Tag: RobertsonDH

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Memos discussing guests to teach during summer quarter, 1927

 

 

Apparently the 1926 summer quarter course planning at the Chicago department of political economy in 1926 was so wild that the head of the department, Leon C. Marshall, decided to start the discussion for 1927 on the second day of Summer, 1926. Four of the seven colleagues responded with quite a few suggestions.

This post provides the first+middle names where needed in square brackets. Also links to webpages with further information about the suggested guests have been added.

______________________

Copy of memo from
Leon Carroll Marshall

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Department of Economics

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall. June 22, 1926

To: C. W. Wright, J. A. Field, H. A. Millis, J. Viner, L. W. Mints, P. H. Douglas, W. H. Spencer

We really must break through the morass we are in with respect to our summer quarter. Partly because of delayed action and partly because of an interminable debating society in such matters we finally get a patched up program which is not as attractive as it should be.

I shall proceed on the basis of the homely philosophy that the way to do something is to do something. I shall try to secure from every member of the group a statement of his best judgment concerning the appropriate course of action for the summer of 1927 and then move at once toward rounding out a program.

Won’t you be good enough to turn in to E57 within the next few days your suggestions and comments with respect to the following issues.

  1. Do you yourself expect to be in residence the summer quarter of 1927?
  2. If you do, what courses do you prefer to teach? Please list more than two courses placing all of the courses in your order of preference. In answering this question, please keep in mind the problem of guiding research. Should you offer a research course?
  3. What are your preferences with respect to hours? Please state them rather fully and give some alternatives so that a schedule may be pieced together.
  4. What courses or subject matter should we be certain to include in the summer of 1927?
  5. What men from outside do you recommend for these courses which we should be certain to include? Please rank them in the order of your preference.
  6. Quite aside from the subject matter which you have recommended above, what persons from the outside ought we try to make contact with if our funds permit? This gives an opportunity to aid in making up the personnel of the summer quarter in all fields.
  7. Please give any other comments or suggestions which occur to you.

Yours very sincerely,

LCM:G

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Jacob Viner

The University of Chicago
Department of Political Economy

July 1, 1926

Dear Mr. Marshall

I will want to offer 301 (Neo-class Ec.) & 353 (Int Ec. Pol) as usual next summer, though if we have a good outside theorist to give 301, I would like to give a course on Theory of Int Trade in addition to 353. I think we need someone especially in Banking, next in theory. Beyond these we should offer work in some of the following, if we can get first rankers: statistics, private finance, transportation, economic history of Europe & ec. Hist. of U.S.

I suggest the following from which selections could be made:

Banking

 Theory Statistics Transportation

Ec. Hist.
[Eugene E.]
Agger

 

[Benjamin Haggott] Beckhart

 

[Allyn Abbott]
A.A. Young

 

[Chester Arthur]
C. A. Phillips

 

[Oliver Mitchell Wentworth]
Sprague

 

[James Harvey] Rogers

 

[Ernest Minor] E.M. Patterson

 [Allyn Abbott]
Young

 

[Jacob Harry]
Hollander[Frank Hyneman] Knight

 

[Albert Benedict] Wolfe

 

[Herbert Joseph] Davenport

 [Henry Roscoe] Trumbower

 

[Homer Bews] Vanderblue

 [Melvin Moses] M.M. Knight

 

[Abbott Payson] A.P. Usher

As other possibilities I suggest [George Ernest] Barnett, [James Cummings] Bonbright, [Edward Dana] Durand, [Edwin Griswold] Nourse, [Sumner Huber] Slichter, John D. [Donald] Black, Holbrook Working, [Alvin Harvey] Hansen.

[signed]
J Viner

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Paul Howard Douglas

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

June 29, 1926

Professor L. C. Marshall
Faculty Exchange

Dear Mr. Marshall:

You have hit the nail on the head in your proposal to get under way for next summer, and I am very much pleased at your action. Answering your questions specifically may I say—

  1. That I do not expect to be in residence for the summer quarter of 1927.
  2. &3. Since I shall not be in residence no answers to these questions are, I take it, necessary.

