeling of the committee (1) that we should place a high value on quality, and (2) that in view of our belief that the present composition of the department is weak in areas where the frontiers of economics are to be found, we should make a serious attempt to find high quality people whose interests and competence give promise of advancing the frontier, as suggested in the end of the preceding section of the report. We also suggest that the department pay special attention to the fields mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. In particular, we suggest that the department undertake to appoint a person in the mathematical economics-econometrics area beginning in the fall of 1958. [31]
There is no reason why one or more of these things should not be combined in the same person. And, of course, there is no reason why we should pass up opportunities to hire good economists who are essentially orthodox by our lights, if our resources will permit us to do that as well as meet our author needs.
Handwritten Markings and Remarks
[1] Vertical line in left margin marks the last two sentences of paragraph.
[2] Question mark in left margin for this sentence.
[3] “a good point” in left margin for second sentence of paragraph. “need to ask[?] terms of the specific job + not general letters” in the right margin
[4] “good” in left margin. Vertical line in left-hand margin marks the entire paragraph.
[5] “OK” in left margin. Vertical line in left-hand margin marks the entire paragraph.
[6] “good” written in left margin next to this sentence.
[7] Vertical line in left margin marks the last sentence of the paragraph.
[8] “get list from these committees” in left margin for this sentence.
[9] “OK” in left margin for the last sentence of this paragraph.
[10] “OK” in left margin next to this paragraph.
[11] “OK” in left margin for the last sentence of this paragraph.
[12] underlined “merely course titles as our department has” and “publishing an annual report for the Economics”
[13] Four vertical lines in the left margin mark the last sentence of this paragraph.
[14] Vertical line in the left margin marks the entire paragraph.
[15] Underlined: “borderland with learning theory and psychology concerning choice and decision-making”, “(1)” in left margin.
[16] Underlined: “statistics concerning decision theory and game theory”, “(2)” in left margin.
[17] Underlined: “anthropology concerning culture and values”, “(3)” in left margin.
[18] Underlined: “political science concerning political institutions”, “(4)” in left margin.
[19] “(5)” with a vertical line in the left margin marking “mathematical approaches generally, including mathematical approaches to some of the above mentioned borderlands.”
[20] “is too homogeneous in several ways” is underlined.
[21] “decision theory, learning theory, information theory, psychology, anthropology” is underlined.
[22] “anti-socialist” is circled
[23] “socialist” and “institutionalist” are each circled.
[24] Vertical line in left margin marking the second, third, and fourth sentences of this paragraph.
[25] Vertical line in left margin marking this entire paragraph.
[26] “economics lie in directions that are somewhat unorthodox” is underlined.
[27] Vertical line in left margin marking the last two sentences of this paragraph.
[28] “productive unorthodox approaches” is circled
[29] “mathematical economics-econometrics” is circled “also Stigler” written in left hand margin with reference to “industrial and market organization”
[30] “history of economic thought” is underlined, connected with short line to bottom margin note “Stigler”.
[31] Curly vertical line in the left margin marks the entire paragraph.
Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 42, Folder 8.
Mimeograph copy without marginal notes also found in Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder “Correspondence, 1954-1959”.
Image Source: Professor Carl F. Christ in Johns Hopkins University yearbook. Hullabaloo 1962.