Tag: Simkhovitch

Columbia. Reform of the PhD dissertation printing requirement, 1936-1940

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-04-29

The following extracts from the minutes of Columbia’s Faculty of Political Science (an amalgam of the Departments of History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science) provide milestones along the tortuous bureaucratic road taken to implement a fairly modest reform in the publication-of-the-dissertation requirement for the Ph.D. at Columbia University back in the 1930s. The reform initiated sometime in early 1936 only saw the light of day first with the printed Faculty announcement published at mid-year 1940.

See: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for the Winter and Spring Sessions 1940-1941 published in Columbia University Bulletin of Information, 40^th Series, No. 29 (June 29, 1940), p. 14.

______________________

April 17, 1936

Professor [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics] presented for consideration a Memorandum on the Printing Requirement for Ph.D. Dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science, signed by Professors [Robert Morrison] MacIver [Political Philosophy and Sociology], [Robert Livingston] Schuyler [History], [Robert Emmet] Chaddock [Statistics], [Carter] Goodrich [Economics], and [James Waterhouse] Angell [Economics], a copy of which is attached to these minutes. He also presented, and moved the adoption of a resolution providing for a modification of the present printing requirement. After amendments, offered by Professors [Samuel McCune] Lindsay [Social Legislation] and [John Maurice] Clark [Economics], had been accepted, the resolution read as follows:

WHEREAS, the Faculty of Political Science believes that the University printing requirement for dissertations imposes a heavy financial burden on candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty; that the printing requirement as it actually works does not impose equivalent burdens on the candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in certain other parts of the University; that the printing requirement operates as a severe property qualification impeding the access of otherwise competent students to receipt of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, and that the printing requirement on occasion impels first-class graduate students, who apart from financial considerations would prefer to do their work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Columbia, to go elsewhere; and

WHEREAS, in 1932 the Committee on Publications of this Faculty made a Report to the Faculty, and recommended a reconsideration of the printing requirement with a view to its relaxation; and

WHEREAS, the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction, after considering this Report, went on record as it that time favoring retention of the printing requirement, and in the absence of any definite proposal by the Faculty of Political Science did not recommend any change; therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science now records itself as desiring a modification of the printing requirement with respect to dissertations offered under the Faculty of Political Science, so that the requirement may be met in any one of three ways, at the option of the candidate, subject to the approval of the committee examining the dissertation, as follows:

(1) By publication of the original approved dissertation in full through a recognized publisher, or otherwise in a form approved by the Dean of the Faculty; or,

(2) By publication of an article, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a professional journal, or otherwise acceptable to the examining Committee; or,

(3) By publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting the essential content and results of the dissertation and accepted as satisfactory by the Committee which examined the original dissertation, in a series of abstracts of dissertations to be published at intervals as volumes in the Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law. The abstracts should ordinarily not exceed 15 pages in length. The candidate will defray his pro rata share of the cost of publication.

Under the second and third alternatives, the candidate shall submit five copies of the proposed article or abstract at least three weeks in advance of the final examination in defense of the dissertation itself. Under such alterative, the requirements for the deposit of copies of the approved printed document and for its distribution to the members of the Faculty are those stated in the Graduate Announcement. In addition, if the dissertation is printed in abridged or abstracted form provision shall be made for preserving at least two legible copies of the original dissertation.

RESOLVED, further, that the foregoing Resolution be transmitted to the University Council, with the request that the Council take action permitting the Faculty of Political Science to realize its desire as above stated.

RESOLVED, further, that the attention of the University Council be also invited to the appended Memorandum on the Printing Requirement, prepared informally by certain members of the Faculty.

After a general discussion, in which fourteen members of the Faculty participated, Professor [Lindsay] Rogers [Public Law] moved that the following resolution be substituted for the resolution under consideration:

RESOLVED, that the Faculty of Political Science transit the pending resolution and the accompanying Memorandum prepared by certain or its members, to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction and request that the Joint Committee inquire into the results of the publication requirement at Columbia University and the results of differing requirements at other universities and make the findings of such inquiry available to the Faculty of Political Science for the farther consideration of the publication requirement at the Faculty’s regular meeting in the autumn.

The Faculty being evenly divided, President [Nicholas Murray] Butler cast the deciding vote in favor of the resolution presented by Professor Rogers and it was adopted.

[…]

Appendix to Minutes

To the members of the faculty of Political Science:

We enclose herewith a memorandum on the printing requirement for Ph.D. dissertations in the Faculty of Political Science. It contains proposals which will be advanced formally at the meeting of the Faculty on April 17th next. By signing the memorandum we desire to indicate our belief that the questions raised and the proposals made deserve to be brought before the attention of the whole Faculty, but do not express our concurrence on all points.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. L. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[April 17, 1936]

The question of prolonging or abolishing the present temporary arrangement, under which Ph.D. dissertations may be offered for examination in typescript, must be passed on by the Faculty of Political Science at its meeting on April 17th. This provides on appropriate occasion for examining the whole question of the printing requirement in the Faculty.

At the present time, the situation is broadly this. The Faculty will accept dissertations in typescript for the purposes of the defense examination, and if the defense is successful a certification is given the candidate, announcing that he has met all the requirements for the Ph.D. degree except that of actual publication of the dissertation.

The degree itself is not awarded, however, until the candidate has secured actual publication — “publication” having recently been defined to include in effect some, though not all, of the non-printing forms of reproduction, such as photostating, and provided that certain conditions are met.

Columbia University and the Catholic University of America are apparently the only two large institutions of higher learning which have retained in full the printing requirement, which was once wide-spread in this country. By enforcing the requirement, Columbia imposes on itself a prime facie impairment of its power to attract first-class graduate students who will become candidates for the Ph.D. degree, and who are free to choose between the several leading institutions. No University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. If retention of the printing requirement is to be justified, it must be shown to yield benefits which offset this disadvantage.

In addition, the requirement works unevenly as between different, sections of the University. In the Faculty of Political Science, as in that of Philosophy, the requirement is extremely burdensome in financial terms to the average Ph.D. candidate. For that large proportion of candidates whose means are limited, its fulfillment imposes genuine hardship. In the Faculty of Political Science the typical dissertation is essentially literary in character, runs to at least 250 to 300 printed pages in length, and even after allowance for royalties usually costs the candidate $600 to $800 to publish — often much more. The fact that perhaps a quarter of the dissertations are published in the Studies at a saving to the candidate of 20% of the price charged by the University Press, does not greatly alter the situation, nor does it operate to lighten the average financial burden very much. For many students, the sum involved is equivalent to their total living expenses for 6 to 8 months or more: the burden is real. In the Faculty of Pure Science and in the Medical School, on the other band, the typical dissertation is not more than 20 or 25 pages in length (often less than 10), and is published in one of the technical or professional journals at no cost at all to the candidate. Moreover, though this is not relevant for present purposes, the Pure Science dissertation is commonly a joint product of the candidate and the supervising Faculty member, and is published under both signatures.

In defense of the retention of the printing requirement by the faculty of Political Science, the most common contention is that its abolition would lead to a disastrous lowering of our standards for the Ph.D. degree. This contention, of course, cannot be tested directly except from future experience. It is significant, however, that apparently none of the other leading American universities which had abolished the printing requirement has restored it. Moreover, it seems highly improbable that the existence of the printing requirement and the maintenance of high standards are related to one another as cause is related to effect. It could not be contended seriously that merely enforcing a printing requirement would enable a faculty of inadequate scholarly competence to maintain high standards, nor that the existence of a printing requirement would ensure, in such circumstances, the production of distinguished dissertations. Equally it cannot be contended that the modification or withdrawal of the printing requirement will alone cause a faculty of high scholarly competence to deteriorate its standards, nor that modification or withdrawal will alone lead to the production of low-grade dissertations under such a faculty. Indeed, to assert that such results would ensue is to imply that the members of such a faulty maintain high standards only from fear of being “found out”, should they lower their standards, through the publication of discreditable Ph.D. dissertations.

It is also contended that publication is an advantage to the candidate, in that it brings his name and work to the attention of other scholars and also helps him to get a better position. This is undoubtedly true to many cases. But the same or better general results can be obtained in a different way, to be suggested in a moment, which entails relatively little cost to the candidate. As things now stand, most candidates apparently feel that they would gladly forego the not always unequivocal advantages of this type of advertising, in order to void the expense and sacrifice now imposed upon them.

