Tag: SchultzTW

Categories
Chicago Cowles Economist Market Economists Stanford

Cowles Commission. Arrow declines offer for joint appointment of research director and professor of economics. 1953

 

Tjallings Koopmans declared his intention to resign his research directorship of the Cowles Commission for Economic Research at the University of Chicago effective June 30, 1954, having served in that position for six years. This necessitated a search for an economist who could satisfy the needs of both the Cowles Commission and the Chicago Department of Economics. Kenneth Arrow, a Cowles alumnus so-to-speak, was the first target of the search. In this post you will find transcriptions of some of the relevant correspondence in the matter. Arrow was offered a salary of $12,000 (approximately $140,000 at today’s prices) which was equal to that of Koopmans and $1000 less than that of the more senior Jacob Marschak.

For a history of the Cowles Commission and Foundation for Research in Economics, see Robert W. Dimand’s Cowles Working Paper (November 2019).

Plot-spoiler: Arrow declined the offer, “The activity of administration represents for me, I feel, a violation of the principle of comparative advantage, especially if one takes account of my strong subjective preferences,” to which Economics in the Rear-view Mirror can only add, “Good Choice!”

Postscript: Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has appended the September 30 announcement of Arrow’s being appointed executive head of the Stanford economics department. OK, so the comparative advantage argument could have played a role in his Chicago decision, assuming he believed a move would have increased the productivity of both the Stanford and Chicago faculties! Now I’ll  bet that having experienced winters in Chicago and Stanford, the family simply decided to stay in California.

Posted earlier: a mini c.v. for Arrow as of 1951.

________________________

COWLES COMMISSION
FOR RESEARCH IN ECONOMICS

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37, ILLINOIS

July 21, 1953

Professor T. W. Schultz
c/o Hotel Maury
Casilla Correo 1385
Lima, Peru

Dear Mr. Schultz:

                  The Central Administration and the Board of Trustees have now approved our recommendation with respect to Arrow. Please find enclosed a copy of my letter to Arrow. I presume that Dean Tyler will send you a copy of his letter. May I ask you, if you can find time, to write to Arrow to support this offer, and to indicate the participation the Economics Department? In case you have secretarial assistance, may we have a carbon of your letter?

                  It may be winter in South America just now, but here it is mid-summer, with all that that means. Hoping that you find your trip interesting and profitable,

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Tjalling C. Koopmans

TCK:lb

Enclosure

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

[COPY]

July 21, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Ken:

                  In this letter, which will reach you simultaneously with a letter from Dean Tyler, I am writing to express the gratification of the Cowles Commission research staff in general, and of myself in particular, at the action of the University and of the Executive Committee of the Commission, in extending to you an invitation to join our staff as Director of Research. The Executive Committee has acted on the unanimous recommendation of our faculty, which reflects our great confidence in you as an intellectual leader. We believe that, above all others in the field, you are the person capable of giving the Commission the research leadership it needs during the years just ahead. Needless to say, we hope that you will decide to accept.

                  I well remember your statement this April that you wished not to be considered for a position which like this one has administrative aspects. As illustration you mentioned that you did not wish to become chairman of your department at Stanford either.  The fact that you are now taking another view of the latter task gives us the courage to ask you to reconsider your attitude toward the former. The administrative aspects of this position are adjustable in terms of your own preferences. I think you will find Ross Cardwell capable of discharging those administrative functions which you may wish to avoid. He brings to this a real understanding and sympathy for the objectives of the group.

                  Mr. Schultz will write to you concerning the participation of the Economics Department in this offer. Since he is currently in South America, some time will go by before his letter can reach you. Let me say only that the Department is likewise unanimous in its support for a joint offer, and hopes that you will regard participation in its teaching and other activities an compatible with your primary responsibility with regard to the Commission. A tentative ratio, two-thirds Commission, one-third Department, is proposed for your consideration.

                  I am writing to Jascha [Jacob Marschak], who is currently at the Institute for Numerical Analysis, to inform him that this offer has now been approved. Please feel free to discuss the matter with him and to regard him as an additional source of information. We also hope that you will find it possible to visit Chicago some time in September so that you may inform yourself fully with regard to the opportunities and challenge of this position. The best timing of this visit depends somewhat on Mr. Schultz’ plans, on which I am not fully informed.

                  In conclusion, I want you to know that I look forward with great anticipation to the prospect of a reintensified contact with you, both in research and in a personal way. We all hope that our proposal is challenging enough to you to earn your serious consideration and, ultimately, your acceptance.

                  Please give our best regards to Selma. We hope that she will look with sympathy on our trying to get you both back to Chicago.

Cordially yours,

Tjalling C. Koopmans

cc: Executive Committee (A. Cowles, R. L Cardwell, T. W. Schultz, R. W. Tyler)
J. Marschak

________________________

COPY

The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois
The Division of the Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

July 21, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow co The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  I take great pleasure in inviting you to become Professor of Economics of the University of Chicago and Director of Research in the Cowles Commission. This is a regular tenure position as a full professor at a salary of $12,000 per year effective for 1954-55, on a 4-E contract. As you may have heard, the provisions of the 4-E contract have recently been liberalized so that the faculty member retains his earnings from royalties, from occasional lectures, and other occasional short-term assignments.

                  The interest in your appointment is indicated by the fact that you were the unanimous selection of the Executive Committee of the Cowles Commission, as well as the research staff of the Commission and the faculty of the department of economics. We are all anxious to have you join us and feel sure that we can provide you with excellent conditions for making an important intellectual contribution. We hope that you will come to Chicago at our expense sometime in September to look into the situation as fully as you wish and to work out conditions that are satisfactory, including the time when you would be able to join our staff.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
R. W. Tyler
Dean

RWT:rk

________________________

[COPY]

August 24, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  I have returned from my field work in Peru and Mexico and learned with great pleasure from Dean Tyler and Professor Koopmans that the Chancellor has approved our recommendation to invite you to come to the University of Chicago as Professor of Economics and Director of Research in the Cowles Commission. Dean Tyler has already formally extended to you this invitation and Professor Koopmans has written to you at some length. May I convey to you the fact that this invitation is rare in that it is the unanimous view and wish of the members of the Department of Economics. This expresses in the strongest possible terms our own very high regard for your professional achievements as an economist and our firm wish to have you become one of us.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Theodore W. Schultz

TWS:jw

________________________

[COPY]

September 11, 1953

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow
c/o The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica California

Dear Ken:

                  This is further to my handwritten letter of about a month ago, in which I indicated that I would write again upon returning to Chicago. Let me again express the hope that you may be able to visit us at a time convenient to you. I continue to believe that this is the most effective procedure for you to obtain clarification on points such as those ou have raised in conversation with Jascha. However, in case you should prefer to seek clarification by correspondence, may I suggest that you write to Dean Tyler if you have questions relating to the Cowles Commission (with a carbon copy to me) and to Mr. Schultz for questions relating to the Department.

                  We had an interesting and fruitful meeting at Kingston, in which high temperature and a light program contributed to a relaxed atmosphere.

                  Looking forward to hearing from you.

Cordially,
[unsigned copy]
Tjalling C. Koopmans

TOK:lb

Cc: J. Marschak, T.W. Schultz, R.W. Tyler

________________________

The RAND Corporation
1700 Main St. • Santa Monica • California

15 September 1953

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Professor Schultz:

Thank you very much for your letter of August 24. I am indeed thrilled by the evidence of approbation by my former colleagues at the University of Chicago.

However, for reasons set forth in the enclosed letter to Dean Tyler, I feel that I should not accept the offer. The activity of administration represents for me, I feel, a violation of the principle of comparative advantage, especially if one takes account of my strong subjective preferences.

Best regards to all members of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Kenneth J. Arrow

KJA: ge
encl.

________________________

[COPY]

15 September 1953

Dean R. W. Tyler
The Division of the Social Sciences
The University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Dean Tyler:

I have thought over very seriously the kind and flattering offer to serve as Research Director of the Cowles Comission. It is with a great deal of regret that I feel that I must decline.

The stimulating and vital intellectual atmosphere at the University of Chicago and the high salary offered were very strong inducements, but I feel that I am not temperamentally qualified to assume the administrative responsibilities called for. I would feel strongly the conflict between pursuing my individual research and the responsibilities of leadership, and I do not feel that I would make a satisfactory resolution. I wish to thank you again, not least, for your willingness to wait this long for me to come to a decision.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]
Kenneth J. Arrow

KJA:ge
cc: Prof. T. C. Koopmans, Prof. T. W. Schultz [checkmark]

________________________

[COPY]

The University of Chicago
The Division of the Social Sciences

Office of the Dean

September 21, 1953

Mr. Kenneth J. Arrow
The RAND Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California

Dear Mr. Arrow:

                  We are greatly disappointed that you feel it unwise to accept our invitation to become Director of Research for the Cowles Commission. We think you have an important contribution to make to our University. Hence, I hope we can work out some other position here that would appeal to you.

Sincerely yours,
R. W. Tyler
Dean

RWT:rk

cc:  Mr. T. W. Schultz  [checkmark], Mr. T. C. Koopmans

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 4.

________________________

Postscript

New Economics Executive Named

Kenneth J. Arrow, professor of economics and statistics at Stanford, has been appointed executive head of the University’s Department of Economics, President Wallace Sterling announced yesterday.

Nationally known for his work in the analysis of criteria for economic decisions, Dr. Arrow has been on the Stanford faculty since 1949. As department head he replaces Professor Edward S. Shaw, who has resigned to devote full time to teaching and research.

Dr. Arrow heads a project at Stanford supported by the Office of Naval Research to study the efficiency of economic decision-making.

As a post-doctoral fellow of the Social Science Research Council, Dr. Arrow traveled extensively in Western Europe for nine months of 1952, studying statistical problems of national economic planning.

He lectured at Oxford University and the Institute of Applied Economics in Paris and was one of a small group of distinguished American economists invited to participate in a colloquium on the theory of risk. The colloquium was conducted in Paris by the National Center of Scientific Research of the French Ministry of Eduaction.

Professor Arrow was graduated by the College of the City of New York in 1940 with Phi Beta Kappa honors and as winner of the Pell medal for highest scholastic proficiency.
He served as assistant professor at the University of Chicago in 1948-49. Appointed acting assistant professor at Stanford in 1949, he became associate professor in 1950 and this year was promoted to full professor.

[Note: the promotion was announced April 28, effective September 1, 1953.]

Source: The Stanford Daily, 1 October 1953.

Image Source:  Kenneth J. Arrow as Guggenheim Fellow (1972)  John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation.

Categories
Chicago Courses Curriculum Fields Graduate Student Support

Chicago. Program of advanced instruction and research training in economics. 1956-57.

To gauge the scale and scope of economics departments it is useful to have copies of the annual announcements/brochures. In this post we add a transcription of the announcement for advanced instruction and research in economics at the University of Chicago for 1956-57.

Some previous posts:

Chicago, 1892

Wisconsin, 1893-94

Chicago, 1900-01

Chicago, 1904-05

Wisconsin, 1904-05

M.I.T., 1961

Harvard, 1967

___________________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
announces
Advanced Instruction
and Research Training
in
ECONOMICS:

Price Theory
Money and Banking
Economic History
Statistics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Agricultural Economics
Government Finance
International Economic Relations and Economic Development
Economics of Consumption
Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

SESSIONS OF 1956-1957

___________________________

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Officers of Instruction

Theodore William Schultz, Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Economics and Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor of Economics.

Frank Hyneman Knight, Ph.D., Morton D. Hull Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the Social Sciences.

John Ulric Nef, Ph.D., Professor of Economic History.

Earl J. Hamilton, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Milton Friedman, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Lloyd A. Metzler, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Margaret G. Reid, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

W. Allen Wallis, A.B., Professor of Economics and Statistics.

D. Gale Johnson, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.

Bert F. Hoselitz, A.M., Dr. Jur., Professor of the Social Sciences.

Hans Theil, Ph.D., Visiting Professor of Economics.

Harold Gregg Lewis, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Arnold C. Harberger, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Albert E. Rees, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Carl Christ, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

Simon Rottenberg, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics.

George S. Tolley, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Robert Lloyd Gustafson, A.M., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Phillip David Cagan, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Martin Jean Bailey, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics.

Chester Whitney Wright, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Hazel Kyrk, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Economics and Home Economics.

Lloyd W. Mints, A.M., Professor Emeritus of Economics.

Mary Barnett Gilson, A.M., Assistant Professor Emeritus of Economics in the College.

Fellows, 1955-56

Richard King, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellow in Political Economy.

Yossef Attiyeh, A.M., Falk Foundation Fellow,

Milton Frank Bauer, A.M., Canadian Social Science Research Council Fellow.

John Allan Edwards, A.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

Lawrence Fisher, A.B., Earhart Foundation Fellow.

B. Delworth Gardner, S.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

Hirsh Zvi Griliches, S.M., Social Science Research Council Fellow.

Marc Leon Nerlove, A.M., Earhart Foundation Fellow.

Hugh Oliver Nourse, A.B., Woodrow Wilson Fellow.

Walter Yasuo Oi, A.M., Owen D. Young Fellow.

Boris Peter Pesek, A.M., Ford Foundation Fellow.

Duvvuri Venkata Ramana, A.M., Ford Foundation Fellow.

Jean Reynier, Diplôme D’études Supérieures De Doctorat, University of Paris Exchange Fellow.

Robert Oliver Rogers, A.M., Sears, Roebuck Fellow in Agricultural Economics.

John William Louis Winder, A.M., Edward Hillman Fellow.

___________________________

Introductory

                  The Department of Economics views the central problem of economic science as that of understanding the social organization of human and other scarce productive resources: principally the allocation of these resources among alternative uses by a system of exchange. The purpose of the Department is both to train economic scientists and to advance economic science.

                  The Department offers programs of instruction and research training not only for students seeking an advanced degree in economics at the University of Chicago but also for students working on an advanced degree at another institution who wish to complement the training available to them there and for students not seeking an advanced degree but who wish to pursue advanced study in economics at either the predoctoral or the postdoctoral level. Instruction is provided in all of the major fields of economics affording opportunity for well-rounded training in economics. Additional facilities in other parts of the University, including those in the other social sciences, mathematics, statistics, business administration, law, and philosophy, permit students wide choice among supplementary areas of study.