 

  1. We should, I think, be certain to include adequate work in the following fields (a) Economic theory, (b) Monetary and banking theory, (c) Labor problems, (d) Statistics and quantitative economics, (e) Taxation and Public finance, (f) Economic history.
  2. As regards men from outside, I would recommend the following in each field: (a) Economic theory—[Herbert Joseph] H. J. Davenport, [John Rogers] J. R. Commons, [Frank Hyneman] F. H. Knight; (b) Monetary and banking theory—[Allyn Abbott] A. A. Young, [Oliver Mitchell Wentworth] O.M.W. Sprague, [James Waterhouse] James W. Angell; (c) Labor problems—Selig Perlman, Alvin [Harvey] H. Hansen; (d) Statistics and quantitative economics—[Frederick Cecil] F. C. Mills, [Robert Emmet] R. E. Chaddock, [William Leonard] W. L. Crum; (e) Taxation and public finance—[Harley Leist] H. L. Lutz, [William John] William J. Shultz; (f) Economic history—[Norbert Scott Brien] N. S. B. Gras.
  3. As people from outside to try for, might it not be possible to secure some one from England, such as [John Atkinson] John A. Hobson, Henry Clay, or [Dennis Holme] D. H. Robertson? Might it not also be possible to get Charles Rist from France or [Werner] Sombart from Germany?

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Douglas

P.S. The news that [Henry] Schultz and [Melchior] Palyi are to be with us next year is certainly welcome. Should we not let everyone know that they are coming, and should not a news note to this effect be sent on to the American Economic Review? [Handwritten note here: “Mr. Wright doing this”]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Lloyd Wynn Mints

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

July 16, 1926

Memorandum to L. C. Marshall from L. W. Mints, concerning the work of the summer quarter, 1927.

  1. It is my present intention not to be in residence during the summer quarter, 1927, although I will be in the city, I suppose.
  2. It appears to me that we should attempt to get men from the outside who would represent some of the newer points of view rather than the orthodox fields. I should suppose that it would be desirable to have a man in statistics and, if he could be found, somebody to do something with quantitative economics. For the statistics I would suggest [William Leonard] Crum, [Frederick Cecil] Mills, [Frederick Robertson] Macaulay, [Willford Isbell] King, [Bruce D.] Mudgett, [Robert] Riegel. I am ignorant of the particular bents of some of the statistical men, but I should suppose that in quantitative economics [Holbrook] Working, [Alvin Harvey] Hansen, or [William Leonard] Crum might do something. Perhaps [Edmund Ezra] Day should be added to the men in Statistics.
    In economic history, as I remember it, we have had no outside help for a long time. I should like to see either [Noman Scott Brien] Gras or Max [Sylvius] Handman give some work here in the summer.
    Particular men who represent somewhat new points of view, and who might be had for the summer, I would suggest as follows: [Lionel Danforth] Edie, [Oswald Fred] Boucke, [Morris Albert] Copeland, [Sumner Huber] Slichter.
    In addition I should like very much to see either [Edwin Robert Anderson] Seligman or [John Rogers] Commons here for a summer.

[signed]
L.W.M.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Harry Alvin Millis

Answers to questions re Summer Teaching, 1927

  1. Yes, I feel that I must teach next summer unless that plan you have been interested in goes through.
  2. 342 [The State in Relation to Labor] and 440 [Research].
  3. 342 at 8; 440 hour to be arranged.
  4. 5. 6.: Should get a better rounded program than we have had. Should have an outstanding man in economic theory and another in Finance. For the former I would mention [John] Maurice Clark, [John Rogers] Commons, and [Frank Hyneman] Knight—in order named. For the latter I would mention [Allyn Abbott] Young, [James Harvey] Rogers. If we can get the money I should like to see [George Ernest] Barnett brought on for statistics and a trade union course.

 

  1. Would it be possible to have a seminar which would bring together the outside men and some of the inside men and our mature graduate students—these hand-picked? It might be made very stimulating.