Finally, it is contended that the typescript dissertations found in the libraries of other Universities are in general less finished and sometimes less scholarly products then those which have undergone publication; and that they are less accessible to the generality of scholars. This last is of course true. The contention would have granter force as an argument in favor of retaining the publication requirement, however, if there were any way of shifting the bulk of the financial burden of publication to those other scholars who would allegedly be such large beneficiaries from the act of publication itself. It would also here greater force If any substantial number of other universities had indicated, by retaining the requirement, that they felt the cogency of these considerations. In actuality, and from their very nature, many and perhaps most Ph.D. dissertations in Political Science are not of sufficiently broad interest to merit publication as books. Some suggestions for publishing their essential contents, however, will be outlined presently. It is believed that adoption of these suggestions will give the authors and their work rather wider publicity than is now obtained, in the average case, and will do so without impairing the dissemination of scholarly knowledge.

The principal positive arguments against the retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science have already been indicated, directly or by implication. They are two in number. One turns on the financial costs and other burdens placed on the candidate. The great bulk of our students are not well-to-do. In the majority of cases, financing the publication of the dissertation exacts a genuine and often a disproportionately large sacrifice from the candidate or his family. It is not easy to see that the candidate of the University receives a return commensurate with this sacrifice. However, as the present system works out in practice it frequently means that the actual receipt of the Ph.D. degree itself is delayed by one or more years after the completion of the work, while the candidate is accumulating enough money to pay for publication. To the extent that this happens, as it seems to in what is not far from a majority of the cases, one of the alleged advantages of the publication requirement — that it helps the candidate secure a better position — may turn into a positive disadvantage, because of the delay involved. The present practice of examining on typescript has helped this situation somewhat, but apparently not as greatly as had been hoped; and of course, it still leaves the candidate with a serious financial burden to carry into future years, before he can obtain the actual Ph.D. degree. The fact that so large a proportion of our candidates now elect to be examined on typescript is surely not wholly unrelated to the matter of their financial ability or inability, at the time of the examination, to defray the cost of printing.

There is also some evidence that the existence of the printing requirement influences candidates to select topics for the Ph.D. dissertation with a view to the probable popularity of the topics, rather than with a view to their scholarly merit and interest alone, in order to lighten the burden of the printing costs.

The second argument against retention of the printing requirement in the faculty of Political Science turns on the best interests of the University itself. What we are really doing is to enforce a fairly severe property qualification for the Ph.D. degree, and one which is in effect inoperative in certain parts of the University. It is a property qualification imposed by only one other large University. There is much evidence to indicate that — as seems natural enough — this property qualification drives elsewhere many first-class students who would prefer, except for financial considerations, to come to Columbia for their Ph.D. work in the Political Science field. To repent what was said before, no University has so many first-class students that it can afford to turn any away needlessly. A property qualification is surely the wrong basis on which to select our Ph.D. candidates.

In connection with the earlier discussion of standards, it should also be pointed out that such a modification of the printing requirement as would eliminate its more serious disadvantages to the student would presumably contribute to the actual raising of the general standards of scholarship and performance prevailing, rather than to their deterioration. This would happen to the extent that the modification increased the number of high-calibre through impecunious students who come to us for their training.

Both the material evidence available and the logical argument against retention of the present form of publication requirement in the Faculty of Political Science are thus extremely strong. We therefore make two suggestions:

(1) At the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science on April 17th, action should be taken looking to the immediate modification of the printing requirement, in its present form, for Ph.D. dissertations under the Faculty. At the same time, however, in the interests of the Ph.D. candidates, of other scholars elsewhere, and of the University as a whole, it seems desirable to retain something of the advantages of the present requirement. Outright abolition of the requirement is therefore not proposed. It is suggested that it be modified as follows:

(2) Action should be taken by the Faculty to provide that, the printing requirement, subject to confirmation by the University Council, may be met in any one of three ways: namely either by,

(a) Publication of the complete dissertation under the present regulations; or, by,

(b) Publication of an article, presenting the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in one of the recognized professional journals; or by,

(c) Publication of an abstract of the dissertation, presenting briefly the essential features and results of the dissertation and to be approved by the examining committee, in a new annual or semi-annual volume of Abstracts to be published as a regular part of or supplement to the present Studies; the costs of publication and distribution of the volume to be paid by the candidates pro rata. The abstracts would not exceed perhaps 15 pages each, and the average cost to the individual candidate would probably be under $50. The numerical majority of the dissertations would presumably be handled through these new Abstracts.

In each of the three options, the present requirement for the deposit of 75 copies — whether of book, article or abstract — would be retained; and in the last two cases deposit of two copies of the original dissertation would also be required. Dissertations would be defended on typescript, unless the candidate himself preferred to defend on galleys.

These alternatives leave candidates who have the funds, or who can secure commercial publication without a subsidy, free to publish as heretofore. The alternatives take the present severe burden off those candidates who have not sufficient funds, however; and at the same time retain for them most of the advantages, from getting their names and work more widely known, which they obtain under the present arrangements. Indeed, it seems probable that the publicity they thus receive, and the accessibility of the main content of their work to other scholars, will be substantially greater under the proposed arrangements than under those now prevailing. The average sale of the present full-length dissertation hardly exceeds 250 to 300 copies; the circulation of the better-known professional journals runs to several thousand.

In order to make it easier to secure publication in full of most of the best dissertations, without placing an undue burden on the candidates, we also suggest that the present Studies be made substantially more selective in character than they now are, with a diminution in the number of volumes issued per year and with a higher average standard of quality required for acceptance. To illustrate, we suggest that not more than one or two full-length dissertations a year should be published in the Studies from each Department, apart from the proposed new volumes of Abstracts. We believe that the resulting increase in the average quality of the Studies, by increasing the average sales per volume would enable the Studies to carry a much larger proportion of the costs of publication then at present, perhaps 50% or more. We also believe that the improvement in quality and the decrease in number of issues per year would raise the general standing of the Studies to a basis of comparability with the similar series published by various other leading Universities. Probably the most nearly ideal arrangement would be one under which the publication of a dissertation in the studies would be in the nature of a prize award, entailing no cost at all to the successful candidate. Since financial limitations make this impossible at present, we suggest the arrangement just outlined.

R. M. MacIver
R. L. Schuyler
R. E. Chaddock
C. Goodrich
J. W. Angell

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 759-775.

December 11, 1936

For the information of the Faculty the following memorandum was presented, concerning the action of the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction on the subject of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. At its April, 1936, meeting the Faculty of Political Science adopted a resolution transmitting to the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction a memorandum by certain members of the Faculty urging modification of the printing requirement for doctoral dissertations. On May 19, following, the Joint Committee appointed a sub-committee to study and report on the subject.

The sub-committee submitted its report, accompanied by a digest of information, to the Joint Committee at its meeting on November 9, and on November 16, 1936, the Joint Committee adopted the sub-committee report and its opinions as follows:

“For the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction:

Your sub-committee empowered to consider the question of the printing of doctoral dissertations, composed of the undersigned as chairman and of Professors Angell, Gray, Patterson, Pegram, and Rogers, has duly elicited the information as to the practice in this matter in the leading American universities as well as the pertinent sentiment of three hundred and twenty-one of our own recipients of the doctoral degree in the decade from 1924 to 1933 inclusive. A digest of the information as elicited is now available for the members of the Joint Committee.

After full consideration of this digest and of all other aspects of the question, your sub-committee would submit the following opinions:

That the present requirement of printing should be maintained. Our vote on this recommendation stands four to two, Professors Angell and Patterson dissenting.
That we regret the hardship which the printing of the dissertation now entails on certain of the recipients of the degree.
That it is advisable to make due effort to relieve this hardship as much as possible by any reduction that may be feasible in the cost of printing, and in particular by the establishment, if possible, of a subsidy from University funds to aid in the cost of printing; and that the Joint Committee, or its chairman, should make due inquiry into this possibility.

The second and third opinions were unanimous.”

While opinion in the Joint Committee was not unanimous on point (1) of the adopted report, discussion on certain amendments that were offered and not carried led the Committee to agree as to the substance of two points of the rejected amendment. A sub-committee consisting of Professors Pegram, MacIver, Rogers, and Wright was appointed to rephrase these two points for communication to the Faculties, which they have done as follows:

“(a) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting date which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.

(b) It was the sense of the Joint Committee that the Dean has authority under the present regulations to accept dissertations printed in part or in whole by photo offset process or other manifolding process when there are special reasons, arising out of the nature of the dissertation (tabular and statistical matter, reproductions of texts, etc.), making such offset process appropriate.”

For the information of members of the Faculty of Political Science, it is to be noted that the problem of printing dissertations under the Faculty of Pure Science is rarely a serious one to students. Dissertations are short as compared to those in the other Faculties and are usually published in the professional Journals. In the Faculty of Philosophy the cost of printing dissertations is serious. That Faculty, at its November meeting, unanimously voted to place on record its opinion in favor of the three numbered paragraphs of the sub-committee report adopted by the Joint Committee.