                  Courses of instruction at three levels of advancement are offered by the Department:

                  1. Intermediate courses (numbered in the 200’s) for those completing their work for the Bachelor’s degree and for others preparing for advanced training in economics.

                  2. Courses in economic theory, statistical inference, economic history, and economic analysis related to problem fields (numbered in the 300’s) that provide the strong theoretical foundation and related applied knowledge required of all candidates for advanced degrees in economics as preparation for economic research. Students are urged before entering these courses to acquire a command of the rudiments of the differential calculus.

                  3. Courses (including seminars, workshops, and other research working groups, and individual instruction) that provide arrangements for research and research supervision (numbered in the 400’s). These courses apply and seek to teach students to apply the foundations of economic analysis to research on particular economic problems.

THE ECONOMICS RESEARCH CENTER

                  The Department devotes a large proportion of its resources to research in economics and to the training of student research apprentices. The purpose of the Economics Research Center is to co-ordinate the research and research training activities of the Department. The Center supplies essential clerical, computing, and reference library services, assists in the organization of research seminars and working groups, and publishes the major research output of the Department in its series: “Studies in Economics.”

                  Some of the research training in the Center is organized on a continuing basis by one or more faculty members working with associates and students in research groups. (The staffs and research projects of these groups for the academic year 1955-56 are listed below.) Research training and facilities for research are available, however, to all qualified students, both those associated with a research group and those engaged in individual research.

Projects and Staffs of Research Groups, 1955-56

Workshop in Money and Banking

Faculty: Professors Cagan and Friedman.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Yossef Attiyeh, Hugh Roy Elliott, Duvvuri V. Ramana, and Robert E. Snyder.

Project: The role of monetary and banking factors in economic fluctuations.

Office of Agricultural Economies Research

Faculty: Professors Gustafson, Johnson, Schultz, and Tolley.

Research Associates: John A. Dawson, Cecil B. Haver, William E. Hendrix, Lester G. Telser, and Joseph Willett.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Marto Ballesteros, Michael Joseph Brennan, Donald S. Green, Hirsh Zvi Griliches, Vaughan Stevens Hastings, Roy J. Kelly, Edward Franklin Renshaw, James A. Rock, and Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.

Projects: (1) Agricultural inventories. (2) Conservation and development of natural resources. (3) Technical assistance in Latin American countries. (4) Developments affecting Negro farm families. (5) Soviet agriculture. (6) Technological growth in agriculture (hybrid corn). (7) Growth in output per unit of input in the United States and in agriculture.

Research Group in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

Faculty: Professors Lewis, Rees, Rottenberg, and Seidman.

Projects: (1) The American worker as a union member. (2) Labor in the Mexican economy. (3) Real wages in the United States, 1890-1914. (4) Population, the labor force, and labor supply.

Research Group in Public Finance

Faculty: Professors Bailey and Harberger.

Research Assistants and Fellows: Meyer L. Burstein, Lawrence Fisher, Yehuda Grünfeld, Marc Leon Nerlove, William A. Niskanen, Jr., and Walter Y. Oi.

Projects:
(1) Resource allocation effects of federal taxes and of agricultural price supports.
(2) Sources and methods of controlling cyclical instability in the American economy.
(3) The capital market effects of federal taxation, expenditure, and regulatory policies.

Research Group in Economics of Consumption

Faculty: Professor Reid.

Research Assistant: Juliette Rey.

Project: Trends in, and factors determining, consumption levels.

Research Group in Economic Development

Faculty: Professors Hamilton, Harberger, Hoselitz, Rottenberg, and Schultz.

Projects: (1) Problems in the economic development of Chile. (2) Historical research in money, banking, prices, and interest rates, their interrelationship, and their role in the economic development of leading countries. (Note also projects (3), (6), and (7) of the Office of Agricultural Economics Research and project (2) of the Research Group in Labor Economics and Industrial Relations.) The Research Group in Economic Development works closely with the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change of which Mr. Hoselitz is the director. The Center engages in research and publishes the journal Economic Development and Cultural Change.

                  Three members of the faculty of the Department are associated with research groups organized in other parts of the University: Mr. Hoselitz with the Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change; Mr. Nef, with the Committee on Social Thought; and Mr. Wallis, with the Committee on Statistics. In addition, other members of the economics faculty are engaged in individual research projects not associated with a research group: Mr. Metzler on the theory of international adjustment under conditions of full employment and high demand: and Mr. Christ on econometric research on economic growth and technological change.

FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS,
AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS

                  Students who wish to pursue a program of advanced instruction and research in economics at the University may compete not only for the regular University Fellowships and Scholarships described in these Announcements (see pp. 22-27) but also for the fellowships listed below:
[Note: The announcement transcribed here is a reprint of the Department of Economics section of the Announcements of Graduate Programs in the Divisions. Cross-references are to that publication]

Postdoctoral Fellowships:

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Political Economy awarded upon recommendation of the Department of Economics.

Postdoctoral Fellowships in Money and Banking awarded by the Workshop in Money and Banking in co-operation with the Department of Economics.

Predoctoral Fellowships:

Awarded upon recommendation of the Department of Economics:

Frank H. Knight Fellowships, Marshall Field Fellowship, Edward Hillman Fellowship Awarded upon recommendation of the Office of Agricultural Economics Research for students specializing in agricultural economics:
Sears, Roebuck Foundation Fellowships in Agricultural Economics

Stipends for the predoctoral fellowships, including the regular University fellowships, range generally from $1,000 to $3,000 per annum. Stipends for the postdoctoral fellowships range up to $4,000 per annum. Application blanks may be obtained from the Department of Economics or from the University Committee on Fellowships and Scholarships.

Research Assistantships

                  Research assistantships and associateships are available to qualified students who have research interests in particular problem areas. Application blanks for these positions may be obtained from the Economics Research Center.

ADVANCED DEGREES

                  The Department of Economics offers programs leading to both the A.M. and the Ph.D. degrees in Economics. The following paragraphs summarize briefly the major Departmental requirements for advanced degrees for students holding a four-year Bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. (The following paragraphs are not intended as an exhaustive statement of the requirements for advanced degrees; for the details of the requirements students should consult with the Departmental counselors.)

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

                  The Departmental requirements for the Master’s degree in Economics for students holding the traditional four-year Bachelor’s degree include: (1) satisfactory performance on two of the written field examinations in economics required for the Ph.D. degree; (2) a satisfactory command of the principles of economic theory; and (3) acceptance of a paper or report on a problem approved by the Department,

THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

                  The Departmental requirements for admission to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Economics include: (1) satisfactory performance on written field examinations in price theory and monetary theory and banking and in one other field that, with the approval of the Department, may be a field outside of economics; (2) a well-rounded command of the subject-matter of the major fields of economics; (3) effective reading knowledge of French or German or some other foreign language approved by the Department; and (4) acceptance of the candidate’s thesis prospectus.

                  The Departmental requirements for the degree include in addition to the preceding requirements for admission to candidacy: (1) effective reading knowledge of a second foreign language or completion of an approved substitute program of study; (2) departmental approval of the completed thesis; and (3) satisfactory performance on a final oral examination on the field of the thesis.

SUMMER PROGRAM
FOR COLLEGE TEACHERS OF ECONOMICS

                  The Department of Economics will give particular attention in its Summer Quarter 1956 program to the interests of college teachers of economics, both those working for the Ph.D degree at another institution and others who wish to renew or to complement their training and experience in economics. A limited number of tuition and half-tuition scholarships will be available for teachers who do not hold the Ph.D. degree. (Application blanks for these scholarships may be obtained from the Department of Economics.) For those who hold the Ph.D. degree in Economics or related fields the Department invites application for guest privileges.

Courses of Instruction

INTERMEDIATE COURSES

208. A, B, C. The Elements of Economic Analysis. Aut (208A): Rees; Win (208B) Rees; Spr (208C): Cagan.

209. Intermediate Price Theory. Prereg: Math 150A or equiv. Aut: Lewis.

210. Index Numbers, National Accounting, and Economic Measurement. Prereq: Soc Sei 200A and Econ 209, or equiv. Aut: Christ.

213. Introduction to Mathematics for Economists. Prereq: Econ 209 and Math 150A, or equiv. Sum: Staff; Win: Theil.

220. Economic History of the United States. Spr: Hamilton.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. Win: Staff.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. Prereq: Econ 208A and 208B, or equiv, Spr: Johnson.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. Prereq: Econ 208A and 208B, or equiv. Win: Bailey.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. Aut: Hoselitz.

299. Undergraduate Thesis Research. Prereq: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

ADVANCED COURSES

I. Price Theory

300. A, B. Price Theory. Prereg: For 300A, Econ 209 or equiv, and Math 150A or equiv, or consent of instructor; for 300B, 300A. Aut (300A): Friedman; Win (300A): Wallis; Spr (300B): Friedman.

301. Price and Distribution Theory (= Social Thought 382). Prereq: Econ 209. Sum: Knight.

302. History of Economic Thought (= Social Thought 381). Prereq: Econ 301 or equiv. Spr: Knight.

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereg: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

305. Economics and Social Institutions (= Philosophy 305). Prereg: Econ 301 and some European economic history. Sum: Knight.

308. Welfare Economics. Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Sum: Johnson.

309. Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 213 and Econ 300A, or equiv. Win: Theil.

310. Special Topics in Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 309, Math 150C, and the rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Theil.

II. Monetary Theory and Banking

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereg: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

330. Money. Prereg: Econ 208C or equiv. Aut: Staff.

331. Banking Theory and Monetary Policy. Prereg: Econ 330; Econ 335 desirable. Win: Cagan.

334. The Development of Monetary and Financial Institutions. Prereq: Econ 222 or 208C. Spr: Hamilton.

335. The Theory of Income, Employment, and the Price Level. Prereg: Econ 208A, B, C or equiv. Spr: Christ.

362. Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Prereg: Econ 208C; Econ 330 and 335 desirable. Spr: Harberger.

370. Monetary Aspects of International Trade. Prereg: Econ 330, 335, or equiv. Aut: Metzler.

439. Workshop in Money and Banking. An experiment in combining training in research and learning of subject-matter organized around a continuing investigation into monetary factors in business cycles. Students participate in this central investigation both directly and by undertaking individual projects in the general area. Each project is directed toward the preparation of a report of publishable quality. Guidance is provided on general reading in the field, and informal seminars are held from time to time to discuss general issues or specific projects. Students. are required to give full time to the workshop; they receive three credits per quarter of registration. Prereg: consent of instructor. Aut, Win, Spr: Friedman, Cagan.

III. Statistics

311. Principles of Statistical Analysis (= Business 321 and Statistics 301). Aut: Staff.

312. Techniques of Statistical Analysis (= Business 322 and Statistics 302). Prereg: Econ 311 or equiv. Win: Staff.

313. Applications of Statistical Analysis (= Sociology 308, Business 323, and Statistics 303). Prereq: Econ 312 or Stat 362 or equiv. Spr: Wallis.

314. Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 311 and either Econ 300A or Econ 335; Econ 210 desirable. Sum: Gustafson; Win: Christ.

315. Special Topics in Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 312, Econ 314, differential calculus, and rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Christ.

For other courses in statistics see page 203.

IV. Mathematical Economics and Econometrics

303. Recent Developments in Economics. Prereq: graduate work in economic theory. Sum: Harberger.

309. Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 213 and Econ 300A, or equiv, Win: Theil.

310. Special Topics in Mathematical Economics. Prereq: Econ 309, Math 150C and the rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Theil.

314. Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 311 and either Econ 300A or Econ 335; Econ 210 desirable. Sum: Gustafson; Win: Christ.

315. Special Topics in Econometrics. Prereq: Econ 312, Econ 314, differential calculus, and rudiments of matrix algebra; or consent of instructor. Spr: Christ.

V. Economic History

320. American Economic Policies. Prereg: Econ 220 or equiv. Sum: Hamilton.

329A. The Geographical and Historical Background of the Genesis of Industrial Civilization (= Social Thought 324A and History 332G). Aut: Nef.

329B. The Role of the Discoveries and the Reformation in the Genesis of Industrial Civilization (= Social Thought 325A and History 332H). Spr: Nef.

334. The Development of Monetary and Financial Institutions. Prereg: Econ 222 or 208C. Spr: Hamilton.

VI. Labor Economics and Industrial Relations

340. The Labor Movement. Aut.

341. Labor Problems. Prereq: Econ 208A, 208B, and Econ 240; or equiv. Win: Rees.

344. Labor Economics. Prereq: Econ 300B. Spr: Lewis.

VII. Agricultural Economics

355A. Economic Organization for Growth (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Aut: Schultz.

355B. Economic Organization for Stability (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereq: Econ 300A or equiv. Spr: Schultz.

356. Income, Welfare, and Policy (with particular reference to agriculture). Prereg: Econ300A or equiv; Econ 300B and 355A recommended. Win: Johnson.

455. Seminar in Agricultural Economics. Prereq: consent of instructor. Aut, Win, Spr: Schultz, Johnson, Tolley, Gustafson.

VIII. Government Finance

360. Theory of Public Finance. Prereg: Econ 260 and Econ 300A, or consent of instructor, Aut: Bailey.

361. Public Finance in the American Economy. Prereq: Econ 300A; Econ 300B desirable. Win: Harberger.

362. Monetary and Fiscal Policy. Prereg: Econ 208C; Econ 330 and 335 desirable. Spr: Harberger.

IX. International Economic Relations

370. Monetary Aspects of International Trade. Prereq: Econ 330 and 335, or equiv. Aut: Metzler.

371. Economic Aspects of International Relations. Prereq: Econ 330 or equivalent. Win: Metzler.

372. Problems in Economic Development. Prereq: Econ 335 or equivalent, Econ 320 and 371 desirable. Spr: Hoselitz.

X. Economics of Consumption

381. Consumers and the Market (= Home Economics 341), Prereq: course in economic theory. Win: Reid.

383A. Consumption Levels (= Home Economics 343A). Prereq: course in statistics. Aut: Reid.