[Signed]
H. A. Millis

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
Chester Whitney Wright

The University of Chicago
The Department of Political Economy

Memorandum to Marshall from Wright

Summer 1927
First term some aspects of economic history
1:30 or 2:30
May have to teach the whole summer but hope I can confine it to first term.
Can teach any phases of subjects in any fields suitable for term.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
James Alfred Field

[No written answer in the folder: however L. C. Marshall noted that Field would not be teaching in the summer term of 1927]

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Response from
William Homer Spencer

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration
Office of the Dean

July 12, 1926

Mr. L. C. Marshall
The Department of Political Economy

My dear Mr. Marshall:

As Mr. [Garfield Vestal] Cox does not wish to teach during the Summer Quarter of 1927, I wish the Department of Political Economy would try to get Mr. [Edmund Ezra] Day of Wisconsin [sic, Michigan is correct] who could give both a course in statistics and a course in forecasting. Forecasting is not given this summer and unless we get someone from the outside to give it, I presume it will not be given next summer.

Why does not the Department of Political Economy for the coming summer get someone like Mr. [Leverett Samuel] Lyon to give an advanced course in economics of the market for graduate students? The Department of Political Economy could handle half of his time and I perhaps could handle the other half for market management

Now that it appears that the Department of Political Economy cannot get any promising young men in the Field of Finance, why do you not try for [Chester Arthur] Phillips of Iowa? He will give good courses and will draw a great many students from the middle west to the University.

So far as my own program is concerned, I have not made much progress. I tried to get [Roy Bernard] Kester of Columbia, but he turned me down. I am placing a similar proposition before [William Andrew] Paton of Michigan. In the Field of Marketing, I am trying for [Frederic Arthur] Russell of the University of Illinois to give a course in salesmanship primarily for teachers in secondary schools. Otherwise I have made no progress in getting outside men for next summer.

Yours sincerely,
[signed]
W. H. Spencer

WHS:DD

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 22, Folder 7.

Categories
Cambridge Chicago Teaching

Chicago. Harry Johnson’s observations and reflections on teaching, 1969

 

The transcribed letter below was written by Professor Harry G. Johnson to (then) graduate student Michael Mussa whose proposal for student evaluations of graduate courses at the economics department of the University of Chicago met with hostile reception. It is always a genuinely nice gesture for a senior professor to take time and effort to recognize a student initiative and this letter is a model of such a response. I presume the copy of this letter I found in Milton Friedman’s papers had been shared by Johnson with his colleagues.

Johnson first reflects on the nature of teaching in a leading graduate institution, concluding on the one hand that some bad teaching will be inevitable but that even the worst teachers could improve their (literal) performances. He then illustrates with his own course (the third of the three quarter sequence in Price Theory) followed by three examples from his own Cambridge training: D. H. Robertson, Maurice Dobbs, and Joan Robinson. 

Pro-tip: the snap-shot of Harry Johnson comes from Robert J. Gordon’s very own personal collection “Photos of Economists”.

Johnson mentioned that Joan Robinson refused to hand out reading lists for her courses. For a rare Joan Robinson reading list: from Williams College 1982.

_________________

From a Photocopy of a letter from Harry Johnson to Michael Mussa

May 28, 1969

Michael Mussa:

I’ve been reading the reports of the faculty-student advisory committee, in which your proposal for student evaluations of courses seem to have fared rather badly. Personally, I am more favorable to the idea than my colleagues seem to have been.

There are of course plenty of problems in defining the function of such evaluations; and at least in a place like Chicago teaching competence can’t be given much weight (a) because a large part of staff work is guiding Ph.D.s and conducting the workshops—i.e. research rather than teaching oriented; (b) because our courses ought to be not only teaching the accepted structure of knowledge, but exposing students to the frontiers of the subject, and this kind of material is often difficult to teach; (c) our competitive position as a leading world graduate school, which among other things determines the quality of the students we get and therefore the “externalities” our students obtain from each other, ultimately depends on the published scientific contributions of our faculty and not on their capacity to teach a particular course well at a particular time.

On the other hand, I do not share the view of some of my colleagues—both here and even more in England—that teaching performance is an absolutely fixed characteristic of the individual that cannot be altered by care and study on his part. Consequently I think that student evaluations can be useful to both the individual teacher and his colleagues, as guides to where some investment in improvement could usefully be undertaken.