The Joint Committee will proceed further with inquiry into means of reducing the cost of printing dissertations and into the possibility of securing funds for aiding publication.

Respectfully submitted,
George B. Pegram,
Chairman
Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction

In connection with the proposal of the Joint Committee that an effort be made to establish a subsidy from University funds to aid graduate students in the printing of doctoral dissertations, the President pointed out some of the administrative problems involved in providing for the judicious and far allotment of such aid. He stated, however, that if a satisfactory administrative method could be devised, a revolving fund of $25,000 or $30,000 would go far toward lightening the financial burden which the present printing requirement imposes on certain candidates for the doctoral degree.

The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction presented a memorandum (a copy of which is appended to these Minutes) reminding the Faculty that at its meeting in April, 1986, it had neglected to provide for the dissertation examination on typescript beyond June 30, 1936, but that the privilege had been extended to candidates under the Faculty with the consent of the Dean’s office. After discussion of the memorandum Professor [Vladimir Gregorievitch] Simkhovitch [Economic History] moved that the motion concerning examination on typescript, which lapsed on June 30, 1938, be re-enacted and remain in effect for a term of one year. The motion was adopted, after Professor [Philip Caryl] Jessup’s [International Law] amendment substituting “until revoked by the Faculty” for the words “for a term of one year”, had been accepted. As re-enacted, the resolution then read:

“RESOLVED; that candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science, upon recommendation of the Department concerned, may be granted the privilege of examination on dissertations presented in typescript — five or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that the dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee require extensive revision shall be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision.”

Discussion of the resolution emphasized the fact that permission to be examined on typescript is granted only on recommendation by the department. It would appear, therefore, that a department may refuse to make any recommendation, require its candidates to stand examinations on galley proofs, or it may recommend in some cases and refuse to recommend in other cases.

[…]

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

At the meeting of the faculty of Political Science on December 9, 1932, Professor Schuyler, as chairman of the Committee on Publications, raised the question of substituting for the then requirement that the examination must be on galley proof, a requirement that dissertations must be presented in typescript. After discussion the Faculty amended Professor Schuyler’s proposal. The resolution as passed provided that for the remainder of the academic year, 1932-33, candidates for the doctorate under the Faculty of Political Science could be granted, upon the recommendation of the department concerned, the privilege of examination upon typescript four or more legible copies to be deposited in the Dean’s office for the inspection of the examiners at least three weeks prior to the examination, it being understood that dissertations which in the judgment of the examining committee required extensive revision should not be accepted subject to such revision, but should be rejected, without prejudice to subsequent examination after such revision. (Minutes, p. 699)

At its April meetings in 1933, 1934, and 1935 the Faculty continued the provisions of this resolution in affect for the ensuing academic years.

At the November 1935 meeting of the Faculty the Dean called attention to the fact that the Joint Committee on Graduate Instruction had discussed the desirability or requiring five typescript copies of dissertations. the Faculty thereupon amended its regulations to require five instead of four copies.

At the April 1936 meeting the Faculty discussed the modification of printing requirement for dissertations. By inadvertence the Faculty neglected to provide for the examination on typescript alternative. with the consent of the Dean’s office, however, candidates under the Faculty of Political Science have been permitted to present their dissertations in typescript even though technically this privilege lapsed as of June 30, 1936.

Earlier this month a question rose in respect of the period which shall elapse between the presentation of the typescript copies and the date of the final examination. Under the terms of the resolution adopted by the Faculty of Political Science the period was three weeks. Under the printed terms of the regulations of the Faculties of Philosophy and of Pure Science the period is three weeks. As a matter of fact, this regulation is not enforced. Two weeks is deemed a sufficient period.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 17, 1936) pp. 783-790.

April 21, 1939

The Chairman of the Committee on Publications further reported that, on the initiative of the Managing Editor of the Studies, the Committee had given consideration to the problem of reducing the financial burden upon doctoral candidates who publish their dissertations in the Studies. In consequence of this discussion, upon the recommendation of the Managing Editor, and in accordance with a unanimous resolution of his Committee, he offered the following resolution which was unanimously passed;

Be it RESOLVED; That in order to afford to doctoral candidates an alternative method of publishing dissertations in the Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law at a lower cost than is possible under the existing requirements, these requirements be so modified as to permit, after October 1, 1939, at the option of the candidate,
1. the use of paper binding
2. the use of a double-column format, and of type smaller than that now employed, and
3. the relegation of footnotes to the end of each chapter.
Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to advance the sum of fifty dollars to each student publishing his dissertation in the Studies, said sum to be a first claim against the author’s royalties. In the event that said author’s royalties do not total fifty dollars within three years after the publication of the dissertation, the full receipts thereafter accruing to such volume shall be paid over to the University until such a time as the University is fully reimbursed for its advance.
Be it RESOLVED: That the Faculty of Political Science request the Trustees of the University to authorize the Library to pay to each doctoral candidate who had published his dissertation in the Studies, the sum of fifty dollars, upon his depositing with the Library one hundred copies of the said dissertation.

[…]

The Chairman of the Committee on Instruction reported that since receipt of the report of the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (of which Professor Woodbridge was Chairman) the Committee on Instruction had given further consideration to the printing requirements. He submitted the following motions which were passed:

BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty favored such modification of the present requirement for the printing of the doctoral dissertation as would allow candidates certain options, as follows:
1. The dissertation may be printed from type and published in book form.
2. The dissertation may be published as an article or series of articles in a scholarly journal.
3. The dissertation may be reproduced by an offset process approved by the Dean of the Graduate Faculties.
BE IT RESOLVED, that it is the sense of the Faculty that there may be cases in which the Ph.D. Examining Committee may consider it unnecessary to require the printing of all the supporting data which the Examining Committee may have before it in the five typed copies required by the rules. In such a case the Examining Committee may, with the approval of the Dean, accept as the dissertation a shorter form of the manuscript, or an article or series of articles, provided five copies of the same in form for publication have been circulated to the Examining Committee with the additional materials, and are before the Committee at the time of the final examination.
BE IT RESOLVED, that this Faculty, realizing that in the past insufficient attention has sometimes been paid to a student’s choice of subject, resulting in the necessity of the preparation of a manuscript of unreasonable length, calls attention to the need for considering the scope of the task when a topic for a dissertation receives its preliminary approval.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the next available edition of the Bulletin of the Faculty include the first resolution on this subject stated abo e, setting forth the three options, and that in the Bulletin this be followed by a paragraph substantially as follows:

The departmental approval mentioned above relates to both the content of the dissertation and to the form in which it is printed. Students are therefore advised to consult their departmental representatives before exercising the option.

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty authorize its Committee on Instruction to prepare a special leaflet for the benefit of candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under this Faculty, the leaflet to contain a full explanation of all the regulations on this subject.

Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science 1920-1939 (April 21, 1939) pp. 842-3, 845-846.

Image Source: Low Memorial Library, Columbia University from the Tichnor Brothers Collection, New York Postcards, at the Boston Public Library, Print Department.

Tags AngellJW, Chaddock, ClarkJM, Goodrich, Simkhovitch

Economists Gender Harvard Socialism

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, later collector of Soviet nonconformist art. Norton T. Dodge, 1960

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-05-19

That John Maynard Keynes was an art collector/investor is well-known. Economics in the Rear-view mirror has earlier posted about the Columbia economic historian Vladimir Simkhovich, one of Milton Friedman’s professors, who turned out to be quite the collector himself. My old professor of comparative economic systems, John Michael Montias of Yale, later became a well-renowned authority on Vermeer as well as the art market in Amsterdam in the 17th century.

This post is another in the series “Get to know a Ph.D. economist”. Norton Dodge was one of the legion of young scholars who launched their research careers at the Harvard Russian Research Center. Somehow Dodge went from being a mild-mannered economist who wrote a doctoral dissertation on labor productivity in the Soviet tractor industry (don’t try that at home unless you are a professional) to the passionate collector of Soviet nonconformist art. Apparently Dodge was able to fly under the radar long enough to establish a network to help satisfy his urge to collect, often discretely sometimes openly, and to assemble an enormous collection. According to John McPhee’s 1994 book (see below), Norton Dodge spent $3 million dollars of his personal fortune buying Soviet underground art. Dodge inherited a bundle from his father, Homer Levi Dodge, physicist who also became dean of the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. Homer Dodge was an early Warren Buffett investor.

In 1995 the Norton and Nancy Dodge Collection of Soviet Nonconformist Art was donated to Rutgers University.

________________

Norton Townshend Dodge

1927 June 15. Born in Oklahoma City.

Began his studies at Deep Springs College.

1948. Graduated from Cornell University.

1951. A.M. in Russian studies at Harvard

1955. First trip to USSR. Dissertation research.

1960. Harvard economics Ph.D. Thesis: Trends in Labor Productivity in the Soviet Tractor Industry; a Case Study in Industrial Development.