388. The Family in the American Economy (= Home Economics 348). Prereq: course in economic theory. Sum, Spr: Reid.

XI. Seminars and Workshops

439. Workshop in Money and Banking. Aut, Win, Spr: Friedman, Cagan.

455. Seminar in Agricultural Economics. Aut, Win, Spr: Schultz, Johnson, Tolley, Gustafson.

490. Research in Economics. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary, Sum: Staff.

498. Thesis Seminar. Registration may be made for one or more courses. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

499. Individual Research. Registration may be made for one or more courses. Prereg: consent of Departmental Secretary. Sum, Aut, Win, Spr: Staff.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Addenda. Box 31, Folder “7/87 Chic. School. GJS Folder. Lit., incl. “Pantaleoni?”, 1930 anti-tariff signers”.

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists Gender

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

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

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

_________________________

Chicago Economics in 1946

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

_________________________

More on the Pursuit of Samuelson
by Chicago

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

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

_________________________

Discussion with Ernest C. Colwell
(25 September 1946)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T. W. Schultz.

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

Categories
Agricultural Economics Chicago Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Assigned Readings for Price and Income Instability. T. W. Schultz, 1956

Beginning in 1957 Zvi Griliches took over the course at Chicago on Price and Income Instability with special reference to agriculture. The course was previously taught by T. W. Schultz. In his files for the course Griliches kept a copy of the course outline and readings for the Spring 1956 quarter taught by his predecessor.

There were 86 numbered items on Schultz’s reading list that he referenced by the item number with chapter/page selections for some of the items. You will have to jump down from the course outline to the list of course readings and back, which I find a very peculiar way to present a course outline, but it didn’t keep him from getting a Nobel prize in economics in 1979.

_________________________

T. W. Schultz
University of Chicago

Economics 355 B
Price and Income Instability

(as problems in economic organization with special reference to agriculture)

Economics 355 B will cover the following classes of problems:

      1. general characteristics of policies and programs which are related to agriculture.
      2. analysis of the price and income instability that confronts agriculture.
      3. alternative measures for reducing or accommodating price and income instability.
      4. some research proposals directed to this set of problems.
  1. General characteristics of policies and programs for agriculture by types of countries and during different periods.

(to be developed in class)

  1. Analysis of price and income instability that confronts agriculture.

38, chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10;
55, chs, 11 and 20.

    1. Instability of the economy as a whole.

19;
5;
23;
50;
67;
44.

    1. Particular instabilities of farm product prices during the stock period.

45: pp. 14-15, 65-66, 76-77;
31, Ch. 2;
10: pp. 42-44;
51.

      1. Producer supply schedule for stock period.

(1) Farm household activities.

55, ch. 14;
49, ch. 6.

(2) Farm-firm activities.

55, ch. 14;
68, ch. 2.

      1. Demand schedule confronting producers restricted to stock period.

55, ch. 11;
68, ch. 2.

      1. Spot and forward markets.

38, ch. 10;
27;
42;
43;
32;
37;
28;
29;
6;
14;
54;
58;
69;
70.

    1. Particular instabilities of farm product prices for time intervals longer than stock period (up to and including two production periods).
      1. Planned and unplanned variations in production (supply).

55, chs. 11, 12, 13;
40;
68, ch. 2.4;
12;
11;
1;
2b;
65;
13;
16;
61;
66.

      1. Shifts in demand schedule during relatively short periods.

55, ch. 11;
12;
68, ch. 2;
71;
8;
9;
17;
18;
22;
46;
56;
57;
59;
62;
63;
64.

  1. Measures for reducing or accommodating farm product prices and income instability.

7;
44;
67;
26, pp. 247-252.

    1. Particular abrupt and large shifts in the demand schedule.

55, pp. 344-346.

    1. Large year to year changes in production.

55, ch. 19;
38, ch. 13;
2b;
3;
4;
15;
24;
25;
30;
34;
35;
36;
41;
48;
52;
53;
60.

    1. Increasing the price elasticity of the relevant schedules.

55, pp. 349-358.

    1. By way of accommodation.

55, pp. 358-366.

      1. Farms with more capacity to cope with price and income instability.
      2. Possibilities by storage.
      3. Safeguarding income during depressions.
  1. Some research proposals

(to be based on III and the research interest of the student)

_________________________

T. W. Schultz
Spring, 1956

Economics 355 B
List of Readings

  1. Barber, Lloyd, “Variability of Wheat Yields by Counties in the United States,” BAE (September, 1951).
  2. (a) Barber, E. Lloyd, “Summerfallowing to Meet Weather Risks in Wheat Farming,” Agricultural Economics Research, III (October, 1951).
  1. (b) Barton, Glen T. and Cooper, Martin R., “Relation of Agricultural Production to Inputs,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XXX (May, 1948).
  2. Barber, E. Lloyd and Thair, Philip J., “Institutional Methods of Meeting Weather Uncertainty in the Great Plains,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXII (August, 1950).
  3. Barber, E. Lloyd, Meeting Weather Risks in Kansas Wheat Farming, Kansas Agr. Ext. Sta. and BAE Agr. Report 44 (September, 1950).
  4. Bennett, M. K. and Associates, International Commodity Stockpiling as an Economic Stabilizer (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1949).
  5. Blau, G., “Some Aspects of the Theory of Futures Trading,” The Review of Economic Studies, XI (1943-44).
  6. Brownlee, O. H. and Johnson, D. Gale, “Reducing Price Variability Confronting Primary Producers,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXII (May, 1950).
  7. Burk, Marguerite, “Recent Relationships between Income and Food Expenditure,” Agricultural Economics Research, BAE, III (July, 1951).
  8. ___________, “Changes in the Demand for Food from 1941 to 1950,” Journal of Farm Economics,” XXXIII (August, 1951).
  9. Clark, Colin, Conditions of Economic Progress, 2nd ed, (London: Macmillan, 1951).
  10. Cochrane, Willard W., An Analysis of Farm Price Behavior, Progress Report Agricultural Experinent Station, Pennsylvania State College (May, 1951)
  11. ___________, “Farm Price Gyrations — An Aggregative Hypothesis,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXIX (May, 1947).
  12. Day, Emily L. and Barber, Lloyd, Physical Risks in Farm Production, Selected References, 1930-1948. USDA Library, List 49 (August, 1949).
  13. Dow, J. C. R., “A Theoretical Account of Futures Markets,” The Review of Economic Studies, VII (1939-40).
  14. Ellickson, John C., “Hail Insurance on Growing Crops in the United States,” Agricultural Finance Review, BAE, XIII (November, 1950).
  15. Foote, Richard J. and Bean, Louis H., “Are Yearly Variations in CropYield Random?” BAE, Agricultural Economics Research, III (January, 1951).
  16. Fox, Karl A., “Factors Affecting Farm Income, Farm Prices and FoodConsumption,” Agricultural Economics Research, III (July, 1951).
  17. ___________ and Norcross, Harry C., “Agriculture and the General Economy,” Agricultural Economics Research, IV (January, 1952).
  18. Friedman, Milton, “Commodity-Reserve Currency,” Journal of Political Economy. LIX (June, 1951).
  19. Galbraith, John K., American Capitalism—The Concept of Countervailing Power (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1952).
  20. Galbraith, John K., “Economic Preconceptions and Farm Policy,” American Economic Review, XLIV (March, 1954).
  21. Girschick, M. A. and Haavelmo, T., “Statistical Analysis of the Demand forFood,” Econometrica, XV (April, 1947).
  22. Graham, Benjamin, Storage and Stability (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937).
  23. Halcrow, Harold G., “Actuarial Structure of Crop Insurance,”Journal of Farm Economics, XXXI (August, 1949).
  24. ___________, The Theory of Crop Insurance, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1948.
  25. Haley, Bernard F. (ed.), A Survey of Contemporary Economics, Vol. I (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1952).
  26. Hardy, C. O., “Recent Developments in the Theory of Speculation,” American Economic Review, XXVII (1937).
  27. ___________ and Lyon, L. S., “The Theory of Hedging,” Journal of Political Economy, XXXI (1923).
  28. Hawtrey, R. G., “Mr. Kaldor on the Forward Market,” The Review of Economic Studies, VIII (1940-41).
  29. Heisig, Carl P., “Income Instabillty in High Risk Farming Areas,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXVIII (1946).
  30. Hicks, J. R., Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939).
  31. Hicks, J. R., “Theory of Uncertainty and Profit,” Economica, VI (1939).
  32. Hoos, Sidney,“Relations between Agricultural Price Policy and MarketingResearch,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXIII (August, 1951).
  33. Horton, Donald C., “Adaptation of the Farm Capital Structure to Uncertainty,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXI (February, 1949).
  34. ___________, The Pattern of Farm Financial Structure, National Bureau of Economic Research, a preliminary draft (May, 1951).
  35. ___________ and Barber, E. Lloyd, “The Problem of Farm Business Survival in Areas of Highly Variable Rainfall,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXI, Proceedings (November, 1942).
  36. Houthakker, H. S., “A Proposed Inquiry into Some Markets with Forward Trading,” Cowles Commission Discussion Paper Economics 2036 and Agricultural Economics Research Paper No. 5211, March 21, 1952. Mimeo.
  37. Johnson, D. Gale, Forward Prices for Agriculture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947).
  38. ___________, Trade and Agriculture: A Study of Inconsistent Policies (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950).
  39. ___________, “The Nature of the Supply Function for American Agriculture,” American Economic Review, XL (September, 1950).
  40. Jones, Lloyd E.,“Stabilizing Farming by Shifting Wheat Land to Grass in Northern Great Plains,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXII (August, 1950).
  41. Kaldor, N., “A Note on the Theory of the Forward Market,”The Review of Economic Studies, VII (1939-40).
  42. ___________, “Speculation and Economic Stability,” The Review of Economic Studies, VII (1939-40).
  43. Keynes, J. M., “The Policy of Government Storage of Food-Stuffs and Raw Materials,” Economic Journal, XLVIII (September, 1938).
  44. Knight, Frank H., The Economic Organization (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1951).
  45. Mack, Ruth P., “The Direction of Change in Income and the Consumption Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XXX (1948).
  46. Mehrens, George L., “Comparative Costs of Agricultural Price Supportsin 1949,” Proceedings, American Economic Review, XLI (May, 1951).
  47. Nebraska Agr. Exp. Sta., Toward Stability in the Great Plains Economy, Proceedings of a conference held at Custer, South Dakota in 1949. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 399 (July, 1950).
  48. Reid, M. G., Food for People (New York: Wiley, 1943).
  49. Reifler, Winfield, “A Proposal for an International Buffer-Stock Agency,” Journal of Political Economy, LIV (December, 1946).
  50. Robbins, Lionel,“Elasticity of Demand for Income in Terms of Effort,” Economica (1930).
  51. Schickele, Rainer, “Farm Business Survival under Extreme Weather Risk,”Journal of Farm Economics, XXXI (November, 1949),
  52. ___________, “Farmers Adaptation to Income Uncertainty,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXII (August, 1950).
  53. Schultz, T. W., Production and Welfare of Agriculture (New York: Macmillan, 1949).
  54. ___________, The Economic Organization of Agriculture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953).
  55. Schultz, Henry, The Theory and Measurement of Demand (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938).
  56. ___________, “The Shifting Demand for Selected Agricultural Commodities, 1875-1929,” Journal of Farm Economics, XIV (April, 1932).
  57. Stewart, Blair, An Analysis of Speculative Trading in Grain Futures, USDA Commodity Exchange Authority, Bul. No. 1001. October, 1942.
  58. Stone, J. R. K., “Analysis of Market Demand,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, CVIII (1945).
  59. Thair, Philip J., Stabilizing Farm Income against Crop Yield Fluctuations, Agr. Exp. Sta. North Dakota and BAE Bul. 362, September, 1950).
  60. Timoshenko, P., “Variability in Wheat Yields and Outputs, Part I. Cycles or Random Fluctuations,” Wheat Studies of the Food Research Institute, XVIII (Stanford, California, 1942).
  61. Tintner, Gerhard,“Multiple Regression for System of Equations,” Econometrics, XIV (January, 1946).
  62. Tobin, James,“A Statistical Demand Function for Food in the U.S.A.,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, CXIII (1950), Part II.
  63. U.S.D.A., BAE, Consumption of Food in the United States, 1909-48, Misc. Pub. 691 (August, 1949).
  64. U.S.D.A., BAE, Farm Production Practices, Costs and Returns, Stat. Bul. 83 (October, 1949).
  65. U.S.D.A., Fluctuations in Crops and Weather, 1866-1948, Stat. Bul. 101 (June, 1951).
  66. Viner, Jacob, “International Finance in the Post-War World,”Lloyds Bank Review (October, 1946).
  67. Waugh, Frederick V., Readings in Agricultural Marketing (Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1954).
  68. Williams, J. B., “Speculation and the Carryover,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, LI (1936).
  69. Working, H. “Theory of the Inverse Carrying Charge in Futures Markets,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXX (1948).
  70. Working, E. J., “Appraising the Demand for American Agricultural Output during Rearmament,” Journal of Farm Economics XXXIV, May, 1952.
Supplementary List #1
  1. Bauer, P. T., West African Trade (Cambridge: The University Press, 1954), esp. Parts 3, 5, and 6.
  2. ___________ and Paish, F. , “The Reduction of Fluctuations in the Incomes of Primary Producers,” Economic Journal, LXII (December, 1952).
  3. ___________, “The Reduction of Fluctuations in the Incomes of Primary Producers Further Considered,” Economic Journal, LXIV, (December, 1954).
  4. Friedman, Milton, “The Reduction of Fluctuations in the Incomes of Primary Producers: A Critical Comment, Economic Journal, LXIV (December 1954).
  5. Gustafson, Robert L.,Optimal Carryover Rules for Grains, The University of Chicago RMA Study (January 31, 1954). Agricultural Economics Research Paper).
  6. Heady, Earl O., Kehrberg, Earl W., and Jebe, Emil B., Economic Instability and Choices Involving Income and Risk in Primary or Crop Production, Res. Bul. 404 (January, 1954) Agric. Exp. Iowa State College.
  7. Heady, Earl, “Diversification in Resource Allocation and Minimization of Income Variability,” Journal of Farm Economics XXXIV (November, 1952).
  8. Johnson, D. Gale, “Competition in Agriculture: Fact or Fiction?”American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings XLIV (May, 1954).
  9. Kaldor, Donald R. and Heady, Earl O., An Exploratory Study of Expectations, Uncertainty and Farm Plans in Southern Iowa Agriculture, Res. Bul. 408 April, 1954) Agric. Exp. Sta. Iowa State College.
  10. Kaplan, Marshall.On Estimating Demand Parameters With Special Reference to Food, AgriculturalEconomics Research Paper No. 5415. September 24, 1954.
  11. Lee, Ivan M., “Temperature Insurance — An Alternative to Frost Insurancein Citrus,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXV (February, 1953).
  12. Nordin, J. A., Judge, George G., and Wohby, Omar, Application of Econometric Procedures to Demands for Agricultural Products, Res. Bul 410 (July, 1954) Agri. Exp. Sta. Iowa State College.
  13. Tolley, George, “Minimizing Grain Storage Costs,” Journal of Farm Economics, XXXV (November, 1953).
  14. Foreign Agricultural Service. Agricultural Market and Price Policies in Foreign Countries. Report No. 74 (September, 1953).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 130, Folder “Syllabus and exams, 1955-1959”.

