The previous post provided transcriptions of the annual reports to the Dean by the chairman of the economics department from 1932 through 1941. This post skips ahead to the middle of the 1950s to give us a glimpse of the post-war Harvard economics department. Seymour Harris’ big take-aways from his 45 year survey of undergraduate and graduate economics courses taught by Harvard economics faculty: (i) “the proportion of undergraduate courses given by full professors has fallen from 75 to 35 percent” and (ii) “graduate courses are relatively 5 times as numerous as they were in 1909-10.” (from July 3, 1956 cover letter to Dean McGeorge Bundy that accompanied the report transcribed below).
It is also interesting to note that the economics department’s continues to plead for more funds to compensate it for “…about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account[ing] for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis)…”. Harris wrote this report two decades after the Graduate School of Public Administration had opened for business.
____________________________
CONFIDENTIAL
June 30, 1956
Report to the Dean of the Faculty for the Academic Year 1955-56
by Seymour E. Harris, Chairman of the Department of Economics
Contents
Undergraduate Instruction
- More Mature Staff for Economics 1.
- Contents of Economics 1.
- Staff Meetings of Economics 1.
- Lectures in Economics 1.
- Economics Tutorial.
- High Honors Concentrators.
- Seminars for Honors Graduates.
Allocation of Resources
- Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa.
- Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
- Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
- Table 1 – Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56.
- Table 2 – Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank.
- Table 3 – Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate.
- The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction.
- Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members of Faculty.
- Ibid., Statistical Summary.
- Number of Faculty by Rank.
Relations with G.S.P.A.
- Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A.
- Contributions of G.S.P.A. to Economics Department.
- Overall Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars.
Library Problems
- Library Problems.
Fellowships
- Inadequate Fellowships.
- Campaign for Additional Money.
- Outside Fellowships.
Research and Personnel Problems
- Competition of Research Fellowships for Potential Teachers.
- Research Projects.
- Financing of Pay of Director of Research Projects.
- Small Research Grants.
- Secretarial Help.
- Personnel Changes.
- Honors, etc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Undergraduate Instruction
The Department is especially concerned with the problem of undergraduate instruction. Confronted with a trend away from economics the country over (see my Memo to the Alumni of the Harvard Graduate School in Economics, May, 1956, p. 4) and the competition of an unusually able corps of undergraduate teachers in competing fields at Harvard and notably in history and government we are paying increased attention to our undergraduate instruction. In the last year we have taken the following steps:
- More Mature Staff for Economics 1. We are using a larger proportion of instructors and assistant professors in Economics 1. We expect that half the Economics 1 staff will consist of instructors and assistant professors in 1956-57 as compared with 20 per cent in 1955-56.
- Contents of Economics 1. We are revising Economics 1 for 1956-57. Economics 1 has become too technical. One advantage of increasing the average age of the staff is that the older men are less inclined to teach the highly technical economics they get in graduate courses. Probably less than 20 per cent of those enrolled in Economics 1 are, or are likely to become, concentrators in economics; and no more than 1-2 per cent will become economists. Our major responsibility is to give the student in Economics 1 relatively simple economic theory and relate it to the major issues of public policy. We intend to devote more time to integrating our economics with history and political science. Macroeconomics will continue to receive a major part of our attention, but less time will be given to the economics of the firm.
- Staff Meetings of Economics 1. The Chairman now meets with the Economics 1 staff for 1½ hours every 2 weeks and in every possible way is trying to make the teaching fellow and other junior members, who contribute so much time and enthusiasm to our teaching program, feel as though they are an important part of our department staff.
- Lectures in Economics 1. This year we doubled our lectures in Economics 1 — a lecture every other week. In these lectures we try to go over ground not covered in the readings and also incidentally to give the undergraduate an opportunity to listen to some of the top economists in the country. We are now not disposed to increase the number of lectures further but we shall continue the experiment. Of this I am convinced — lectures are not likely to be as important in Economics 1 as in the elementary course in government and history (Social Science). The undergraduate probably gets much more from discussions of economics in small sections than from lectures.
- Economics Tutorial. Tutorial in economics is not as good as it ought to be. We are wrestling with this problem. We intend to have more meetings of tutors and to impress upon them the importance of tutorial. At one of our Executive Committee meetings, we had a frank discussion with the seven masters and several senior tutors concerning our tutorial work. Our Junior tests, tied to house tutorial, seem to be working well. This year we prepared an extensive reading list for Sophomore tutorial; and next year we intend to integrate tutorial and Economics 1 more than in the past. We hope that tutorial in the second half of the Sophomore year will deal with some of the theoretical problems that will be excluded from Economics 1.