One obvious point, with respect to which I benefitted from last year’s evaluation, is the course reading list. As a result of that evaluation, I took off the 302 reading list an article by Champernowne, the approach of which I wanted represented in the course, but which students considered too difficult for what they got out of it; instead, I now present the approach in very simple form. I also took off a number of readings on the poverty problem which were significant when the war on poverty started, but which now appear to have little substantive content. I now link the poverty material more closely to the general theme of the course.

I think that student evaluation of the reading list can be very valuable in indicating what readings are really useful and what are either too hard or too easy for the level of the course. An even more important function, which would be harder to devise, would be for students to suggest from their own current and previous reading of the journals and textbooks better sources for the main parts of the course. The literature is tremendous, and there is no easy way of searching it for the most useful contributions.

As to the teaching itself, it seems to me that there are two separate problems, each of them susceptible of solution by rational investment by the individual teacher. The first is organization of the material; this includes reading list and course organization, organization of the individual lecture and supplementation of the lecture by appropriate hand-outs of crucial data or pieces of analysis. The Chicago course-load is fairly light by most universities’ standards, and the purpose of the lecture I teaching rather than public virtuoso performance. There is little reason why a person who knows or is told that he is disorganized and confusing while on his feet in front of a class should not provide his students with the insurance of a paper version of what he meant to tell them. The second problem is that of personality. A teacher has to understand that in the classroom he is playing a role, which does not have to define or exhaust the full scope of his private personality; and he has to forego the tricks that people use in private conversation to defend themselves and preserve what they think is the respect of others. Specifically, it is not helpful to students to be exposed to an account of all the mental confusion that accompanied the first discovery of a new truth (especially if the truth itself never emerges). Nor does it help for a lecturer to use two methods of disguising uncertainty or insufficient thought in private conversation: (1) vehement assertion of a conclusion without adequate supporting argument; (2) dropping the voice just as the crucial point is reached, so that the audience doesn’t really hear what is being said (Margaret Reid picked me up on this trick when I first came to Chicago).

It seems to me that lecturers have a lot to learn from the acting profession in this respect: even if the lines are lousy, they deliver them with conviction. It also seems to me that student evaluations would help to tell lecturers that, however good the message they thought they were putting across, it was being scrambled in transmission and wasn’t reaching the students.

I would not pretend that everybody can be a good lecturer. All I claim is that most people could do better than they do, by recognizing their weaknesses and trying to correct them. Even so, you could well not get very good lectures.

I remember when I was a student at Cambridge, England. D.H. Robertson was Professor; he had had a lot of acting experience in his youth. He wrote every word of his lectures, and rewrote them every year. He delivered them well, but you had to listen hard and know a lot already to get the points. Yet he would never answer any questions from class; once a year, in the second-last lecture, he would ask the class for written questions; in the last lecture, he would read us his written answers to the written questions. Maurice Dobb, who was my supervisor and whose lectures I attended religiously out of a youthful enthusiasm for left-wing causes, also wrote every word of his lectures on socialist planning, and they were beautifully logical and well-organized constructions; but he read them in a flat monotone that rapidly depressed the audience, with the result that the beachhead of communism he established in Cambridge never got occupied by troops prepared to push on to a major assault on capitalism. Joan Robinson, on the other hand, always claimed she lectured as the spirit moved her, and refused to give out either a reading list or reference (apart from insulting remarks about D.K. Robertson, and favorable references to Keynes and Kalecki). In fact she said the same thing every year; but the students always got excited because to them it came as something new.

In my judgment, Robertson could have learned to answer the questions he could answer, and ask for time to consider the others; Dobb could have learned to modulate his voice to emphasize the difference between major points and supporting arguments; and Robinson could have been persuaded by student demands to produce a reading list. But it is quite likely that none of them would have changed their ways; and I doubt that Cambridge would have been well advised to fire them if they hadn’t.

Yours sincerely,
[signed]
Harry G. Johnson
Department of Economics

HGJ/sf

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman. Box 194, Folder “194.4 Economics Dept. A-G”.

Image Source:  Harry Johnson. Photo by Robert J. Gordon, Summer 1970 or 1971.