1962. Second visit to Soviet Union. Meets dissident artists.

1966. Women in the Soviet Economy: Their Role in Economic, Scientific, and Technical Development(Johns Hopkins University Press).

1976. Following death of artist Evgeny Rukhin under suspicious circumstances, Dodge ceased his travel to the Soviet Union, relying on his personal network

1980. Retired from University of Maryland, College Park, begins teaching at St. Mary’s College, Maryland.

1989. Retired from St. Mary’s College, Maryland.

1995. Opening of the Norton and Nancy Dodge Collection of Soviet Nonconformist Art to Rutgers University [17,000 items donated valued at $34 Million] (permanent display at Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum)

From Gulag to Glasnost: Nonconformist Art in the Soviet Union, edited with Alla Rosenfield.

2011 November 5. Died in Washington, D.C.

________________

For more, especially about Dodge’s art collecting

John McPhee. The Ransom of Russian Art (1994).

Andrew Solomon. “Produced in the Soviet Dark, Collected by a Secret Admirer”. New York Time, October 15, 1995.

Emily Langer, Norton T. Dodge, U-Md. Economics professor and Soviet art collector, dies at 84. Washington Post, November 10, 2011.

Margalit Fox, “Norton Dodge Dies at 84; Stored Soviet Dissident Art. New York Times, November 11, 2011.

Image Source: US Post News, Deaths November 2011.

Tags Dodge, Montias, Simkhovitch

Barnard Columbia Economics Programs Gender Undergraduate

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

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-02-05

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

____________________

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

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On this assumption, the figures would be as follows:

Hours given
	Barnard College	Columbia College	University
Clark	2	2 (109-110)	3 (205-6 & 291)
Seligman	—	3 (1 & 101-102)	3 (203-4 & 292)
Seager	2	2 (105-106)	2 (233 & 289)
Moore	3	1 (104)	2 (210 & 255)
Whitaker	3	4 (1-2)	—
Giddings	2	2 (151-152)	3 (251-2 & 279)
	12	14	13

For undergraduate instruction		For Professors giving undergraduate instruction
Barnard pays:		Columbia pays:
		Seligman	$5000
Clark	$5000	Moore	$1750
Moore	$1750	Seager	$3500
Whitaker	$1600	Giddings	$5000
	$8350		$15250	=Total $23600
In addition Columbia pays for Purely University work				$5000
Grand Total				$28600

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

There is thus chargeable to:

The University 15/41 of $23600 = $8635 + $5000 =	$13,635
Columbia College 14/41 of $23600 =	$8,058

Barnard College should pay 12/41 of $23,600=	$6907
+ 1/3 of $13,635=	$4543[sic]
	$11450

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

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

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

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

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

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

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

____________________

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

New York, December 30, 1906.

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

My dear Miss Gill:

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

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

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

I remain
Very respectfully yours

[E.R.A. Seligman]

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

____________________

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

December 28, 1908

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

My dear Professor Seligman:

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

Very truly yours,
President

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

____________________

Seligman to President Butler

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

January 4, 1909

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University, City.

My dear President Butler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

January 4, 1909

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

My dear Sir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags ClarkJB, Devine, Giddings, JohnsonA, Moore, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch, Tenney, Whitaker

Columbia Faculty Regulations Regulations

Columbia. Report of Woodbridge Committee on Graduate Education Reform, 1936-37

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2019-01-21

The economic historian Vladimir G. Simkhovitch appears to have been one of several voices encouraging a major rethink of the organization and administration of graduate education at Columbia in the mid-1930s. President Butler thought that after a half-century of graduate education in the United States, it would be reasonable to consider the kind of reforms needed to adapt to the changing circumstances without compromising the purpose of training Ph.D.’s, namely to produce research as well as train young scholars in the methods of research.

Butler tasked the philosopher Frederick J. E. Woodbridge (1867-1940) to head up the faculty committee that included Simkhovitch.

While this post does not deal with the content of graduate education in economics, it is useful to see the larger institutional debates that undoubtedly at least in part reflected the experience of economics departments at that time.

Woodbridge’s major point is that the composition of the graduate student body had changed, becoming far more heterogeneous and concerned with the Paper Chase (Ph.D. degree increasingly seen primarily as a job market signal, especially for extra-academic employment). But there is much more in the report and much of it will be familiar to 21st century educators.

______________

November 18, 1936

CONFIDENTIAL

Professor F. J. E. Woodbridge
39 Claremont Avenue
New York City

Dear Professor Woodbridge:

I enclose a letter written me by Professor Simkhovitch under date of November 10 [not in file] which I would like you to read and return to me at your convenience.

Having this in mind and various other suggestions and criticisms which have come to me during the last year or two, I am proposing at the next meeting of the University Council to appoint a committee of nine to study this whole question as it now exists and to see what improvements if any can or should be effected in our rules governing the awarding of the Ph.D. degree and their administration. I am going to put upon the committee a number of men who are not administrative officers but who will look at the matter from the standpoint of university teachers and research workers. I want you to serve as chairman of that committee in order that it may have the dignity and the invaluable guidance which it will so greatly need.

My suggestion is that the committee should meet at least once or twice at your apartment so that you could clear the ground from the viewpoint of your own experience and reflections, and then that the vice-chairman, who will be Professor Westermann, should guide the work of the committee with such supervision and attention as you would feel able to give. Whenever there would be a meeting which you wish to attend, it should be held in your apartment.

You will be able to render a new and very great service to us all by inspiring and guiding the work of this group. In substance, our rules governing the Ph.D. degree have not changed for a generation and perhaps conditions have become such that they should be altered. Whether that be true or not, it will be a very helpful thing to have the whole ground gone over from the viewpoint of 1936-1937.

Sincerely yours,
[signature stamp]
Nicholas Murray Butler

______________

FREDERICK J. E. WOODBRIDGE
525 West 116^thStreet
New York City

Nov. 22/36

My dear President Butler:

I was sorry to miss you this afternoon when you called. Professor Egbert had taken me to his apartment for Sunday dinner and I did not return until nearly four. I am particularly sorry because I should have liked to talk with you about the interesting proposal you have made to me in your letter of November 18.

I shall be glad to serve as chairman of the proposed committee and to serve actively. Dr. Norton S. Brown has convinced me that I should be prudent in the matter of my health, not in order to avoid sudden death, but in order to avoid a lingering and progressive illness. I have, however, considerable liberty so long as I spend most of my time in a horizontal position. So I see no reason at present why I should not expect to attend regularly the meetings of the committee either at my apartment or at my office and still keep perpendicularity within limits. It is worth trying.

The problem of instruction and degrees under the Graduate Faculties is now, as I see it, defined by the students who come to us and not by our academic traditions. I fear that this fact is too much overlooked. Our requirements still look admirable on paper, but they are lacking in realism because they presuppose a different student situation than the one with which we are faced. Our students as a rule are neither stupid nor incapable, but very few of them have learned in college how to study effectively. Our colleges are to blame, but we can not wait upon a reformation of the colleges. Our business is to produce teachers who will reform the college. Indeed, attempts to reform education in this country by beginning at the bottom seem to me to be futile. We must begin at the top. This is difficult, but it is something which well deserves study by a group interested primarily in teaching. I shall be glad to contribute what I can to such a study and I thank you for giving me the opportunity.

Sincerely yours
(SIGNED)
Frederick J. E. Woodbridge

to
President Nicholas Murray Butler
Columbia University

______________

[Sent to each of the names listed below]

November 24, 1936

Professor F. J. E. Woodbridge
Department of Philosophy

Dear Professor Woodbridge:

For several years past I have been receiving from members of the faculties, from alumni, and from graduate students, suggestions relative to the conditions upon which the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is at present conferred and to the requirements for that degree. Many of these suggestions have been in criticism of existing practices and have urged that these be carefully examined with a view to their improvement.

In view of these suggestions, both oral and written, I beg now to appoint a Committee, consisting of members of the Graduate Faculties, to make a thorough study of this whole subject and to submit a report thereon to the President, before the close of the present academic year if possible, in order that this report may be laid by him before the University Council and the Graduate Faculties concerned, for their consideration. The Committee is designated as follows and will meet at the call of the Chairman.

Frederick J. E. Woodbridge — Chairman
Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy

Dino Bigongiari —
Da Ponte Professor of Italian

[added pencil note: Leslie C. Dunn (12-11) Professor of Zoology]

John R. Dunning —
Assistant Professor of Physics

Isaac L. Kandel —
Professor of Education

Frank Gardner Moore —
Professor of Latin

Ralph L. Rusk —
Professor of English

Vladimir G. Simkhovitch —
Professor of Economic History

Harold C. Urey —
Professor of Chemistry

William L. Westermann —
Professor of Ancient History

Faithfully yours
[stamp signature]
Nicholas Murray Butler

______________

Remarks of the Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, Chairman, at the first meeting of the President’s Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, held on December 9, 1936.