- High Honors Concentrators. This year we had periodic meetings with all first and second group men in economics. At these meetings (one evening every two weeks) we try to encourage discussions of important problems in the seminar manner.
- Seminars for Honor Graduates. Economics 100 and 102 are two new courses (to be introduced in 1956-57 and 1957-58) to be open to Junior and Senior honors students. They will be run on a seminar basis, limited in enrollment, and will be integrated with tutorial. The student will get an opportunity to deal with theoretical problems and their empirical counterpart.
Allocation of Resources
- Enrollment of Undergraduates in Graduate Courses and Vice Versa. Here are some tables which throw some light on the allocation of resources between undergraduate and graduate courses. Generally courses for undergraduates and graduates are taken primarily by undergraduates, and courses for graduates primarily by graduates. Hence, we assume that the courses for undergraduates and graduates are in fact courses for undergraduates and courses for graduates are in fact courses for graduates. (In the spring term 1956 the percentage of Arts and Science graduate enrollment in courses for undergraduates and graduates was 14 or 1 per cent of the 1181 enrolled in these courses; the enrollment of undergraduates in courses primarily for graduates was 10 of 482, or 2 per cent).
- Increase in the Number of Undergraduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. Table 1 reveals relatively unimportant changes in the number of courses for undergraduates; and the net change in the number of courses for undergraduates and graduates (in fact undergraduate courses) in the last 40-50 years has not been large. In 1909-10, there were 10½ undergraduate courses (inclusive of half courses for undergraduates and graduates and exclusive of bracketed courses); in 1955-56, there were 14½ of such courses.
- Increase in the Number of Graduate Courses, 1909-10 to 1955-56. It is especially in graduate courses that the rise has been spectacular. In 1909-10 there were 1½ graduate courses in Economics (exclusive of bracketed ones); by 1929-30, there were 11; by 1939-40, there were 12½ courses; by 1949-50, there were 21½ courses; and by 1955-56, there were 24. All these totals include half courses.
- Table 1 — Distribution of Courses by Academic Rank, 1909-10 to 1955-56*
(Refers to Units of Full Courses)
1909-10 | 1919-20 | 1929-30 | 1939-40 | 1949-50 | 1955-56 | |||||||
Rank | U | G | U | G | U | G | U | G | U | G | U | G |
Full Prof. | 8 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 4 ½ | 7 | 7 ¼ | 16 ¾ | 8 | 15 ¼ | 5 | 18 |
Assoc. Prof. | — | — | — | — | 3 | 3 | 3 ¼ | 1 ¾ | 1 | 3 ¼ | 3 | 2 ½ |
Asst. Prof. | 1 ½ | ½ | 3 ½ | 2 ½ | 1 | — | ½ | — | 2 ½ | — | 4 | 2 |
Instructor & Lecturer | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | 1 ½ | 1 | 1 ½ | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 ½ | 1 ½ |
Total | 10 ½ | 1 ½ | 9 ½ | 10 ½ | 10 | 11 | 12 ½ | 19 ½ | 14 ½ | 21 ½ | 14 ½ | 24 |
- Table 2 — Courses Given by Faculty, 1909-10 to 1955-56, by Rank*
(Refers to Nearest Decimal point)
1909-10 | 1919-20 | 1929-30 | 1939-40 | 1949-50 | 1955-56 | |||||||
Rank | U | G | U | G | U | G | U | G | U | G | U | G |
Full Prof. | 76 | 66 | 32 | 67 | 45 | 64 | 58 | 86 | 55 | 73 | 35 | 75 |
Assoc. Prof. | — | — | — | — | 30 | 27 | 26 | 9 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 10 |
Asst. Prof. | 14 | — | 36 | 24 | 10 | — | 4 | — | 17 | — | 27 | 8 |
Instructor & Lecturer | 10 | 34 | 32 | 9 | 15 | 9 | 12 | 5 | 21 | 13 | 17 | 7 |
Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
* U = “undergraduate” and “undergraduate and graduate”; G = “graduate”.
Source: Compiled from Course of Study Volumes.
- Table 3 — Percentage of Courses, Undergraduate and Graduate
Total No. of Courses | % of Total Courses (Exclusive of Bracketed Courses) |
||
“Undergraduate” and “Undergraduate & Graduate” |
Graduate (Inclusive of G.S.P.A. Economics Courses) |
||
1909-10 | 12 | 88 | 12 |
1929-30 | 21 | 56 | 44 |
1939-40 | 32 | 39 | 61 |
1949-50 | 36 | 41 | 59 |
1955-56 | 38½ | 38 | 62 |
From 1909 to 1929-30 the percentage of graduate courses was up from 12 to 44 per cent; but since 1929-30 the rise has been less spectacular. In Table 2, we note the courses, both undergraduate and graduate, given by men of various rank, from 1909-10 to 1955-56. The following points should be noted.