Image Source:  T. W. Schultz, University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. The School of Chicago 1972 by Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977). IDs by Gordon, McCloskey & Grossbard

The 1500th artifact added to Economics in the Rear-view Mirror deserves to be a celebratory post for visitors. For this honor I have chosen a  pastiche drawn by a Chicago economics graduate student in 1972. Roger Vaughan (Ph.D. 1977) was the principal, if not only, illustrator for the student-produced satirical publication P.H.A.R.T., an issue of which has been transcribed for an earlier post.

I first saw a copy of Roger Vaughan’s reworking of Raphael’s “School of Athens” added to a photo from a Tweet of a few years back. At that time it did not occur to me to engage in a serious search for the backstory to the drawing. And yet, serendipity turned out to be kind to me when, on a visit to the Harvard Archives last year, I stumbled upon a folded, mint-condition copy of  Vaughan’s “The School of Chicago 1972” in the papers of Zvi Griliches. Of course I had this masterpiece of economics funny business copied and it now has pride of place in my home study.

A few identifications of the figures seen in “The School of Chicago 1972” are obvious (e.g. Milton Friedman and George Stigler, duh) and others could be identified from other Vaughan caricatures that likewise are found in Griliches’ papers (e.g. Marc Nerlove, Stan Fischer, and Robert J. Gordon). Still, most of the renderings remained unidentified. My first idea was to seek out the artist himself, but alas I could only confirm that he had passed in October 2021. The next idea was to seek a living eye-witness to the Chicago economics department of a half-century ago. Here I was luckier, the Stanley G. Harris Professor in the Social Sciences at Northwestern University, Robert J. Gordon, responded to my inquiry almost immediately and as quickly forwarded my request for further information to Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Deirdre McCloskey, for her confirmation and further commentary. Following the initial posting of this artifact, Professor Shoshana Grossbard of San Diego State University spotted a few misspelled names (mea culpa), but, more importantly, was able to identify Margaret Reid by her beret(!).We can all be grateful to these colleagues for their identifications provided below. There remains one unidentified man in the back-row standing to George Stigler’s left plus a couple of yet-to-be identified graduate students. Peeps, Economic in the Rear-view Mirror needs your help! You can leave comments at the end of this post.

___________________________________

About the artist, Roger Vaughan

From his 1981 AEA Biographical Listing, p. 421

Vaughan, Roger J, 421 Hudson St., Apt. 406, New York, NY 10014. Birth Yr: 1946

Degrees: B.A., U. of Oxford, 1968; M.A., Simon Fraser U., 1970; Ph.D. U. of Chicago, 1977. Prin. Cur. Position: Dep.Dir., Off. Of Develop. Planning, State of New York, 1980-

Concurrent/Past Positions: Econ., Citibank, 1978-80; Econ. The Rand Corp. 1974-78. Research: Urban Policy, finance, taxation training.

Roger J. Vaughan’s Rand Reports,
1974-1980

• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 1, Overview 1980
• Federal Activities in Urban Economic Development 1979
• Recent Contributions to the Urban Policy Debate 1979
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 4, Population and Residential Location 1979
• Assessment of Countercyclical Public Works and Public Service Employment Programs. 1978
• Regional Cycles and Employment Effects of Public Works Investments. 1977
• The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 2, Economic Development 1977
• The value of urban open space 1977
• The Economics of Urban Blight. 1976
• Getting People to Parks. 1976
• Public Works as a Countercyclical Device: A Review of the Issues 1976
• The Use of Subsidies in the Production of Cultural Services. 1976
• The Application of Economic Analysis to the Planning and Development of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. 1975
• The Economics of Expressway Noise Pollution Abatement. 1975
• The Economics of Recreation: A Survey. 1974

Source: Rand Reports. Published Research by Author, Roger J. Vaughan.

Sage. Research Methods.

Communicating Social Science Research to Policymakers
By: Roger J. Vaughan & Terry F. Buss
Published: 1998
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412983686

___________________________________

Raphael’s Scuola di Atene (1509-1511)

For some explanation of what we see in the original, cf. “The Story Behind Raphael’s Masterpiece ‘The School of Athens'” by Jessica Stewart at the Modern Met Website.

___________________________________

Roger Vaughan’s Pastiche

Open the image in a new window to see a larger image

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129. Folder “Posters, ca. 1960s-1970s”.

Background

The statues standing in the upper alcove are of the President and Vice-President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon (holding a lyre, a sweet visual pun) and Spiro T. Agnew (with the pennant “Effete Snobs”, abridged from his description of self-characterized intellectuals as an “effete core of impudent snobs” in his  “Generation Gap” speech given in New Orleans on October 19th, 1969.)

“1126” refers to the street address of the Social Science Research Building, 1126 E. 59th St.

“MV=PT” inscribed in the center of the dome is the Equation of Exchange (cf. Irving Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money). Cf. at the left of the back-row of Chicago economists, Arnold Zellner is carrying papers with “MV=PY“. Milton Friedman’s vanity license plates on his red cadillac used “MV=PQ” for the Equation of Exchange. Everyone seems to have agreed on the notational virtues of “M”, “V”, and “P”. Does anyone know whether there was any substantive reason for differences regarding the choice of “T”, “Y”, and “Q” for the final term?

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Though his arm is blocking part of the equation, Zellner is clearly displaying the equation of exchange, MV = PY.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Underneath Nixon is Marc Nerlove pointing into the ear, by the way of insult, of Hans Theil the great Dutch econometrician (the four great econometricians at Chicago, which had included Zvi Griliches, who had just moved to Harvard, hated each other).”

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Robert J. Gordon served as an editor of the Journal of Political Economy (J.P.E.) from 1971-1973.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror comment: Stigler’s position corresponds to that of Aristotle’s in Raphael’s fresco. There Aristotle holds a copy of his own Nicomachean Ethics. Stigler is seen here holding a book by [Adam] Smith, presumably Wealth of Nations.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “George Tolley [is] in a garbage can because he did urban economics (Vaughan was his student).”

Shoshana Grossbard’s comment: “[Margaret Reid]…not only [wore] the dark beret, but also [has] her hair in a bun, under the beret. that was her typical look. She and I attended Becker’s workshop in applications of economics in the years 1974-76.”

And guess what a casual search just turned up…

Margaret Gilpin Reid, professor emeritus of Home Economics and Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07052, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror’s comment: On the high-resolution hard-copy hanging on my study wall, the beret looks sort of like an ink blot and I regreted that imperfection. But now, thanks to Shoshana Grossbard’s careful observation combined with her memory of Reid’s “typical look” and an archival sighting of said beret, I am convinced and grateful that we now have another positive identification!

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “D. Gale Johnson…has a pitchfork because he was an agricultural economist. ”

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: Ted Schultz […] is pointing down to say “This is where the true Chicago School is, where I am!”.

Foreground

The identification of Robert F. Pollard was made by Roger Vaughan’s work and life partner, Anna Nechai.

 

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “…Dick Zecher [is] sticking his finger through an IBM card because he was in charge of the Department’s mainframe computer access.”

Another visual pun: Harry Johnson is portrayed writing on a literal Edgeworth-Bowley-box, a two-dimensional representation of allocations that could be Pareto efficient exchange equilibria. The two tradeable goods are measured in Edgeworth and Bowley units, respectively.

Deirdre McCloskey’s comment: “Mary Jean Bowman, one of two tenured women in a small department; she did educational and demographic economics.  The other woman was Margaret Reid, the inventor of household economics…”

The triangle seen in the previous detail is Arnold Harberger’s measure of deadweight loss (efficiency cost resulting from a natural or policy induced distortion of markets).  See Robert J. Gordon’s historical photo of Al Harberger stripping down to reveal himself as “Triangleman” ca. December 1970. In Raphael’s fresco Harberger’s place was that of Euclid.

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “I think the bearded student is Dan Wisecarver”

Robert  J. Gordon’s comment: “The woman holding the ball is Carolyn Mosby, the head of the department staff.”

 

 

 

 

 

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Economics Programs Economists

Chicago. The Education of Zvi Griliches. Through Ph.D. 1957

 

The two documents transcribed for this post provide wonderful detail about the economics training received by Zvi Griliches whose academic career passed from Hebrew University, through the University of California, Berkeley, and ultimately through the University of Chicago to Harvard.

Griliches was responsible for graduate admissions in the Harvard economics department back when I was applying to graduate school (1974). When I went to Cambridge to visit the Harvard and M.I.T. departments, I pressed Griliches (the only professor at Harvard with whom I could get an appointment) for him to tell me what in his opinion the difference between Harvard and M.I.T. was. He smiled (hopefully amused by my naive presumption) and replied that M.I.T. provided more of a “bootcamp training” than Harvard would. He did make that sound like a bad thing. In any event, M.I.T. was better at recruiting, able on short notice to line up appointments to talk with Evsey Domar and Charles Kindlberger plus a handful of graduate students. Still I have to admit that Griliches did warn me what I was getting myself into.

Zvi Griliches was awarded a Social Science Research Council Research Training Fellowship in 1955-56, and from information in the supplementary statements below, it is clear that the application was written sometime in the early months of 1955 (Chicago’s Winter Quarter 1955). So while it is possible that he was applying for more than this single fellowship, there is no indication of any other fellowship at that time being considered in Griliches’ papers in the files at the Harvard Archive that I consulted.

Questions for the Price Theory prelim exam for the Winter Quarter 1955 have been posted earlier. From Milton Friedman’s papers, we know that Griliches got the top grade (by a long shot) on that particular exam.

Griliches received a two year appointment at Chicago beginning Oct 1, 1956— “to give service for the National Science Foundation Econometric Model Research Project on a ninety per cent time basis and for the Department of Economics on a ten per cent time basis with total salary of $5,000 per annum”. So it was certainly reasonable for him at the start of the second year of his contract to put his academic record on file with the University of Chicago Vocational Service and Employment Office. That is the second document transcribed below.

Economic in the Rear-view Mirror’s “Believe it or not!”

Graduates listing themselves with the University of Chicago’s Vocational Service and Employment Office were asked even as late as the Autumn Quarter of 1957:

Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer to teach?
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer not to teach?

Easy to believe, and the documentary record indeed shows, that Zvi Griliches answered “No” to both questions.

___________________________________

Supplementary Statements from Winter Quarter 1955 in Griliches’ fellowship application for 1955-56

 Zvi Griliches

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “C”:

For attainment of the objectives outlined above I think that the following knowledge and training is desirable:  1) economic theory including mathematical economics; 2) statistics and econometrics including all the modern developments and also experience with efficient computational procedures; 3) agricultural economics; and 4) some knowledge of historical methods.

  1. Economic theory and mathematical economics will be very important in my future work because they provide the framework for the actual quantitative work. They suggest which are the important variables in different problems and indicate something about the form of their interrelationships. They also provide a check on the internal consistency of our models and are the source of most of our hypotheses. I believe that I have a good knowledge of basic economic theory and a reasonable familiarity with mathematical economics. My major graduate courses in this field were:

R.G. Bressler Jr. — Production Economics — In this course I was introduced to the pure theory of production and to the interrelationships of cost and supply curves.

R.G. Bressler Jr. — Seminar in Agricultural Marketing Organization — This course, in spite of its name, dealt primarily with problems of cost measurement, location theory, and general equilibrium.

Robert Dorfman — Advanced Economic Theory A-B1 — This was the major graduate course in Economic Theory at the University of California, covering Price Theory, Distribution Theory, and introducing us to Income and Employment Theory.

Robert Dorfman — Mathematical Methods in Economics — This was my introduction the Mathematical Economics proper. It dealt with general maximization problems, the pure theory of consumers’ choice, and in particular with dynamic difference equations models. The last topic will be very important in the construction of my model.

A.C. Harberger — Price Theory A — Covered more advanced topics in price theory and problems of definition and measurement of utility.

D. Gale Johnson — Price Theory B3 — This course covers distribution theory and related topics.

            I have also taken in the past and intend to take in the future a series of courses in Monetary and Fiscal Theory which I shall not list here.

            I also intend to participate in the Seminar in Mathematical Economics to be given in the spring quarter of 1955 by G. Debreu at the University of Chicago. In spite of all the above, I shall still lack adequate knowledge of Mathematical Economics. I need especially a better knowledge of growth models and of stochastic difference equations. I think, however, that I shall be able to acquire this necessary knowledge through individual study, as my work progresses.

            I am aided in my knowledge of mathematical economics and also of statistics and econometrics by a good undergraduate training in calculus and an individually acquired knowledge of matrix and vector algebra. Nevertheless, this is not enough. As it forms a basis for most of the other fields, I should learn more mathematics. I intend to do so after I have completed the preliminary Ph.D requirements both through intensive studying on my own and also by auditing some courses at the university.

 

  1. A good knowledge of statistics and econometrics is indispensable for quantitative work in agricultural economics. Though this is a field where there is always more to learn, nevertheless, I think that I have a basic knowledge of the most important techniques. My major courses in this field were:

George Kuznets — Analytical Methods A — This was my introduction to the theory and methods of multiple regression, weighted regression, testing hypotheses, and non-parametric tests. Within the framework of this course I wrote a paper “Demand for Clingstone Peaches on the Grower Level” which introduced me to modern computational procedures and the use of modern computational equipment.