[Pencil note: sent to members of Committee, Dec. 11, 1936]

The inquiry which the President has asked this committee to make can not, I think, be disassociated from a general inquiry into the educational problems with which the Graduate Faculties are at present faced. I should like to begin our deliberations with a few remarks on this subject.

For the past fifty years at least, education in this country has been lacking in stability. I may cite my own experience in illustration. I began my teaching in 1894 at the University of Minnesota. From that year to the present, I have repeatedly with others been engaged in educational reorganization and reform. There is no need to go into details. Teachers as old as I am have had the same experience if they have been active in college and university administration. They have witnessed periodic reorganizations which have varied from the gentle to the violent without, however, exhibiting a progressive approach to a stable educational policy. It is even now expected that a new president will reform the institution of which he is put in charge, that a new dean will reform his school, and that a new department head will reform his department. President Hutchins’ recent lectures at Yale on “The Higher Learning”, no matter what one may think of their content, are illustrative of a prevalent temper of mind.

About the beginning of this period of turmoil graduate schools began to appear. They adopted a fairly well defined educational policy, borrowed largely from abroad rather than built upon American social and economic conditions. To this policy they have in the main adhered although there have been many changes in the administration of it. Graduate schools proceeded on an assumption which, for a time, was justified, namely, that the bachelor’s degree as awarded by American colleges represented a fairly uniform intellectual background and discipline on the part of students who entered the graduate schools. When I came to Columbia in 1902, this assumption was questionable, but still had considerable evidence to support it. Today it has no evidence at all to support it. Yet, in principle and is generally expressed in printed regulations, the graduate school is still what it was originally conceived to be — a school who students are like-minded, have a general education adequate as a preparation for advanced instruction and research, and have the ambition to attain scholarly distinction in some branch of learning. The realistic fact is that the graduate school has now a student body radically different from the type which it, in principle, presupposes. This is a fact which, I think, calls for study on our part.

It is also a fact that the personnel of the graduate faculty is not of the kind which its principles call for. To this fact also we should pay attention. I put it aside for the present because I feel that the student body is the subject for the initial study. A clear understanding of what the student body is like on to lead to suggestions of effective ways of dealing with the student situation.

Dean McBain in his report for the period ending June 30, 1935, gave the results of a preliminary study he had made of certain factors like residence, employment, full and part-time registration, which enter into the determination of the character of the student body. It is a report with many important implications which, as he points out, require farther study and should be supplemented with personal interviews. I think this ought to be undertaken.

My own experience as dean led me to the conviction that the majority of our graduate students are here for no clearly defined purpose. They are here, I might say, from force of habit reinforced by the conviction that continued going to school is a good thing, socially, intellectually, and vocationally. They take pride in being known as graduate students at Columbia and candidates for a degree. Less than half of them, however, take the pains to secure a master’s degree although the requirements for that degree are well within their time and ability. Clearly the presence in the graduate school of so many students of this kind has an effect upon its intellectual character. I do not suggest their elimination. I would suggest, however, that their presence should not be allowed to determine methods of instruction or requirements for degrees.

I do not wish to anticipate the inquiries of the committee, but there are certain facts which it may be advisable to keep in mind from the start. Faced with the student body we have, the problem of their instruction seems to be of first importance. In any consideration of this problem, it is important to remember that the students as a rule have never really had the opportunity of a free election of courses, either in college or in the graduate school. Their studies have been pursued under a system of planned supervision all the way from the preparatory school to the attainment of the doctor’s degree. I must regard it as unfortunate when students after the age say of 18 are continuously subjected to a system of supervised study. The prolongation of intellectual immaturity and of the habits of tutelage is the inevitable result. Our system of higher education in America seems to breed intellectual passivity instead of intellectual activity. The graduate school ought, I think, to put a stop to this. Not only is it bad for the students, it is also bad for departments. Departments unnecessarily multiply courses and, under a system which fosters the supervision of election, students are often debarred from taking advantage of what the graduate school has to offer outside of the departments of their major interests.

Departmental sequestration of students would be less objectionable if we could presuppose that they had had a general education of consequence and now have the intellectual habits of the scholar. They have, as a rule, neither. The colleges rather than the students are to blame because in colleges generally subjects seem to be studied for some other purpose than the understanding of them. We can not wait on a reform of the colleges. Their reform in this matter depends on securing a different type of teacher on their faculties and we ought to provide that type of teachers.

The problem of instruction in the graduate school is in a very real sense a de novoproblem. It involves a transformation of intellectual habits and outlook. It involves freeing students from tutelage, forcing them to become familiar with the more conspicuous problems in the field of learning generally, arousing in them respect for disinterested study, and awakening in them a clear understanding of what they are doing. This may sound like elementary instruction, but I fear that it is the kind of instruction that few of our best students have ever had. To presuppose that they have had it is a great mistake.

I propose, therefore, for your consideration as something to undertake first a study of the character of the student body. I propose farther that the study begin with inquiries made, not by a sub-committee, but by the members of this committee individually, for the membership is representative of the three graduate faculties. I am inclined to think that individual reports in matters of this kind are of greater value than the report of a sub-committee. The individual guided by a few general suggestions can be left free to follow the lead of important matters which turn up in the course of his inquiries, and individual points of view in a matter like this are highly desirable. I wish to avoid the questionnaire for that instrument is, I fear, to successful in concealing information. Personal and free interviews with students are more revealing. I would suggest that interviews with the better students, like past and present holders of scholarships and fellowships, are particularly desirable, but each member of the committee will naturally use his own discretion in this matter and be guided by his own experience.

The inquiry may take the general form following:

A continuation of the inquiry begun by Dean McBain in his report of June 30, 1935. There is much in the report suggesting the advantage of personal interviews.
A study of the relation of undergraduate studies to graduate studies to ascertain what sort of preparation, general specific and auxiliary, students have had and how their studies in the graduate school are related to that preparation. Here personal interviews are important in order to find out what the expectations of the students are and how the undergraduate courses of a student ought to be supplemented if, in two or three years say, he can be regarded as a competent scholar.
A study of the experience of teaching officers with students. What do they find students to be like and what do they find they can and cannot expect from them? This sort of information ought to be valuable as throwing light on what instructors are actually doing.

These three suggestions are made to indicate lines of possible advantageous inquiry. The individual members of the committee will use their discretion in dealing with them.

The next meeting of the committee will be held Saturday morning, December 19, at 10 o’clock in Room 704 Philosophy to consider such progress as the inquiry may have made in such other matters as may be presented by members of the committee.

Frederick J. E. Woodbridge
Chairman

December 12, 1936

______________

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK

February 18, 1937

To the Members of the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy:

Following the suggestion made at our meeting on February 13, 1937 I am sending you the memorandum I then read having changed it a little in view of the discussion that followed. The memorandum is not offered as recommending a plan, although it is in the form of one, but rather to focus attention on certain points which are deliberations have brought pretty much to the front. It raises, besides many general questions three specific ones:

Should candidates for the degree be given a radically different status from that of graduate students generally?
How much individual freedom and responsibility should candidates have?
How far should the control and responsibility of individual professors, particularly those immediately concerned with the candidate’s progress be emphasized as over against that of departments?

The opening paragraphs of the memorandum are an attempt to define the meaning of the degree in terms of our present procedure. Then follows a reference to three matters which have been emphasized in our discussions: (1) limitation of numbers, (2) definition of “department” and “subject” and (3) matriculation. The last is presented in the form of the plan referred to above.

The degree of Ph.D. at Columbia and elsewhere generally represents the satisfactory completion by college graduates of two or more years of graduate study of a “subject” under the direction of a “department” in the writing of a “dissertation” acceptable to an examining committee appointed by the Dean. The student is expected to defend his dissertation before this committee and the committee may examine him on subjects related thereto and also extend the examination farther if it seems fit to do so. The diploma is a certificate by the University that all this has been properly done. It is supposed also to be a certificate of scholarly competence, and such competence is regarded as the important consideration. How far this supposition is realized depends almost exclusively on the administration of departmental regulations.

Holders of the degree enjoy social and economic advantages. They may be saluted as Doctor and that means prestige. They form a group generally recognized as particularly eligible for a variety of paying positions, and thereby have an economic advantage over others of equal and even greater competence who are not holders of the degree. It is easier to “place” in these positions one who holds the degree than one who does not. In other words, the degree has the effect of dividing aspirants for these positions into two classes, the eligible in the ineligible. This may be said to be the particular privilege appertaining to the degree and, naturally, that privilege influences students to undertake graduate study who otherwise would not do so.