- The Increased Importance of Graduate Instruction. In 1909-10 there were but 1½ out of 12 courses, or 12 per cent, graduate courses. By 1929-30 courses were roughly evenly divided between graduate and undergraduate. By 1939-40 and 1949-50 the ratio was about 60 per cent graduate courses; and by 1955-56, 62 per cent of all courses were graduate courses, or 5 times as much relatively as in 1909-10.
- Reduced Undergraduate Instruction by Higher Ranking Members Faculty. Whereas in 1909-10 full professors accounted for 76 per cent of undergraduate course work, by 1955-56 they gave only 35 per cent of these courses; and there has been a marked decline since 1949-50. The total of undergraduate courses taught by them dropped from 1949-50 to 1955-56 by 3, or 37 per cent, and of graduate courses rose by 2¾ or 18 per cent. A similar trend is evident for associate professors, though from 1949-50 to 1955-56, the percentage of undergraduate courses taught by associate professors rose. It is a striking fact that in 1955-56, full professors taught 37 per cent less undergraduate courses and 1700 per cent more graduate courses than in 1909-10. In the former year there were 4 full professors, each responsible on the average for 2 full undergraduate courses and ¼ graduate courses. In 1955-56, 13 full professors averaged 1/3 of 1 undergraduate course and 1.4 graduate courses. (All 13 were not on full time). It is clear that the trend is away from undergraduate teaching for permanent members of the Department.
- Ibid., Statistical Summary. As might be expected, the percentage of all graduate courses taught by full professors tends to rise and of undergraduate courses to fall — the latter courses taught by professors declined from 76 per cent in 1909-10 to 45 per cent in 1929-30, and to 35 per cent by 1955-56.
- Number of Faculty by Rank. In this connection, the number at different ranks is of some interest. The full professors account for a somewhat larger proportion (teaching fellows omitted) than 50 years ago; but permanent appointments are an increased percentage.
1909-10 | 1929-30 | 1939-40 | 1949-50 | 1955-56 | |
Professors | 4 | 5 | 12 | 13 | 13 |
Assoc. Professors | — | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
Asst. Professors | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
Lecturers and Instructors | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
Visiting, etc. Professors | 2 (part-time) |
3 (part-time) |
— | — | 1 |
Total (excl. Visiting) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 23 | 24 |
———— | ———— | ———— | ———— | ———— | ———— |
% Full Prof. (excl. Visiting) | 50 | 42 | 63 | 57 | 54 |
% Permanent (incl. Permanent Lecturers) | 50 | 67 | 89 | 74 | 75 |
Relations with the Graduate School of Public Administration
- Teaching Responsibilities of Economics Department in G.S.P.A. Our relations with the G.S.P.A. are of great importance. It is now close to 20 years since the G.S.P.A. was founded and yet the Department of Economics has never taken a long look at our relations. The Economics Department accounts for about one half the teaching burden of the G.S.P.A. and students in the G.S.P.A. account for about one third of all the graduate students in economics (on a full-time basis).
- Contributions of G.S.P.A to Economics Department. The G.S.P.A. has made an important contribution towards the Economics Department. It provides some research and secretarial help, good physical facilities, useful library, central facilities for students and faculty, an opportunity to give our students excellent seminars, and to meet outstanding scholars and practical men in government.
- Over-all Consideration of Number of G.S.P.A. Seminars. It may be that a decision should be made concerning the number of seminars. We tend to add one at a time, and the numbers now are at such a level that we may be putting a disproportionate amount of energy into these seminars. At any rate, net additions should be considered with care, given our available manpower. At present only 6 of the 18 permanent members of our faculty are not associated with the G.S.P.A.; and of the 6, Professors Dorfman and Duesenberry are about to participate. Of 27 courses to be given by permanent members of the Department, 7¼ will be as seminars in the G.S.P.A.
Library Problems
- Library Problems. Professor Arthur Cole retires this year. He has for many years been responsible for the acquisition of books in economics. Unless this responsibility is assumed by another, our economic collection will deteriorate. So far we have not been able to work out an arrangement acceptable to the Dean and the Director of the library. In my opinion, there is need for a central responsibility for library acquisitions in economics.
Fellowships
- Inadequate Fellowships. One of our most serious problems is fellowships. A study of fellowship funds announced as available to students suggested that Harvard was falling way behind. In a recent period of 5 years, five institution which are our strongest competitors had 30, 23, 20, 10, and 5 times as much money available for fellowships per Ph.D. granted in these five years. Increasingly we are losing the best students to rival institutions.