Ivan Lee — Analytical Methods B — In this course I was introduced to simultaneous equations, the identification problem, maximum likelihood estimates, analysis of variance, and sampling theory. Within the framework of this course I wrote a paper “Clingstone Peaches: Demand and Supply Relationships on the Grower Level” applying both least squares and limited information techniques.

Roy Radner — Statistical Problems of Model Construction1 — Introduced me to decision theory, covered in greater detail the Markov Theorem and maximum likelihood estimates.

Martin Beckman — Allocation of Resources in Production3 — This course is introducing me to the valuable new technique of activity analysis (linear programing).

W.H. Kruskal —  Mathematical Statistics I2 — The principal topics of this course are: point and set estimation; hypothesis testing; elements of multivariate analysis; elements of linear hypothesis theory; typical nonparametric procedures.

            In the addition to the above I profited greatly from work with Professors Varden Fuller and Ivan Lee (Summer 1953), which made me familiar with census data, BAE publications, and other major sources of data in agriculture: and from my work with Professor Sidney Hoos (Summer 1954), which provided practical experience in the application of modern econometric techniques. I also have participated and shall continue to participate in the Seminar in Econometrics conducted by members of the Cowles Commission at the University of Chicago.

            All this of course is not enough. I shall have to learn much more. Some of it I shall still get at the university, but the greater part I shall have to learn on my own as my work progresses.

 

  1. A thorough knowledge of agricultural economics is important as it will provide both the framework and background of my work. I believe that I possess a reasonably good knowledge of this field. I have received both the B.S. and M.S. degrees in agricultural economics and have read widely in the field. Some of my courses in this field were:

George Mehren — Seminar in Agricultural Marketing — Introduced me to the practical and theoretical problems arising in the administration of agricultural marketing and adjustment programs.

Murray Benedict — Agricultural Production Economics — Dealt with the theoretical issues underlying policy problems in agriculture.

Varden Fuller — Seminar in Agricultural Policy1— Dealt with current policy issues and their economic implications.

C.M. Hardin — Seminar in Agricultural Policy2 — This course is introducing me to the consideration of current agricultural policy issues from the point of view of Political Science.

T.W. Schultz — Choice and Possibilities in Economic Organization — Dealt primarily with economic development and its impact on agriculture.

D. Gale Johnson — Incomes Welfare, and Policy3 — This course is introducing me to more advanced topics in agricultural economics and policy.

            I have gained also from participation in departmental meetings and seminars, both at the University of California and at the University of Chicago. Three years of my life spent working on farms (1947-50) and a summer (1952) as a research assistant with the California Packing Corporation collecting yield data have enriched my understanding of agriculture and its problems.

 

  1. As time series are used to a great extent in quantitative work, some knowledge of historical methods is quite important. I am fortunate in this respect to have had a very intensive and profitable year of undergraduate study in History at the Hebrew University, and in particular a course in “Introduction to historical literature and methods” by Professor Richard Koebner

            The only way one really becomes adept in quantitative work is by doing quantitative work. In a sense, this is the purpose of my project. As a result of work on my project I should gain experience and facility in using both theory and quantitative methods.

I have a good knowledge of Russian, German and Hebrew.

—————————————–

1 I audited this course
2 I am auditing this course
3  am currently taking this course

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “D”:

I shall have completed all the required course work by June 1955. I intend to take the Ph.D. preliminary examination in Winter 1955, and the preliminary examinations in Money and Banking, and Agricultural Economics in Summer 1955. I have already taken and passed a reading examination in German, and I shall take the examination in Russian in February of 1955. Hence, I hope to have completed all the requirements toward the Ph.D. degree, except the dissertation and final oral examination, by August 1955, and before the fellowship goes into effect.

The preliminary title of my thesis is “A study of the factors determining the development, distribution, and acceptance of new technology”.

The faculty adviser is Professor D. Gale Johnson,

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “E” :

1950-51. A student at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

1951-54. Student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Summer 1952. Research Assistant with the California Packing Corporation. Collection of yield data. $1.10 per hour.

Fall 1952. Awarded the D. Solis Cohen Scholarship. This scholarship was awarded to me during the following two semesters.

May 1953. Election to Phi Beta Kappa.

June 1953. Awarded the degree of Bachelor of Science with highest honors in Agriculture.

Summer 1953. Research Assistant with the John Haynes Foundation, working under the direction of Prof. Varden Fuller, at the University of California. Salary: $325/month

1953-54. Jesse D. Carr Fellow in Agriculture at the University of California.

Summer 1954. Research Assistant at the Gianini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California; working under the direction of Professor Sidney Hoos. Salary —$290 a month.

September 1954. Awarded a Master of Science degree in Agricultural Economics by the University of California.

1954-55. A University Fellow and full time student at the University of Chicago.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT “F”:

  1. “Demand for Clingstone Peaches on the Grower Level”, Berkeley,  January 1954, Typewritten manuscript,
  2. “Clingstone Peaches for Canning: Demand and Supply Interrelationships on the Grower Level”, Berkeley, June 1954,
  3. “The Differential Spread of Hybrid Corn: A Research Proposal”, Chicago, December 1954, pp. 1-20.

All three papers are available on loan from me. All are unpublished typewritten manuscripts.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder: “Correspondence, 1954-1959.”

_______________________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE AND PLACEMENT

EDUCATIONAL REGISTRATION FORM

Date: September 30, 1957
Name in Full: Hirsch Zvi Griliches
Current Address: 6011 Kimbark, Chicago 37, Ill.
Telephone: Bu 8-1975
Permanent Address: ditto

 

PERSONAL DATA

Date of birth: 9/12/1930. Place: Kaunas, Lithuania
Are you a U.S. citizen? No
If through naturalization give date. If not, explain status: Permanent resident (immigrant), expect. naturalizt. in 2 yrs.
Height: 5’11
Weight: 160
Marital status: Married
Number and ages of children: 1 daughter, 9 months.
Are you a veteran? Of the Israeli Army.
Physical handicaps: None
Church (if you wish to indicate): Jewish
Scholastic honors: S.B. with Highest Honors in Agriculture (U of Calif., 1953), Phi Beta Kappa
Scholarships (give dates and schools): Solis D. Cohen Scholarship, Univ. of Calif., 1952-53
Fellowships (give dates and schools): Jesse D. Carr (Univ of Calif., 1953-54), University (U of Chicago, 1954-55), Social Science Res. Council Research Training Fell. 55-56
Certificates held: None

 

EDUCATIONAL AND RELATED EXPERIENCE

List chronologically all work experience (including teaching, government, business, practice teaching, and experience in armed services)

June 1953 to Sept 1953. John Hanes Foundation, Berkeley, Calif., Research Assistant

June 1954 to Sept. 1954. Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Research Assistant, Price Analysis.

Oct. 1954 to Sept 1955. Office of Agricult. Economic Research, Chicago, Research Assistant.

Oct. 1956 to date, U of Chicago, Assistant. Prof., Ag. Economics, Gen. Econ. Theory.

 

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

(If this space is insufficient, attach another sheet)

UNDERGRADUATE COURSES: (List title, not catalogue number, and follow with the number of semester hours; e.g. Shakespeare, 3. One full course in the College of the University of Chicago equals 3 semester hours.)

First Year

 Second Year Third Year

Fourth Year
Hebrew 10 Geology 6 Botany 3
English 8 Introd. Econ 6 Calculus 6
Latin 8 Intern. Trade 3 Ag Econ Theory 6
Russian 4 Statistics 3 Ag. Marketing 3
Westr. Civil. 6 Agric Policy 3 Ag Policy 3
Polit. Theories 8 Range Mangmnt 3 Hist. of Ec. Thght 3
Medieval History 8 Zoology 3 Irrigation Econ. 3
Sociology 8 Agronomy 3
Intnat.Econ. 3

 

GRADUATE COURSES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (List Course Title.) (One full course in the Divisions of the University of Chicago equals 3½ semester hours)

Instructor

 Title of Course Instructor

Title of Course
Harberger Price Theory A Hamilton Banking and Monetary Policy
Monetary and Fiscal Policy Metzler Monetary Asp. of Inter’l Trade
Recent Dev. in Economics Beckman Alloc’n of Res. in Prod.
Schultz Choice & Possib. in Econ. Org. Audited:
Econ. Org. for Stability Savage Introd. To Probability Theo.
Regression & Anal. of Varian.
Johnson Price Theory B Theil Math. Economics
Income, Welfare, & Policy Radner Econometrics
Friedman Price Theory A & B
Tolley Money

 

GRADUATE COURSES TAKEN ELSEWHERE (University of California, Berkeley)

Instructor

 Title of Course Instructor

Title of Course
Clark Agric Marketing 3 Kuznets Analytical Methods A 3
Mehren Agric Marketing. Sem. 3 Lee Analytical Methods B 3
Bressler Ag Market Organ. Sem. 3 Dorfman Math Methods of Econ 3.
Bressler Ag Production Theory A 3 Audited:
Benedict Ag Production Theory B 3 Dorfman Econ Theory A & B 6

 

SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AS OF Oct. 1, 1957

 MAJORS SEMESTER HOURS MINORS
(OR RELATED FIELDS)

SEMESTER HOURS

Undergraduate

 Agric Econ 15 History 22
Economics 15 Math and Statistics

9

Graduate

 Agric Econ 24 Econometrics & Stat 6 + 9 aud.
Econ Theory & Math Econ 15 +15 aud Money

12
Thesis field and preliminary fields: Agricultural Economics, Economic Theory, Monetary Theory.
Education Courses:  None

 

ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING

List all schools attended. Begin with high school from which you graduated. Include work in progress at the University of Chicago and Foreign [Universities]

Dates of Attendance

 Institutions—Location Major Subject Minor Subject

Degree and Date Awarded
6/50 Dept. of Education, State of Israel External Matriculation exams passed 1950
9/50 to 6/51 Hebrew University, Jerusalem History Sociology —
10/51 to 6/54 University of California, Berkeley Agric. Econ Agric. Market. S.B. 1953
S.M. 1954
10/54 to 8/57 University of Chicago, Chicago Economics Agric. Econ. A.M. 1955
Ph.D. 1957

Title of Master’s thesis: no thesis

Title of Doctor’s thesis: Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in Economics of Technological Change.
Thesis adviser: T.W. Schultz

 

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Single check activities in which you have participated. Double check those which you can direct [coach/play].

Assemblies, Athletics, Audio-Visual, Band, Camping, Chorus, Civic Organizations, Crafts, Curriculum Planning, Debate, Dramatics, Gymnasium Activities, Orchestra, Parent-Teachers activities, Piano, Playground, Public Addresses, Pupil Participation in Government, Reading, Rhythms-Dances, School Clubs, School Publications, School Publicity, Speech, Vocational Guidance.

[Note:  Only School Clubs was checked (single checked) from the list. It was the Political Economy Club in college]

What foreign languages do you speak? Hebrew, Russian, German, Lithuanian, Yiddish.

Can you type? Poorly. Take dictation? No. Bookkeeping knowledge? No.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(For our use only—not included in credentials mailed to employers.)

PUBLICATIONS:

“Specification bias in estimates of production functions,” Journal of Farm Economics, February 1957.

“Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change,”Econometrica, October 1957.

Book reviews in the Journal of Political Economy

MEMBERSHIPS:

American Economic Association
American Farm Economics Association
Econometric Society
Fellow of Royal Economic Society

 

REFERENCES
Instructors at the University of Chicago

List at least two University of Chicago instructors who are able to evaluate your course work.

T.W. Shultz
A.C. Harberger
D.G. Johnson
Carl Christ

 

INSTRUCTORS AT OTHER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTIONS

List instructors at other schools from whom you would like to have letters of recommendation.

R.G. Bressler. Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley.
Sidney Hoos.  Ditto.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

If you have had teaching or administrative experience, list administrative officers who can report on your work (one for each position you have held).

D.G. Johnson, Univ. of Chicago. Act. Chairman
H.G. Lewis, Univ. of Chicago. Director of Research Center.

 

At what other university or college placement office are your letters of recommendation on file?   None.

 

OCCUPATIONAL CHOICES

List three position choices. Be very specific as to (1) courses you can teach within your own department (e.g., if Sociology-Social Psychology, Marriage and Family, Theory); (2) kinds of institutions (University, Liberal Arts College, State Teachers College, Junior College, High School, Junior High School, or grades); (3) other types of positions (Registrar Dean, Superintendent, Business Manager, Critic, Supervisor, etc.).

University, Land Grant or Liberal Arts College, teaching position with opportunities for research. Economic Theory, Agricultural Econ., Econometrics, Money.

Date available (month and year) September 1, 1958
Locality preferred East or West Coast.
Are you limited to that area? No.
Would you apply for positions in foreign countries? Yes
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer to teach? No
Any racial or religious institutions in which you would prefer not to teach? No
Present or last salary $6500 (Confidential) for 11 months.
Minimum salary you would consider $7000 (Confidential) for 11 months.

Your registration is incomplete without six photographs (not larger than 2 ½ by 3 ½ inches).
Pictures are important.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder: “Correspondence, 1954-1959.”

Image Source:  Zvi Griliches from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06565, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memo to Provost supporting Galbraith appointment. Black, 1947

 

As surprising as it might sound, the Harvard economics department couldn’t always get whom they wanted (Theodore Schultz). As a consequence we are able to observe an aggressive strategy employed by a member of one side in the departmental hiring dispute.  Professor John D. Black attempted to play the rebound in re-pleading his case for John Kenneth Galbraith’s appointment to a newly established professorship. Indeed by writing directly to the Provost, Black could have been charged with at least an additional count of “working the ref”. The episode is well summarized in Richard Parker’s biography of Galbraith (John Kenneth Galbraith: his life, his politics, his economics, pp. 226-227). Still, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of watching sharp elbows at work in the service of intradepartmental politics as revealed in the complete letter posted below.  Black was not afraid to push nativist buttons in referring to anti-Galbrathians among his colleagues: “European clique” (cf. Haberler in 1948 on Galbraith vs Samuelson), “the monetary-fiscal policy axis” and “gaudy Keynesian trappings”.

A cynical nose can detect more than a whiff of a self-serving plea to strengthen the prospects of Black’s own field and style of research. 