What the degree means administratively and what it means socially and economically define a situation with which we may work, but which we are powerless to change in its general character. Whatever administration is set up, university degrees, and particularly the degree of Ph.D., will carry with them social and economic advantages. They will be sought by many for that reason alone. The situation would obviously change of itself if holders of the degree turned out to be generally of little or no distinguished competence. Suspicion that the character of the present student body and laxity in the administration are responsible for a lowering of standards of competence, is the sole reason for anxiety about this degree. There is enough ground for this suspicion to make it desirable to consider ways and means of bettering the administration.

Students are now admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Graduate Faculties solely on condition that they have an acceptable bachelor’s degree or have had an education equivalent to that represented by such a degree. Here the Office of University Admissions has jurisdiction. Since the bachelor’s degree does not represent any uniformity of education, the student body is very miscellaneous in intellectual background and discipline. It is miscellaneous also in attendance and in the division of time given to study into other pursuits. Columbia, because of its location, attracts many students whose attendance is dependent on their convenience and who are often obliged to make their attendance incidental. Because of the circumstances, admission to graduate study is not regarded as equivalent to acceptance as a candidate for a degree. For such acceptance, students have to satisfy requirements supplementary to those for admission and these are fixed by departments under certain general and uniform provisions made by the Faculties.

Changes in the requirements for admission to graduate study are probably neither necessary nor wise. Changes in the requirements for candidacy may be both. Here seems to be the natural point of departure for reform of our present practice regarding the degree of Ph.D. if such reformists thought expedient. The selection from the student body, so diversified in its character, of properly qualified candidates for the degree, is of first importance. There is a diversity of opinion regarding how, when, and on what conditions the selection should be made. Among suggestions offered in this connection there are here noted as topics for consideration.

Limitation of the number of candidates in departments.

The departments should restrict the number of candidates to the quota they can adequately provide for. This naturally raises the question of the meaning of adequate provision and illustrates how we have repeatedly found suggestions interlocking. Perhaps, however, adequate provision may be defined independently in a preliminary weight at least. It may be defined in terms of presently available space and equipment and presently available staff. There seems to be no doubt that the larger departments especially are overburdened with candidates and unable to give them the desired attention. Still further increasing the size of the department does not seem to be an adequate remedy for it is evident that large numbers account for many of the difficulties we now encounter. Fewer candidates would be a decided advantage.

Redefining “department” and “subject”.

This is a matter well deserving attention. Personally I question every departmental division of the field of knowledge and every “classification of sciences” except the most general. The labor of investigation may be divided, but the “scheme of things” presses upon us all in its entirety. Our own departmental divisions have grown out of budgetary and administrative convenience and historical accidents rather than out of educational wisdom. They overlap in their interests as do our three faculties. All this is very patent when our announcements are examined. Furthermore there is a tendency to multiply and sub-divide departments and there is confusion in the distinction between “department” and “subject”. Departments are sometimes subjects and subjects are sometimes departments. This is also patent from the announcements. All this confusion tends to make “specialization” too much like an exclusion of relevant matters in a focusing of attention. It begets the alarm of “narrow specialization” in ignorance of the fact that “broad specialization” would be a calamity.

Matriculation examination.

Here there is such a difference of opinion that I venture to propose an outline a plan to be criticized, acutely aware that it is open to many objections.

Matriculation examinations should be regularly scheduled in the examination periods at the end of each winter in spring session.
They should be both written and oral.
1. A written examination on specified subject matter prepared by the department and read by at least two readers.
2. A written examination of the comprehensive objective type now coming more and more into use as a test of general equipment and mental traits; this examination to be prepared by a committee of the faculties.
3. An oral examination by the professor expected to be in charge of the candidate’s future work who may associate others with him.
4. An oral examination in the reading of French and German. This might be part of (3).
5. judgment should be rendered on the examination as a whole so that applicants, if accepted as candidates, are accepted without conditions; in the examination as a whole should be the last ceremonial examination to which candidates are subject.
Students accepted as candidates should be required to be in full time residence for at least three semesters subsequent to matriculation during which period they would pay a flat tuition fee and have the freedom of the University which means that they should be free to attend any courses open to general regulation and be obligated for no other work in them than that which attendance implies. The special work on which they are engaged should be pursued under the direction of the professor in charge of it who should consider himself obligated to see to it that they use the freedom of the University effectively.
The dissertation should be prepared under the direction of the professor in charge. When it has progressed far enough for a preliminary judgment, it should be submitted to a committee of criticism for such suggestions as the committee considers pertinent and it should periodically thereafter be so submitted until the professor in charge and the committee are satisfied of its merit. There will be no final examination or defense of the dissertation as at present.

Among the effects such matriculation would have are the following:

No student would matriculate until after one semester after admission.
Every recipient of the degree would have had at least three semesters in full residence and at least one — the one prior to matriculation — in full or partial residence.
The award of the degree would depend on what candidates accomplished after matriculation.
Individual professors rather than departments would be responsible for the direction of the work of students after matriculation substituting thus individual for corporate responsibility.
The number of candidates would be controlled by the number of students for whom individual professors assumed responsibility.

The object of this proposal is to make of the post-matriculation period a period with a social and intellectual status radically different from the present among candidates for the degree and the professors in charge of their work. It has the additional object of making it possible greatly to reduce the number of candidates and to increase the responsibility of professors. Responsibility cannot be administered. It is, however, more acutely felt when the emphasis is personal and social than when responsibility is shifted to administrative machinery. One more comment: although the responsibility of professors is increased many present distractions from their work would probably disappear.

I raise the question whether in our report to the President we should formulate any specific plan for regulating the award of the degree. There is just complaint about the present situation. Perhaps we should confine our report to an indication of the places in the present administration where improvements might be made. I think, however, that it would help to clarify our own minds and make our work more effective, should the faculties undertake a revision of requirements, if we worked out a scheme for such a revision ourselves. If the degree ought to have greater scholarly and personal significance then it now has, we have, I think, an obligation to be prepared to do more than indicate where improvements might be made.

Respectfully submitted,
FREDERICK J. E. WOODBRIDGE
Columbia University

______________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Department of Philosophy

May 12, 1937

President Nicholas Murray Butler
Columbia University

Dear Mr. President:

Your Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy begs leave to make the following preliminary report and asks to be continued.

The problems of the degree are bound up with the system of general education in the country. This would obviously be true in any event, but at the present time the problems are complicated by the fact that general education in this country has been undergoing constant reformation for the past fifty years and has not yet attained sufficient stability to serve as a basis for constructive and consistent planning by graduate schools. “An acceptable bachelor’s degree” is now, generally, the sole requirement for admission to these schools and that degree has long since ceased to represent uniformity in intellectual background and discipline. There is constant complaint that the recipients of it are “uneducated.” The complaint often means little more and that the complainer does not like the education which the recipients have received. There is, however, one fairly uniform complaint free from personal prejudice, and this is that far too many college graduates have not attained that intellectual maturity which enables them to know their own minds, to estimate their own work in relation to its specific and general bearings, to study independently, and to be actively aware of the instrumentalities needed for such study. They evidently expect that such deficiencies, so far as they are aware of them, will be made good under the tutelage of their instructors, after entering the graduate school and as their work proceeds. They may have good minds and be intellectually alert, inquisitive, ambitious, and even precocious, but they are generally lacking in experience of the intellectual discipline which marks the scholar.

The situation was different, because it was much more simple, when graduate schools began to be established in this country. The prime motive for these schools was desire to provide at home the sort of opportunity which college graduates found for continued study in European universities. In those days our colleges had, as a rule, a fairly uniform and much restricted curriculum. It had the great advantage, however, of submitting students to many years of discipline in a few subjects which usually carried them as far in them as most of the recipients of the master’s degree and many of the doctors are today carried in the same subjects. They attended our graduate schools for reasons like those which still led to many of them to go abroad, for an enlarged intellectual and cultural experience, for a freer opportunity for independent study, and to win scholarly distinction. Graduate schools could then frame their organization and set up the requirements for their degree with the knowledge that their students were, in general, much alike, differing in ability rather than in intellectual background and discipline. They could regard the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as the recognition of matured and independent scholarship and as a certification of ability both to teach and to investigate. Graduate schools were in fact what they were conceived to be, institutions for advanced instruction and research based on a college education conspicuously uniform in intellectual character.