- Campaign for Additional Money. We have discussed this problem with Dean Bundy and Dean Elder, and also with our Visiting Committee. We have set up a committee consisting of Dean Mason, Professors Slichter, Dunlop and Harris to seek aggressively more fellowship funds. We are seeking these funds in the expectation that the major part of new funds will be available as additional funds for the Economics Department. Our goal is 6 fellowships at $2500 per year, or $15,000 per year additional. We discovered last year that by offering large fellowships to a limited number, we were more successful than in the past in attracting the more able candidates.
- Outside Fellowships. Our fellowship problem is eased by the availability of fellowships given by outside groups — governments, foundations etc. For example, Harvard received 5 of the 15 Wilson National fellowships for 1956-57. But it should be observed that there is often pressure to deny applicants access to the major universities and especially to Harvard. There is pressure to distribute widely, Moreover, a large proportion of these fellowship holders are often below our usual fellowship standards.
Research and Personnel Problems
- Competition of Research Fellowship Money for Potential Teachers. It is becoming increasingly easy for graduate students writing theses to receive fellowships that generally pay at least as much as a teaching fellowship. This year we lost 10 potential teachers as a result of these lucrative fellowships.
- Research Projects. Many of the Senior members of the staff are associated with large research projects, some of them of great significance. At least 9 of these projects may be classified as giant projects, three of them involving outlays of one half million or more dollars in the next 3-5 years. In 1955-56, Professor Leontief received almost one half million dollars to continue the projects of the Harvard Economic Group, and Dean Mason received $450,000 for a study of the New York Metropolitan area.
- Financing of Pay of Directors of Projects. It has always seemed to the Chairman, at least, that the foundations ought to pay part of the salary of the faculty members who direct these projects. When these projects are the major interest of those responsible for them, a case could be made for the foundation paying part of the salary of the relevant members of the faculty.
- Small Research Grants. It would be helpful to get some help from the Ford Foundation for small research projects especially for those who do not participate in the giant projects. I have had some preliminary discussion with the Ford Foundation, and I believe they would look with favor on an application for $25,000-30,000 per year for research help. Grants might vary from a few hundred dollars to $1,000-2,000 and be tied with specific projects. The great danger here is abuse of the privileges. Hence any such grant would have to be carefully administered – with some representation of outside economists on the committee.
- Secretarial Help. A related problem is that of secretarial help. Most of the Senior members, through administrative posts, control of seminars, editorial work, and research grants, manage to get the minimum amount of secretarial help. But 5 of our permanent members have virtually no access to secretaries and this is also true of most of our assistant professors. It would be helpful if some provision could be made for secretarial help for those without it. We realize this raises serious problems of finance.
- Personnel Changes. Professor Hansen retires this year and Professor Williams next year. We thus lose the best combination in money, cycles, and fiscal policy available anywhere. It is going to be difficult to fill this gap. Professor Black’s departure has also left a serious gap. We have added 2 very able assistant professors, Drs. J. Henderson and Valavanis, aside from two appointments (Drs. Moses and Conrad) in which the Economics Department shares one quarter of the cost. For 1957-58 and 1958-59, the Economics Department will have the services of Dr. E. Hoover for 3/7 of his time. We probably have the most able group of assistant professors in our history. It is not going to be easy to fill the gaps noted above, and make the most effective use of the young talent now in the Department. The Visiting Committee is again raising the question of a Professor of Business Enterprise, a matter to which we should give earnest attention. President Conant and Provost Buck were apparently prepared at the last discussion of this problem to provide an additional appointment for this purpose.
- Honors, etc. Dean Mason received an honorary degree from Harvard, and was a United States Representative at the United Nations Conference in Geneva on Peaceful Use of Atomic Energy.
Professor Hansen gave the Walgreen lectures at the University of Chicago.
Professor Harris served as Chairman of the Nor England Governors” Textile Committee,
Professor Galbraith advised the Indian Government on their Five Year Plan.
Professor Smithies was a Visiting Professor at Oxford and Professor
Kaysen at the London School of Economics.
Books:
Galbraith and Holton: Marketing Efficiency in Puerto Rico.
Harris: Keynes: Economist and Policy Maker.
Harris: New England Textiles and the New England Economy: Report to the Conference of New England Governors.
Kaysen: United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation: An Economic Analysis of an Anti-Trust Case.
Kaysen and Harris were two of the four co-authors of the American Business Creed.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder: “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean, 1955-”.
Image Source: Seymour E. Harris in The Harvard Class Album 1957.