Archival note: Parker refers to a copy of the letter in Black’s papers with the Wisconsin Historical Society, this post is based on a copy of the letter I found in Galbraith’s papers at the JFK Presidential Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides the outlines and exams for Black’s courses on the marketing of agricultural commodities from 1947-48).

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

As you are no doubt aware, it was I who last year nominated Galbraith for the joint professorship to the School of Public Administration and in the Department of Economics. It was my judgment at that time that in view of his experience in public affairs and acknowledged great ability he surely should be considered for this position. The voting last year confirmed my judgment surprisingly. Excluding Schultz, to whom the appointment was offered, and Tinbergen from the Netherlands, he ran neck and neck with Yntema for top place in all of the balloting, with Samuelson next, and Smithies in seventh place. Tinbergen owed his strength to the European clique in the Department of Economics (by no means all European born), who have a European idea of the function of a university, und would have been a misfit in this appointment.

The voting of course reflected in large measure the conceptions of the voting members as to the needs of the appointment. A majority of my colleagues in the Department of Economics thought of it in terms simply of getting another high-grade technical economist, with little thought for the needs of the School of Public Administration. To meet this situation, I prepared and read at one of last year’s joint meetings on the appointment, the following statement, which I now I now submit anew, as still describing the conditions of the appointment:

The decision as to an appointment in economics at this time raises the whole question of the future of the Graduate School of Public Administration and its meaning for the Departments of Economics and Government.

The first point to make under this head is that the two departments named, without the Graduate School of Public Administration, are destined to become conventional departments in these fields, not distinguishable from similar departments in other universities, except for probably having better faculties than most of them. Even the latter distinction could easily fade in the next decade or two. With the Graduate School of Public Administration working with them, they both have possibilities of becoming super-graduate departments, by building on top of the usual graduate offerings in these fields a type of advanced graduate instruction that deals with problems of the sort that arise in the higher levels of policy-making in government. The seminars now given are well worth while from this point of view, but they fell much sort of realizing their possibilities. The two departments therefore very much need the Graduate School of Public Administration. It offers them a real opportunity to achieve greatness and become important influences in our national life. On the other hand, the School can get nowhere without the regular graduate work of the two departments as a foundation. The School and the two departments should therefore work closely together, each helping the others at each step in their advancement.

This means looking at a problem, such as that of the new appointment, as a common problem, and asking the question what kind of an appointment now will promote best the progress of the departments and the School?

Before answering this question, we need to go back and consider the basis on which the School was conceived. Those who formulated the program for the School finally settled down on training in policy-making as the great opportunity for a school of public administration at a university like Harvard. They exhibited a kind of prescience and inner wisdom in so doing that would almost seem like a miracle except for the fact that it did grow almost inevitably out of the situation.

In the two or three years following the founding of the School, much actual headway was made in realizing the objective of training for policy-making. The program of the School and it method made a strong impression in government circles and in the world of education. Since then, the School has lost considerable of the advantage of such a splendid start. If it does not take hold with vigor again and press forward along the lines laid out, it will lose it entirely in five or ten more years and become nothing more than a minor adjunct of the two conventional departments of the University. This the departments themselves cannot afford to let happen. Neither can Harvard University.

Looking at the present problem in this light, there can be no doubt that the great weakness in our present situation is in persons qualified to train advanced graduate students in policy-making, who have the aptitude for it as well as the background. The interests of the departments are in such an appointment at this time. The training in policy-making, comparatively speaking, is not suffering now, and will not suffer for several years, because of deficiencies in the preliminary graduate training needed as a foundation for it.

Also needing to be considered are important and somewhat similar relations to other departments of Harvard University, particularly to the Graduate School of Business Administration, to the Law School, and to the new Department of Social Relations. The School can add something of high importance to each of these if its seminars in the policy-making function are adequately developed; and in turn its contribution will be much enriched by what workers in these fields have to offer.

An appointment at this time of one new professor qualified as indicated will not of course take us far alone the way we need to go. But it will make a good start. We shall need mainly two things in addition: A. Additional research funds for the different seminars — to be used in employing research associates, financing field work, statistical laboratory work, etc., B. Some appointments wholly on the faculty of the School. Funds for both of these, especially the first, can be obtained if sought in earnest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the School has made a start exactly along the right lines. It does not need in the least to back up and take a fresh start, but instead only to pick up what it has and go forward with it.

You, Provost Buck, do not need to be told that since I made this statement, the School has done exactly what I was hoping for. Almost certainly now at least three of the major seminars of the School will have research projects combined with them, each with small staffs of research associates. Steps are being taken to bring the School into effective working relations with the Law school and the Department of Social Relations. The need for an appointment that will strengthen its instruction in the policy-making function has in consequence become even more urgent then it was a year ago.

When it came time to offer nominations again this year, I felt that in view of the strong vote for Galbraith last year, surely he should be considered again. The third men in the top three this year, Smithies, has been substituted for Samuelson by those who supported Samuelson last year, apparently for two reasons: one, they now admit Samuelson’s shortcomings in the policy role, and consider Smithies a better candidate from this point of view; two, they expect to have Samuelson appointed to the full professorship now vacant in the Department of Economics. There seems to be more general acceptance than year ago of my conception of the needs of the appointment.

It has been necessary for me to make this last statement because it is the basis for the most important factor in the whole situation as it now develops, namely, that to appoint both Smithies and Samuelson at this time would further unbalance the work in economics at Harvard in the direction of the monetary-fiscal policy axis, since both of these men work mainly along these lines. The simple fact of the matter is that the men working in money and banking, fiscal policy and international trade, plus a few (in theory mostly) who vote with them on appointments, already constitute a voting majority in the Department of Economics. (You will remember that they did their utmost to prevent Dunlop’s appointment two years ago.) To add one more to this axis at this time would be highly unfortunate. It is, of course, not their voting which is most important — it is the narrowing effect which they have on the teaching and research in economics at Harvard. Those two appointments would contribute more than usual to such narrowing, since they are Keynesians in addition.

Of course none of these in this axis considers that he is narrow. In their discussions, to be sure, they draw in all phases of the economy. But they organize it all in terms of a single framework of reference. They pour it all, as it were, through one narrow funnel, and do some sieving in the process. As to how much they may mislead themselves in so doing, — and unfortunately some of the policy-makers of the nation; we have had abundant evidence in the past two years.

We can be reasonably certain that within ten or fifteen years, the Keynesian system of economic thinking will have been pretty well taken in stride. It would be unfortunate if at that time Harvard found itself with a faculty in economics too largely clothed in outworn habiliments. The economies of that day will have a different cast then the pre-Keynesian; but it will have lost much of its gaudy Keynesian trappings.

One of the first stories told me about Harvard when I arrived in 1927 was of President Eliot’s having been asked why Harvard University’s Department of Psychology had never developed a “school” of thought in that field, as had the Departments of Cornell and Columbia, and of his having answered that if he had discovered that his Department of Psychology was becoming dominated by one school of thought he would have hastened to appoint the strongest man he could find of an opposing school.

Of course this last point is no argument for the appointment of Galbraith. It is merely an argument against appointing Smithies if Samuelson is going to be appointed to the Department of Economics — and the pressure for Samuelson’s appointment is very strong in the Department of Economics.

I do not propose to present any strong affirmative arguments in support of Galbraith’s appointment. I nominated him because I believed that he should at least be considered. It has been the votes of my colleagues that has put him in the running, and I prefer that they tell you their reasons. I would not want him appointed if in their judgment, and that of the ad hoc committee, he is not the strongest man for this joint appointment.

I say this even though I would hope that if Galbraith were appointed he could spare a small fraction of his time to helping me give the two year courses which I now give in Commodity Distribution and Prices (ordinarily called Marketing.) Even though I am now giving these two courses, with the help of one-fifth of the time of an annual instructor, in addition to three full year courses in the Economies of Agricultura (with help of part of the time of one visiting lecturer) besides supervising a score of doctor’s theses, I shall manage somehow if I can get some other regular help with the three courses in the Economics of Agriculture.1

____________

  1. The undergraduate course in marketing had 90 students in the fall term, and the graduate course had 12 plus 8 auditors. This course was offered to Harvard undergraduate in 1946-47 for the first time, except for sone special instruction in food marketing given to armed service prospects during the war. The graduate course has been given since 1933.

    ____________

It may also be of interest that 12 of the 120 Ph.D’s reported as conferred in Economics in the United States in 1946-47 (12 months) were to candidates writing theses under my direction. (See September 1947 American Economic Review.)

There have, however, been some statements made about Galbraith in faculty discussions that must be commented upon in the interest of truth and sound decision. It has been said of him that he is “not a highly competent technical economist.” All this means is that he has published no articles in which he has applied methods of statistical and mathematical analysis, to the development of refinements of economic and monetary theory. I have no doubt of Galbraith’s ability to do this when this is the important thing for him to do. The simple truth is that a man of his breadth of comprehension is likely to find himself mainly absorbed in dealing with broad fundamental economic relationships; and this is especially true in times as disturbed as those in which he has been doing his writing. When asked, in the summer of 1947, to read a paper on the current economic situation, I entitled this paper “Fundamental Elements in the Current Agricultural Situation,” and I wrote as follows:

“The day and the hour seem to call for analysis in terms of broad fundamentals. This is no occasion for the refinements of theory and their application; but rather for over-simplification and over-emphasis on a few vital elements. Something of accuracy is lost in consequence; but this is not relatively important in the emergency that confronts us. There are wild horses loose in the world and the first task is to bring them to leash. Later we can break them to the plow and the cart.”

This statement is truer today than it was in 1942. If any economist of today is turning out articles or books presenting analysis of refinements, he is doing it because he lacks real power of analysis of the larger issues of the day, or as a by-product of such analysis, or as relaxation from the steady grind of his regular job. No doubt some of Smithies’ articles fit into these latter descriptions. Galbraith’s writings of the past ten years have covered the larger aspects of a very broad range of subjects.

Another criticism has been that he is not a good speaker. It is true that he often speaks haltingly when extemporizing. He needs time to find the exact word he wants. But he writes excellent papers, and reads them very effectively. (John Williams reported at a recent faculty meeting that his paper and Ed Mason’s were the outstanding papers at a full meeting in Philadelphia. His paper at the Atlantic City meeting in December 1946 was an outstanding performance.) In fact, he has become a very effective writer. To have a man in the Graduate School of Public Administration who can write as effectively as Galbraith on public questions of the day will be a highly valuable asset.

It needs to be added that he is effective in the classroom in spite of halting for a word now and then. The secret of this is that he has an uncanny sense for the vital points in a classroom discussion the same in analyzing public issues, and for putting these in their proper perspective. He is also a very stimulating influence among students in private discussion.

Rating higher in my scale of values than in those of many other academicians is capacity. Some of my colleagues do twice as much teaching, research and writing as some others, and do it fully as well or better. Galbraith has demonstrated a high order of capacity.

The other adverse report concerning Galbraith is not so easy to analyze. It is that he does not handle public relations well, nor even his relations with colleagues and subordinates. Surely a man of Galbraith’s type needed a man of different sort to work alongside him and handle the difficult public relations of OPA. And surely Leon Henderson was not that man. He was less apt at it even than Galbraith. The public relations man for OPA had to say “No” very often; and Galbraith does not have the ease of manner for such an assignment. Given time enough to plan for it in advance, he is able to differ with his colleagues and associates in a pleasant and gracious manner; but not in haste and under pressure, and especially when some body is trying to “put something over”.

No doubt a factor in his relations with others has been his urge to get on with the job and not waste too much time talking about it. I must confess a kinship with him in this respect. He no more than I should be assigned task a with many administrative decisions.

On this point, I am ready to predict without any hesitancy that Galbraith’s relations with his colleagues in the School and in the Department of Economics, should he receive this appointment, would be more congenial by a wide margin then those now generally prevailing in these departments; also that in the role of a Harvard professor, his relations with the public and with government officials would be unusually cooperative and friendly.

Perhaps a word is in order as to why I did not vote for Yntema. Most of all, I do not want to take a chance on either of two things (1) that he will prefer to continue with his present job, thus postponing our filling this appointment for another year: (2) that he will accept the appointment, but will want to continue a tie-us with CED that will remain his main interest. We cannot afford any more such tie-ups. Second, he seems to be so well fitted to his present assignment that I do not believe he would fit ours.

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 519. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Correspondence Re: Appointment of JKG as Professor of Economics. 12/22/47—3/22/50”.

Image Source:  Professor John D. Black in Harvard Class Album 1945.

Categories
Carnegie Institute of Technology Chicago Economist Market Economists Harvard M.I.T.

Chicago. Three casual letters from Cambridge, Mass. regarding young talent, 1957-59

 

In the three letters to Theodore W. Schultz transcribed for this post we witness the old-boy network at work in Chicago’s search for young talent.  Mason and Harris from Harvard share the enormous respect that Harvard Junior Fellow Frank Fisher had won from the senior professors there.  Evsey Domar hedges somewhat in his assessment of Robert L. Slighton but more or less places him in a spectrum running between Marc Nerlove and Martin Bailey closer to the latter. Other now familiar (and less familiar) names are tossed in for good measure.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Office of the Dean

Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

December 27, 1957

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Ted:

In addition to [John] Meyer, [James] Henderson and [Otto] Eckstein, I would also name Franklin Fisher and Daniel Ellsberg as among our really promising young men. Fisher and Ellsberg are, at present, both junior fellows. Fisher is something of a wunderkind, having graduated summa cum laude from Harvard at the age of 18. He published a mathematical article on Welfare Economics when he was a senior, and those who can understand it say it’s good. He is only 20 now, and, of course, it is difficult to say how he is going to turn out. He may be another Paul Samuelson, and on the other hand he may not. Ellsberg is another one of our summas and a very good man, indeed. I don’t think he measures up to John Meyer, but is probably in the Henderson and Eckstein category. Since I promised you six names, I will add that of [???] Miller who came to us this year from California. I have really seen nothing of him, and consequently, can no give you a first-hand judgement. My colleagues, however, think he is very good.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Ed
Edward S. Mason
Dean

ESM:rrl

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

January 5, 1959

Professor Theodore Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

It was good to see you even though it was for a very short period. As you know, we include on our list of available men only those who have requested to be put on the list or who have given us their permission to have their name included in the list. It represents men who are either already Ph.D.’s or will receive their Ph.D. within the year, and who are actually available for the coming year.