The situation today is very different. The familiar causes which have brought the change about need not be rehearsed. Some of the consequences need to be emphasized. Graduate schools, for example, have had an effect upon the colleges which was not originally expected. The original expectation was clearly that colleges and graduate schools would supplement each other to the advantage of both. Something else happened. The College tended more and more to look upon itself as the final custodian of general education and upon the graduate school as a school for the training of specialists. This tendency was fortified by the advancement of professional schools to university status which led them to look to the college for preparatory training for their own students. It was repellent to the colleges to be forced into the position of preparatory schools and this repulsion was reinforced by social pressure. One finds abundant evidence of all this in the educational literature since the opening of the century. The question of the place of the college in the general system is still in debate. Dear as “the dear Old College” is to the hearts of alumni, there are many serious students of education who question the wisdom of its continuance beyond what is now usually represented by its first two years. The Junior College and then the University with its various schools is the sequence which has many advocates. Our colleges naturally resist this recommendation to commit suicide in the interest of a plan commended for its rationality alone. They insist that a liberal education in the interest of an enlightened citizenry, socially minded, is their obligation; beyond that lies the University. The old College with its narrow and restricted curriculum did produce specialists although they were marked under the title of liberally or classically educated persons. The new college with its vastly enlarged and freer curriculum and the consequent meaning given to the adjective “liberal” has removed from the bachelor’s degree any standard educational significance.

As a consequence the graduate school is put into a position it was not originally intended to occupy. Admission to it in terms of a bachelor’s degree is not a definition of acceptability for candidacy for its degrees unless these degrees are themselves transformed into a certificate for the completion of courses of study adapted to the character of the student body entering. The emphasis tends to shift from subjects to persons with the studies accommodated to the varied antecedent preparation of the students and to the varied purposes for which they seek the degrees. Provision is expected, for example, for the study of German philosophy with no knowledge of the German language, for the study of statistics with no adequate preparation in mathematics, for the study of one branch of science with no adequate knowledge of intimately related other branches or even of the science itself. After admission it is hoped that such and similar deficiencies will be made good. In short the graduate school is forced to recognize that admission to it does not carry with it the presumption that an admitted student is a fit candidate for a degree. It carries the contrary presumption. His fitness is usually subsequently determined, but it is clear that subsequent determination becomes more and more embarrassing the longer it is deferred. Tests of endurance encroach on tests of fitness.

Another important consequence of educational and social changes which affects the graduate school is the estimate of its degrees in terms of values other than those originally intended. They were intended to mark the progress of college graduates in scholarly and teaching proficiency. Only in that sense were they professional degrees and that sense is still the one proclaimed in announcements. It is not, however, what may be called their present operative sense. Their possession rather than what they are supposed to represent has become an important asset in securing positions of greater diversity in character, in discharging, without examination into fitness, the qualifications for entrance upon various careers, and enhancing social distinction. Much of this sort of thing is natural enough, for university degrees, even in a democratic society, will humanly be regarded as honors irrespective of the merit of their possessors. This frailty may be dismissed with irony rather than with condemnation. It becomes more than a frailty when it becomes educationally operative. When the degree is sought, not as a recognition of merit, but as a qualification for advancement and when social and economic pressure effectively supports the seeking of it for that purpose, the graduate school, if it yields, has lost control of its own degrees. The assumption, for example, that are very large number of graduate students indicates an eagerness for scholarship, is absurd. It indicates rather the pressure of social and economic circumstances which tend to warp the graduate school from its professed purpose.

Large number of students and particularly rapid increase of numbers have had an unfortunate effect on faculty personnel. Hasty and ill-considered appointments, especially in the junior grades, are made under the pressure of instructional needs and with the perilous expectation that they will be temporary — an expectation too frequently fulfilled by their becoming permanent. For the instructional needs tend to increase instead of to diminish. The failure of graduate departments to reproduce their leaders is too conspicuous. There never seems time to do what would be done if there were time to do it: That is a much too common complaint. There is too much pitiful discussion of how much time should be given to “teaching” and how much to “research.” It is pitiful because that sort of division of a scholar’s time is the sad confession that what scholarship is has either been forgotten or never known.

Adverse criticism, some of it querulous but much of it sound, of the recipients of graduate degrees, is another consequence of the changes noted above. The taunt that college graduates are uneducated is repeated in the case of holders of graduate degrees, and, it is safe to say, with as much force. In both cases the taunt needs to be discounted. Yet it is clear that the difficulty of securing well-trained teachers and scholars for our colleges and universities has increased in spite of the fact that graduate schools have been operative for half a century. This is a very serious matter. The thing that is conspicuously rare in the product of our graduate schools is a thing eminently desirable, namely, a living sense of the continuity of learning and of the dominant ideas that have characterized it. Our graduate schools can claim no exclusiveness in the matter of a genuinely intellectual society, but obviously they should be citadels in such a society. As it is, they are over-departmentalized and departmentalization is in danger of running riot. The catchword for this is “narrow specialization.” But specialization is highly to be commended as a potent factor in the division of intellectual labor. It is narrowing only when pursued in an atmosphere of narrowness, only when not straying beyond one’s own little field is looked upon as a virtue instead of a vice. Such a moral distortion is the great enemy of an intellectual society. Our graduate schools have not done and do not do what they might to make this distortion less current. They have assisted it by dividing and subdividing departments, by multiplying “subjects,” and by the “proliferation” — an apt biological simile — of courses to such an extent that “the course” or “courses” tend to become what teachers “give” and students “take,” often in shameful ignorance of their intellectual purpose and justification.

It is apparent from the foregoing that your Committee has had much to occupy its attention. In our study of the situation, many questions have been considered upon which we are not yet prepared to make recommendations, such as limitation of the number of entering students, quotas for various departments; fellowships, scholarships, and stipends of various sorts; fees by points or a flat fee; clearer definitions of such terms as “attendance,” “residents,” “subject,” “department,” “full-time” and “part-time” students; nature of graduate study, course requirements with the implication of supervised registration or free registration with more emphasis on independent individual study; responsibility to the public independent of the matter of degrees; limitations of faculty and departmental control; ultimate requirements for the degree. We are convinced that the conception of graduate degrees as evidenced by the published profession of graduate schools should be maintained, but that the methods of maintaining it need revision in view of existing conditions. At present we have but one recommendation to make and it affects the entrance upon graduate work.

Your Committee began its studies with an examination of the student body involved, starting with the investigation begun by Dean McBain in his report for the academic year ending June 30, 1935. The result of this study was the conviction that it has become necessary to distinguish more clearly and definitely than is now done, candidates for the degree from the entire student body and the distinction should be gone as early as possible in order that, by progressive steps, a group of candidates may be selected for whom particular provision should be made. We make no recommendation touching the present requirement for admission generally. We do, however, recommend that for presumptive candidates for both the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy the general requirement for admission be supplemented by a departmental examination to be satisfied upon entrance and before registration is complete. The master’s degree is included in the recommendation in order that candidacy for it may not operate as a substitute for the proposed examination and also to safeguard that degree more effectively than is now done. The recommendation is presented in the following form:

A qualifying examination for prospective candidacy for the degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy shall be given by departments at the beginning of each session and prior to the completion of registration. Only students who have satisfied this examination, normally upon entrance, will be regarded as prospective candidates.

The ground to be covered in the examination shall be specified by each department in terms of clearly defined subject-matter, with an indication of the literature important in preparation for it. The examination shall be designed to show whether the student is sufficiently grounded in the subject in which he expects to specialize and whether he has a satisfactory background of general culture and scholarship, command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require.
The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.
The examination shall in no sense be regarded as an examination for a degree and the successful passing of it shall not excuse the prospective candidate from any of the other departmental requirements.
Each department shall determine whether students who fail will be allowed to present themselves for a second examination.
No substitute in terms of courses to be taken later or of antecedent grades and credits shall be accepted in lieu of the examination.
A statement of the examination and its requirements shall be published in the departmental announcements after prior submission for approval to the faculty committee on instruction.
Persons were accepted by the Office of University Admissions as graduate students who do not pass the examination shall not be permitted to register for discussion groups, seminars, or such other courses as may be specified by departments.

The effect of this examination properly administered would be, first, to acquaint students definitely with what is expected of them at the time of entrance in the matter of preliminary preparation, secondly to place responsibility for this preparation directly on the student, and, thirdly, to prevent the assumption and its consequences that admission to graduate study is presumptive candidacy for a degree. We recognize fully that graduate schools have, under existing circumstances, obligations to students independent of the safeguarding of degrees, but we recognize also that these other obligations have now given to such safeguarding an imperative emphasis.

This recommendation is a preliminary step, and, if approved by the Faculties, can be put into operation immediately upon its adoption without prejudicing other and perhaps more important matters. We present, therefore, this preliminary report and ask to be continued.