[Daniel] Ellsberg will be getting his Ph.D. this year, but he is going to Rand at a salary of about $10,000. [Franklin] Fisher will not have his Ph.D. until June 1960. He is just out of college three years and has been offered an assistant professorship at Carnegie Tech. We have now promised him a similar appointment, and in fact he said he would prefer to be at Harvard.

Among other young men of talent who are now here but are not on our permanent roster are the following: Leon Moses who teaches half time in the department and does research with the [Wassily] Leontief project half time. There is a good chance that Moses will go to Pittsburgh, particularly in order to work on the metropolitan project with [Edgar M.] Hoover. Moses is an excellent man in every way and certainly of permanent quality: the same holds for Alfred Conrad who is in somewhat the same position as Moses. Incidentally, both of them have a leave for next year: There is also André Daniere who will be an assistant professor next year and who works primarily with Leontief. Daniere is another good man, though probably not quite as good as the others.

Then there are Otto Eckstein, James Henderson, Jaroslav Vanek and Louis Lefeber. They are all excellent men and in the running for a permanent appointment. Actually, during the next few years we will have but one or two openings and obviously we cannot keep all these men. There is little to choose among them and we will have a tough time making a decision. Please keep this in the highest confidence.

With kind regard, I am,

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Sey
Seymour E. Harris
Chairman

SHE/jw

____________________________

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Department of Economics and Social Science

Cambridge 39, Massachusetts

January 14, 1959

Professor Theodore W. Schultz
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Dear Ted:

Your letter of January 6, regarding [Robert L.] Slighton is not quite easy to answer. I do not know [Daniel] Elsberg [sic] or [Franklin] Fisher well enough to make comparisons, but I will try to compare Slighton with [Martin J.] Bailey and [Marc] Nerlove. From the point of view of statistical and mathematical ability, Nerlove stands in a class all by himself, and I do not think that Slighton’s comparative advantage is in those fields. As far as Bailey is concerned, he may have flashes of ideas at times superior to Slighton’s. On the other hand, I would credit Slighton with greater solidity, more common sense and better judgment. As far as long-run contributions are concerned, I don’t know on whom of the two I would bet at the moment, but Slighton would be a serious contender in any such betting.

Lloyd [Metzler]’s session went quite well. He was greeted by the audience most warmly and was pleased about the whole works very much. I am very happy that that meeting was arranged and that I could participate in it.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Evsey D
Evsey D. Domar

EDD:jr

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 42, Folder 9.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economists Faculty Regulations Graduate Student Support

Chicago. H. Gregg Lewis proposes a “labor laboratory”. Ca. early 1950s.

 

Thanks to a prompt from Beatrice Cherrier (a.k.a. Twitter’s undercoverhist), I have transcribed the following documents found together in the economics department records in the University of Chicago archives. We catch a glimpse of H. Gregg Lewis’ early vision of a “labor laboratory” for the training of budding labor economists in the craft of empirical economic research. Serendipitously we also discover the deep self-doubt plaguing Lewis that he shared with the chair of his department at the time, T. W. Schultz.

For much more on Chicago’s workshop system, see:

Ross Emmett.” Sharpening Tools in the Workshop: The Workshop System and the Chicago School’s Success” in Building Chicago Economics: New Perspectives on the History of America’s Most Powerful Economics Program,  pp. 93-115, Robert van Horn, Philip Mirowski and Thomas Stapleford, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2011. ​There may be slight differences between the published version of the paper and the one on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014015

In preparing this post I found the following testimony of a former student of Lewis who went on to a most distinguished career in labor economics (who also happens to have taught my daughter an honors undergraduate class in statistics at the University of Texas).

Daniel S. Hamermesh. H. Gregg Lewis: Perhaps the Father of Modern Labor Economics. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13551, July 2020.

__________________________

Four page handwritten letter by H. Gregg Lewis to T. W. Schultz
(undated, early 1950s)

PRIVATE

To: T. W. Schultz
From: H. G. Lewis

Some time before the end of this quarter I’d like to sit down with you for an unrushed hour or so to discuss some problems, personal ones, and to receive your counsel.

What has brought the discussion “to a head” is my wish to experiment teaching labor economics along the “laboratory” lines I sketched in an earlier memorandum. (I submit a proposal to that end below.) However, I think there is little virtue and, perhaps, much painful effort in conducting such an experiment unless I have reasonable prospects of continuing the experiment beyond next year. And that has raised the whole question of my future at the University. The problem is not mainly my lack of tenure or the recent freeze on tenure appointments, though these are not irrelevant. Indeed, the purpose of this discussion is not to raise the issue of the Department’s assessment of my work, but my own assessment of myself and what is good for me.

It is difficult to convey to you what the nature of my problem is, since I’m not sure of it myself. In substance it is in [illegible word] aspects loss of self-confidence, demoralization and high tension.

Prior to 1945, I was full of confidence, though I think never very cocky or very self-assured. But in the post-war years my confidence has been continuously slipping. In the last two years particularly, I have felt demoralized, incompetent as an economist, unprepared to say or to write anything that I felt could stand the test of critical examination. Altogether it seems up to an estimate that I’m really [new page] [first word lost/truncated through stapling] … the Department. (My colleagues have been generous to me in attributing my low productivity to Departmental “busy” work. Though I sometimes feel “burdened” by that “busy” work, it’s not the real reason for my low output.)

The demoralization has not been [illegible word] intervals [illegible word] confidence returned. Indeed I do not really feel that I am a shame to the profession, though, I’m not ready to belong in the company of my Chicago colleagues.

I do not know quite what it is that has put me in this unproductive state of mind. Part of it is surely a better realization of my own worth. And sometimes, I attribute much of the trouble to an environment of colleagues who are, on my view, my own superiors. I have learned much from them and stand to learn more if, I should stay. Furthermore, I’m not at all certain that my morale would be improved by a change of environment.

If, I were to stay, I should like to begin an experiment next year (Winter and Spring quarters) with a “laboratory in labor economics.” Although, I’m less enthusiastic about the idea than I was several weeks ago, I still want to give the experiment a good try. (My loss of enthusiasm stems from the fairly cool reception the idea has had from several of my colleagues. They fear[?] that though the laboratory may be unctuous[?] for students, it will prevent its supervisor from doing his own productive research.)

In its negative aspect the proposal involves releasing me from my present duties. Given somewhat smaller enrollment next year, the dropping of a section of Econ 209 and one of Soc. Sci. 200A would not require funds for replacement teaching. Relieving me of an assortment of busy work distractions is [new page] another matter. I am not confident that I could give the laboratory a fair trial while carrying on these busy activities. At the same time I do not want these activities added to those my colleagues already carry. Some replacement funds — from the Ford grant — appear to be necessary therefore.

On the positive side, I would replace these duties with full-time devotion intimate teaching of a few (a half-dozen or so) students who have reached the A.M. level and beyond. I would plan to be engaged with the students, heavily in research. The students admitted to the laboratory would commit themselves to full-time work in it for at least two consecutive quarters. (They would receive their instruction by example, by reading and research and by intimate conferences with their fellows including their supervisor. Progress would be tested by oral and written examinations, papers, and reports. The laboratory would be open to students who had “completed” their theory training and who [illegible word] to do supervised reading and research in labor economics.

The laboratory would make positive demands for resources at the very minimum for desk and conference space for the students and some clerical aid. It seems desirable to me also to provide subsidies of at least tuition to the student members in order to provide an incentive for them to remain in school while doing research. In addition, I should like to bring to the laboratory at least one more mature[?] young economist for a year of research.

In summary the following are the resource demands of the laboratory:

[new page]

  1. Some replacement funds to provide for the services from which I would be released
  2. Desk and conference space for the laboratory and some typing assistance from Social Science typing resources
  3. Six tuition scholarships
  4. A research assistant for three quarters at a negotiated salary of some $4000 to $5,000

I have not made a request for funds for this purpose from the [illegible word, beginning with “D”] since these are matters that go beyond my own private[?] interest.

 

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

__________________________

Typed memo regarding training graduate students as “scientific craftsmen”

[Penciled note] From Gregg Lewis

I have been discomfited for some time by the belief that graduate faculties of economics generally are neglecting their responsibilities for making economics an effective science and for training their students as scientific craftsmen. I think we do as well as can be expected as moral philosophers and teachers of moral philosophy. Some of us—Knight is our shining example—do exceedingly well indeed. But most of us and most of our students are not made of the stuff that makes for good moral philosophers. Nevertheless, we expend a large part of our energies in that direction and encourage our students to imitate us. This is clearly a misfortune for economic science, and probably also for moral philosophy, if the Knight-Gresham Law of Talk is correct.

Meanwhile, economics as a science languishes. Most of us cultivate the whole field of economic ideas indiscriminately, the useless and misleading along with the useful. And we plant new ideas with the same nice regard for the weeds among them. Thus, each new generation of economists faces a more and more formidable task of weeding. The weeds become more abundant, their roots deeper.

We are not in want of good reasons for making a science of economics. True, the problems of economic planning that are surely the central ones for economic science do have moral content. And, unfortunately it is easy to make practically every controversy on economic policy sound as though it turned solely on a question of morals. The plain fact of the matter, however, is that the really hard core of our disagreements is not in the differences of moral beliefs but in differences of beliefs about economic facts.

That many of us have no real capacity for moral philosophy of course does not mean that we are prepared to be good scientists. Most of us, even if your spirits are willing, will have to struggle hard to overcome our slatternly research habits and to learn scientific skills and “instincts of workmanship.” But that is no excuse for making the effort. For unless we do, our students will be as ill-prepared as we are.

The problem of building a science, of course will not be solved merely by a formal reorganization of graduate instruction. But I think reorganization will help. The example which has guided the proposed reorganization I set forth below is the experimental laboratory of the natural sciences.

“Each professor—whether of money and banking, business cycles, public finance, or what not—will have his own laboratory. He will have one or two assistants who would share responsibility for the laboratory, and other assistants needed. The students (doctoral candidates) in a certain subject will get their training in the laboratory, by working on some project. The individual assignments will be of limited scope, but will be the function of the professor in charge to see that they fit together. The projects will grow out of the research program of the laboratory and will be supervised closely.
There would be no regimentation of the laboratory directors, any more than there is of professors in a well-run university.*
[footnote] *From a letter written by Arthur F. Burns who suggested the idea to me.

It would not be mandatory for any professor to direct such a laboratory, but if he chose to do so, he would be relieved largely from other duties and would be responsible for conducting the affairs of the laboratory continuously and full time. Nor would graduate students in all fields be required (for the Ph.D. degree) to participate in a laboratory project. Those who elected to do so, however, would commit themselves full-time for a period of something like an academic year.

Establishment of such laboratories by a considerable proportion of our faculty would call for a reduction of our student load per faculty member. This can be accomplished in substantial part I think by drastically reducing the number of students who plan to have the A.M. their terminal degree. And this is something I favor, reorganization or not.

Space problems are sure to arise but I do not think they need to be nor will prove to be insoluble.

THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSAL

  1. The proposed program of graduate study, I believe, does not conflict in any way with Divisional degree requirements and hence would require no special dispensation by Divisional authorities.
  2. All candidates for the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees normally would obtain the Master’s Degree, after three or four quarters (beyond the four-year A.B.) of full-time participation in lecture courses, and by a route fairly similar to that of our present “Alternative” Master’s degree. The Master’s thesis would be dispensed with, the Master’s degree treated as an undergraduate or non-research degree, and students interested only in the A.M. degree discouraged from applying for admission.
    The obtaining of the Master’s degree would be the principle requirement for admission to graduate study.
  3. Faculty members would be given the free choice of devoting their scholastic energies as most of them do now or of conducting the kind of laboratory described above.
  4. Students admitted to graduate study for the Ph.D. degree would have two alternatives open to them.
    1. Taking graduate courses as they do now principally in “non-laboratory” fields, leading to a preliminary examination or examinations and the satisfaction of “distribution” requirements.
    2. Participating full-time for three quarters in a laboratory leading to the preparation of a paper or papers which would be a prerequisite for admission to Ph.D. candidacy.
  5. The recently passed procedure for admission, writing of thesis, and final Ph.D. examination would not be changed.

 

THE PROPOSED DEGREE REQUIREMENTS:

  1. For the A.M. Degree:
    1. The Divisional requirements
    2. The qualifying examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 or Social Science 200A, 220 or 222, 230.
    3. The Field Examinations: (Required of all candidates)
      1. Economic Principles: (Required of all candidates)
        This examination would be essentially the same as the present Ph.D. “Theory” prelim, including monetary theory. In terms of present courses, preparation for the examination normally would mean taking the following courses: 300A, 300B, 302, 330, 335.
      2. Statistics: (Required of all candidates)
        Essentially the present prelim covering 311, 312, 313 or 316 or equivalents.
    4. Economics electives: Course credit or examination in a balance of courses sufficient to bring the total registration in Economics to 15 courses. Normally the balance would amount to four courses.
  2. For Admission to Graduate Study:
    1. The A.M. degree above or its equivalent.
    2. Satisfaction of the high level language requirement
  3. Program of Graduate Study
    1. Three quarters of full-time residence in an economics laboratory leading to a paper or papers approved by the laboratory director or
    2. Passing a preliminary examination in a third field (a field other than Principles or Statistics) and satisfaction of the distribution requirement. Normally this would require a full academic year.

Source: The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 41, Folder 1.

Images:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Faculty Regulations

Chicago. Economics A.M. requirements amended to become “Consolation Prize”. Lewis and Schultz, 1950

 

In 1950 the Chicago economics department voted to convert its master’s degree into an award for the successful partial completion of its Ph.D. program. It was to serve as a “consolation prize” for good graduate students but those found not to have the right “Ph.D. stuff” (H. Gregg Lewis’ words in his memo of Sept. 29, 1950 to chairman T. W. Schultz, transcribed below). I have also included the relevant portion of the distributional and examination requirements for the Ph.D. that had already formed part of the so-called “alternate departmental master’s degree”. H. Gregg Lewis’ proposal was largely accepted by the department (minutes from the meeting of November 2, 1950 transcribed below), thereby eliminating distinct tracks for its A.M. and Ph.D. degree programs, respectively.

_______________________

ALTERNATIVE DEPARTMENTAL MASTER’S DEGREE
[1950-51 regulations]

Upon request the Department will consider recommending for the Master’s degree candidates who have satisfied the distribution requirement for the Ph.D. degree and have passed with satisfactory standing the three written field examinations for the Ph.D. degree. One modern foreign language is required. In place of a thesis such candidates may present an acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department.

[…]

Distributional requirement [Ph.D.]. The candidate is expected to have familiarity with the subject matter equivalent to that covered in at least one course (200 or 300 level of reasonable comprehensivenss in each of ten fields (five required and five elected), satisfactory evidence of which can be provided by course credit or by passing a special examination. The required fields are: (a) economic theory, (b) accounting, (c) statistics, (d) economic history, and (e) money, banking, and monetary policy. The fields from which five may be elected are: (f) consumption economics, (g) industrial relations, (h) monopoly and public utilities, (i) agricultural economics, (j) government finance, (k) international economic relations, and (l) substitute fields, but not in excess of two, proposed by the candidate and approved by the Departmental counselor or the Department. One or both of these substitute fields may be outside the Department of Economics, and in general some work outside the Department is recommended with a view to rounding out a program appropriate for the individual student. In case of students transferring from other institutions, adequate training in general history may be substituted for economic history upon the written recommendation of the Departmental counselor.

Preliminary written field examinations [Ph.D.]. In each of three fields of specialization, in addition to presenting course credit or special examinations to show satisfactory preparation, the candidate will be required to pass a written examination.

The candidate is expected to select the three fields of specialization—a primary field and two secondary fields—for intensive graduate work. The primary field is that in which the [Ph.D.] thesis will be written. One of the three fields (primary or secondary) must be that of economic theory, including monetary theory. The fields from which selection is to be made are listed above under the heading “Distributional Requirement,” except that accounting may not be chosen as a field without approval of the Department. One secondary field of specialization may be a field named by the candidate outside the list above, and this may be in a department other than Economics. A secondary field may also be developed under one of the interdepartmental committees of specialization International Relations, Human Development, Planning or Social Thought. The program of work proposed, which ordinarily will include four to five courses, must be approved by the Department. No other secondary field may replace the required field in economic theory.* Students should consult with the Departmental counselor with respect to appropriate programs of work in preparation for the field examinations. The field examinations are given by the Department in the sixth and seventh weeks of the Winter and summer quarters. Application for any field examination should be made not later than the end of the first week of the quarter in which the examination is to be taken.

*Students who take the field examination in money, banking, and monetary policy will not be required to write the monetary theory part of the economic theory examination.

 

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 25-26.

_______________________

ECONOMIC COURSES LISTED IN THE LEWIS MEMO (29 Sept 1950) AND INCLUDED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL MINUTES (2 Nov 1950)

209. Intermediate Economic Theory. (Procter Thomson/Harold Gregg Lewis) Designed for students majoring in economics. Deals with factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.

211. Introduction to Statistics. (Harold Gregg Lewis) Elementary principles of statistics. Main topics: frequency distributions, averages, dispersion, index numbers, elements of the theory of statistical inference.

220. Economic History of the United States. (Earl J. Hamilton) Facts and factors in American’s economic growth from the Colonial period to World War II, including the development of agriculture, industry, commerce, finance, and transportation; economic effects of wars; role of the entrepreneur; rise in living standards; unrest and utopias in periods of stagnation; commercial crises and economic basis of cultural progress.

222. The Rise of Industrial Civilization in Europe. (John Ulrich Nef) Economic development in its relation to religious, political, intellectual and artistic history since the seventeenth century.

230. Introduction to Money and Banking. (Milton Friedman/Lloyd Wynn Mints) Factors which determine the value of money in the short and in the long run; and operation of the commercial banking system and in relation to the price level and general business activity.

240. Introduction to Industrial Relations. (Albert E. Rees) The nature of the labor market; government regulation of wages; social security; the history, structure, and functions of American labor unions; and collective bargaining. Special attention is given to current problems of public policy.

255. Introduction to Agricultural Economics. (D. Gale Johnson). Nature of resources used in agriculture. Prices, production, resource allocation, and income distribution. Analysis of government programs, subsidies, storages, crop control, soil conservation, food-stamp plan.

260. Introduction to Government Finance. (Richard B. Goode) Survey of institutions and theories of government finance. Effects of public expenditures; functions of public revenue; forms of taxation; tax criteria; determination of tax policy; public borrowing; debt management; fiscal policy.

270. International Economics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) The nature of international payments and receipts; foreign trade and banking system. The gold standard in the interwar period. The breakdown of the gold standard and the period of fluctuating exchange rates. Exchange controls, clearing agreements and payments agreements. The second world war and the foreign exchange markets. The position of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the present world economy.

271. Economic Aspects of International Politics. (Bert F. Hoselitz) An introductory survey, with particular reference to the United States, of the economic policies and activities of governments. Topics: international specialization of production and the distribution of world resources, structure of international exchanges and the mechanism of international transfer of goods and services; tariffs and other regulatory measures; trade agreements and the most-favored nation clause; international flow of capital and investment; the position of the ITO, the IMF, the ECA and other official agencies in international trade and exchange.

300A, 300B. Price Theory. (W. Allen Wallis 300A/Lloyd A. Metzler 300B/Milton Friedman 300B) A systematic study of the pricing of final products and factors of production under essentially stationary conditions. Covers both perfect competition and such imperfectly competitive conditions as monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. 300A deals primarily with the pricing of final products; 300B, with the pricing of factors of production.

Source: University of Chicago, Announcements. The Division of the Social Sciences, Sessions of 1950-1951, Vol. L, Number 9 (July 20, 1950), pp. 27-28.

_______________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

September 29, 1950

To        T. W. Schultz

From   H.G. Lewis

In Re: Requirements for the Master’s Degree

This is an elaboration of comments made to you this summer concerning the Master’s degree.

I should like to recommend the following changes in our requirements for the A.M. degree:

  1. That the distinction between the “regular” A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. be abolished.
  2. That the departmental requirements for the A.M degree consist of the following alteration of the present alternative A.M. requirements:
    1. A distribution requirement covering five (rather than the present eight) fields of economics of which theory, statistics, and money and banking shall be mandatory. Students who do not hold the traditional A.B. degree must meet the requirement by passing satisfactorily a qualifying examination coving the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination), 230, and two courses chose from 220, 222, 240, 255, 260, 270, 271.1/ Students holding the traditional A.B. may meet the requirement by showing equivalent course credit.
    2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory exam counting as a full exam) at a satisfactory level (that is, at either the Ph.D. level or at a level somewhat lower but not so low as not to warrant blessing the candidate with a Master’s degree).2/
    3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by passing (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or course examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.

I would recommend that the changes in requirements become effective as of the beginning of the Summer Quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

1/ This qualifying examination is now offered every quarter. This is an extravagant use of faculty. I should like to see the exam offered only once a year. Furthermore, I should like to permit students to substitute course grades for all or part of the exam provided the course grades are for courses taken here and provided they are not at a level lower than B.

2/ There would be therefore no special examinations for A.M.’s, but the examinations would be graded into three levels: passing for the Ph.D. and A.M. degrees, passing for the A.M. degree but not for the Ph.D., failing for both.

I would urge students to give requirement (b) high priority in preparing their programs of study.

Since the ends sought by these changes can be reached in other ways, I specify below what these ends are.

I view our principal instructional purpose as that of training high-level (Ph.D. and beyond) professional economists. I think we ought to view our training of “junior” economists and the awarding of the A.M. degree only as an incident arising from the fact that at the time a student applies for admission to the department, we cannot predict accurately either his calibre as a student or his academic goals.

It seems to me that the requirements for the Master’s degree should meet these tests:

  1. They should include no requirements which the Department would not make for the Ph.D. degree. Otherwise both student and faculty time will be spent in activities extraneous to the training of high-level economists. The present alternative A.M. meets this test but the regular A.M. does not.
  2. The requirements should be at a level high enough to be respected by the academic world. Both present degrees meet this test, I believe.
  3. But the standards for the degree should not be so high that potentially able Ph.D. candidates will be deterred from entering because of the considerable risk that if they fail to meet Ph.D. standards they will also fail to meet A.M. standards. If we set standards for the A.M. that are almost as likely not to be met as the Ph.D. standards we hold out no “consolation prize” to those good students who are fearful of not being able to meet Ph.D. standards. The present alternative A.M. requirements do not meet this test.

One of the ways by which we can raise the calibre of our Ph.D. candidates without reducing our enrollment is to increase the number of students who are given an opportunity to show at close hand their potentialities to us and to screen out at an earlier date those who are not of Ph.D. stuff. I am confident that quite accurate screening can take place ordinarily by the end of the first year of graduate residence. I contemplate our using the A.M. requirements as a screening device; the present alternative A.M. is not satisfactory from that point of view since it postpones too long the screening decision.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

_______________________

MINUTES
Meeting of the Department

Time and Place: Thursday, November 2, 1950, at 1:00 p.m. in Room 424, Social Science Research Building.

Present: T. W. Schultz (chairman), H. G. Lewis, A. Rees, R. Goode, G. Tolley, D. G. Johnson, F. H. Harbison, J. Marschak, C. Hildreth, F. Knight, L. Metzler.

  1. Handling of Student Business
    It was agreed that all bona fide applications for admission to candidacy filed this quarter would be considered as falling under present degree requirements even though Departmental action does not take place until Winter quarter.
  2. Ford Foundation
    Schultz stated that as a Department we have an obligation to ourselves, to the University, and to the community more largely to think through carefully the problem of making the best use of the Ford Foundation’s present grant of $300,000 to the University as well as possible later grants. There was a brief general discussion of the problem.
  3. Departmental Rules Governing Residence and Availability to Students
    Schultz pointed out that in the current year we have been able for the first time to reduce direct teaching loads for most of our members to four courses per year or less. This reduction, he pointed out, makes it desirable that the Department impose upon itself rules governing residence and availability to students and others in the university community lest they be imposed upon us from outside. The problem of rules for residence involves not only a rule stipulating in some way minimum residence, but also the question of whether “free” quarters out of residence should be considered a matter of a right accruing to an individual from his residence or a privilege dependent upon ad hoc decisions made by the Department chairman and the Dean. Schultz expressed himself as being in favor of a rule somewhat similar to the rules for accumulating sabbatical leave under a 3Q contract. In addition there is the problem of insuring, perhaps by rule, “availability” when in residence. The formulation of appropriate rules is to come before the Department for its consideration in the Winter quarter.
  4. The Department considered Lewis’ recommendations for changes in the A.M. requirements. (See attached memo. [above]) the following amendment of Lewis’ recommendation was passed:
    1. That the distinction between the regular A.M. and the “alternative” A.M. degrees be abolished.
    2. That the Departmental requirements for the A.M. degree consist of the following:
      1. A distribution requirement to be met by passing a “Qualifying” examination covering the subject matter of Economics 209, 211 (unless the student has passed the Divisional qualifying examination) 220 or 222, 230 and two courses chosen from 240, 255, 260, 270, and 271. Students holding the traditional A.B. may satisfy the requirement by equivalent course credit.
      2. The passing of two Ph.D. field examinations (with Part I of the Theory examination counting as an examination) at a satisfactory level of A.M. candidates.
      3. A showing of competence in economic principles; made either by (at the A.M. level or higher) Part I of the Theory examination, by course credits or examinations in Economics 300A and 300B, or by equivalent course credit.
      4. An acceptable paper or report on a problem approved by the Department. The paper will be read by two members of the Department of which the course instructor will be one in the event the student submits a term paper prepared for a course.

The above changes in requirements are to become effective as of the beginning of the Summer quarter, 1951 for students entering the Department in that and later quarters.

It was understood that the above motion in no way changes present preliminary examinations or other requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Professor Knight asked the minutes to show his objection to dropping Economics 210 (Accounting) from the requirements for the A.M. degree.

  1. Student Business
    1. Petitions

Lawrence Bostow’s petition for approval of French and Russian as languages for the Ph.D. was approved.

Mr. H. M. Herlihy’s petition for the field of “Social Organization” (Sociology Department) as his third field for the Ph.D. degree was approved.

Mr. John Holsen’s petition for a third Ph.D. field in Planning (Planning Department) was approved. Mr. Johnson, his counselor, was asked to inform Mr. Holsen, however, that this approval does not entitle Holsen to shorten his total program in Economics for the Ph.D.

Mr. Edward Mishan’s petition for approval of Spanish as a Ph.D. language was denied.

    1. Admission to Candidacy

Mr. Howard Ammerman’s application for admission and for approval of a thesis topic was moved to the bottom of the list of applications.

Mr. Rondo E. Cameron’s application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent upon his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950) and his proposed thesis topic, “French Foreign Investment, 1815-1870,” was approved. Thesis committee: E. J. Hamilton, chairman, L. Metzler, P. Thomson.

After some discussion, Mr. Clifford Clark’s application was moved down the list. Lewis was instructed to advise Clark to consult with Hamilton concerning the latter’s misgivings about the proposed thesis topic, and in addition to confer with Hayek, Knight, and other members of the Department concerning the thesis topic.

Mr. George P. Coutsoumaris’ application for admission to candidacy for the Ph.D. degree was recommended to the Division for approval, contingent on his passing the Theory examination (written Summer, 1950), and his proposed thesis topic, “Possibilities of Increasing Economic Efficiency in Greek Agriculture,” was given qualified approval, the Department suggesting that he limit the topic somewhat preferably to a topic approximately the same as that covered in the sections (VII and VIII) of his outline dealing with capital in Greek agriculture. Thesis committee: D. G. Johnson, chairman, C. Harris, J. Margolis (planning).

Mr. David Fand’s proposed thesis topic, “Monetary Theory of the Federal Reserve Board,” was discussed. It was agreed to come back to it at the next meeting after several more of the members of the Department had an opportunity to discuss the topic with Fand.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 41, Folder “41.8”.

Images:  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, H. Gregg Lewis [apf1-03861] and T. W. Schultz [apf1-07479], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.