Respectfully submitted
[signed Frederick Jay. E. Woodbridge]
Chairman

[signed I. L. Kandel]
Secretary

______________

May 21, 1937

Professor Frederick J. E. Woodbridge
39 Claremont Avenue
New York City

Dear Professor Woodbridge:

I thank you warmly for your letter of the 20^thand for the interesting and constructive preliminary report made on behalf of the Special Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy which accompanies it. I appreciate to the full the care and guiding attention which you have given to this important problem and shall ask you to continue the work of the committee under your direction until such time as you feel that everything possible has been accomplished.

Meanwhile, will it not be desirable for me to have this preliminary report multigraphed and distributed early in the autumn to the member of the Graduate Faculties for their information?

I shall name a successor to Professor Westermann in a day or two and advise you of his name. It may not be wise to name Professor Jessup since for two years to come he is to give an immense amount of time and work to his very important LIFE OF ELIHU ROOT.

With warm regard and best wishes for your summer holiday, I am

Faithfully yours,
[Stamped signature]
Nicholas Murray Butler

______________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

Department of Philosophy

May 12, 1937

President Nicholas Murray Butler
Columbia University

Dear President Butler:

Thank you for your letter of May 21 acknowledging the preliminary report of the Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I think it would be advisable to have the report multigraphed and distributed and would suggest that it may be more opportune to have that done now instead of waiting until the autumn. There has been, I find, considerable interest awakened by the work of the Committee and some present curiosity regarding what it has so far accomplished. Under these circumstances I wonder if it would not be more advantageous to send out the report now.

Sincerely yours
[signed]
Frederick J. E. Woodbridge

______________

Source: Columbia University Archives. Central Files. Box1.1-136—1.1.141, Folder “8/8 Woodbridge, Frederick James Eugene”.

Image Source: Review of “The Paper Chase” (Comedy about Law School life)from in The Law News at Washington & Lee University School of Law, Octobere 30, 2014.

Tags Simkhovitch

Barnard Columbia Courses Curriculum

Columbia. Economics Courses with Descriptions, 1905-07

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-11-01

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

________________________________

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

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

OTHER OFFICERS

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

________________________________

GROUP III—ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

GRADUATE COURSES

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

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

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

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

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

Subject A—Political Economy and Finance

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in each year thereafter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

Not given in 1905-07.]

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

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

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

Not given in 1905-07.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given in 1905-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

Given in 1905-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given in 1905-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

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

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

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

Subject B—Sociology and Statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject C—Social Economy

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

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

Given in 1905—06 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

Given in 1903-06 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

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

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

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

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

COURSES IN THE SCHOOL OF PHILANTHROPY

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

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

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

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

COURSES IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE

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

COURSES IN BARNARD COLLEGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COURSES IN THE SUMMER SESSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags Bayles, ClarkJB, Devine, Giddings, JohnsonA, Moore, ParsonsEC, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch

Barnard Columbia Economists

Columbia. Budgeting John Bates Clark’s Salary After His Retirement, ca. 1911

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2017-01-16

The following undated memorandum comes from Prof. E.R.A. Seligman’s papers in a folder of Columbia related material for 1911-1913. From the Bulletin of the Faculty of Political Science we know that Prof. Simkhovitch took over Clark’s course on socialism in 1908 (Seligman below writes that Simkhovitch gave a similar course “at Columbia for the last two or three years”). Robert E. Chaddock took up the statistics assistant professorship mentioned in the memo in 1911. So it is pretty clear that this memorandum was written to motivate the economics department decision not to seek a senior professor with the funds released by Clark’s retirement but instead divided the funds between hiring someone for statistics, additional compensation for Henry Roger Seager to continue his teaching a labor course at Barnard and additional compensation for Professor Vladimir Simkhovitch to take over Clark’s course on Socialism at Barnard.

_____________________________

MEMORANDUM in reference to PROFESSOR CLARK’S RETIREMENT.

Professor Clark’s retirement is a serious loss to the Department of Economics and to Barnard College. Ordinarily the withdrawal of such a distinguished member of the faculty should lead to the appointment of a successor of equal prominence. In this case, however, there is no one of equal distinction available, and after making a thorough and impartial survey of the field, the department is convinced that it will be wiser to call the most promising younger man to be found as assistant professor then to call in a full professor who might prove disappointing. This plan has the advantage, moreover, of permitting a readjustment of the courses in economics to be open to Barnard students that would be highly advantageous for the College.

It will be remembered that when the original arrangement was entered into the trustees of Barnard agreed to provide the sum of $5,000 toward the higher or university work in economics at Columbia, on condition that certain courses at Columbia be open to women graduates, and on the further understanding that the Department of Economics should provide six hours a week of lectures in economics to Barnard Seniors at Barnard College. Later on, by special arrangement with Dean Gill, as ratified by the trustees, it was provided that two of these six hours might be given at Columbia instead of Barnard. It is now proposed to readjust the courses so as to provide ampler opportunities for Barnard students.

In considering the interests of Barnard, three facts should be held in view. First, experience has shown that merely throwing open courses given at Columbia to Barnard students fails adequately to meet their needs. The plan adopted when Professor Clark was called here of having six hours advanced work in economics given at Barnard ought to be reintroduced. Second, the number of students desiring to take advanced work in economics is steadily increasing and for their benefit every opportunity should be seized which will open to them additional courses at Columbia. Third, the most important field of economics study not now covered by the courses offered at Barnard is that of economic and social statistics. Not only does the ordinary student need a knowledge of statistical methods to apply economic theories to the facts of every day life, but Barnard graduates are concerned to an ever increasing extent with different forms of social service. Some become the paid agents of settlement, charitable societies or municipal departments concerned with social work. Others become officers in reform and charitable organizations. For both classes, training in the manipulation and interpretation of statistics would be of great value.

Having regard to these three facts the plan which the Department of Economics recommends is as follows: –

(1) that $2,500 of the $5,000 released by Professor Clark’s withdrawal be used to pay the salary of an assistant professor, who shall give a course on social and economic statistics to Barnard Seniors. While this professor under the terms of the original agreement, is to be primarily a graduate professor, he may, if so desired, be asked temporarily to relieve Professor Mussey of one of the Junior sections in Economics A1–A2 in exchange for a university course by Professor Mussey. It is also proposed that in further recognition of a similar course to be given by the new instructor at Columbia and of supervising work in the statistical laboratory at Columbia, which might be open to Barnard students for research work, the Department of Economics should admit Barnard Seniors to Columbia courses given by Professors Seligman, Giddings, Seager, and Mussey, that is, Sociology 151-152, Economics 101-2, Economics 107-108, Economics 106, and Economics 104.

(2) That Professor Seager be asked to continue his course on the Labor Problem at Barnard and that a contribution of $1,500 towards his salary be paid out of the $5,000 released. Professor Clark’s withdrawal will add to Professor Seager’s burdens at Columbia and his natural inclination would be to meet the situation by discontinuing his course at Barnard. If he continues his course it seems but fair that a contribution toward his salary should be paid out of Barnard funds.

(3) That Professor Simkhovitch be asked to give at Barnard the course on Socialism and Social Reform formerly given by Professor Clark and that the remaining $1,000 of the $5,000 fund be contributed to his salary. Fortunately Professor Simkhovitch is specially qualified to give such a course acceptably, having given a similar course at Columbia for the last two or three years.

By carrying out this plan the Barnard trustees will not only secure a reintroduction of the six hours of advanced instruction in economics for the special benefit of Barnard Seniors, courses even better adapted to the present needs of such Seniors than those previously given, but will also secure admission for Barnard students to eight of the most valuable courses in economics and social science offered at Columbia, without any increase in the appropriation for economic instruction. Inasmuch as at the present time only four hours are given to Barnard Seniors, and only five Columbia courses are open to them, we believe that the plan is fair to all concerned and that it will prove highly advantageous to Barnard College.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson Collection. Box 98a, Folder “Columbia (A-Z) 1911-1913”.

Image Source: Barnard College student council. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540.

Tags Chaddock, ClarkJB, Giddings, Mussey, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch

Columbia Economists

Columbia. History of Economics Department. Luncheon Talk by Arthur R. Burns, 1954

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-07-17

The main entry of this posting is a transcription of the historical overview of economics at Columbia provided by Professor Arthur R. Burns at a reunion luncheon for Columbia economics Ph.D. graduates [Note: Arthur Robert Burns was the “other” Arthur Burns of the Columbia University economics department, as opposed to Arthur F. Burns, who was the mentor/friend of Milton Friedman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, etc.]. He acknowledges his reliance on the definitive research of his colleague, Joseph Dorfman, that was published in the following year:

Joseph Dorfman, “The Department of Economics”, Chapt IX in R. Gordon Hoxie et al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

The cost of the luncheon was $2.15 per person. 36 members of the economics faculty attended, who paid for themselves, and some 144 attending guests (includes about one hundred Columbia economics Ph.D.’s) had their lunches paid for by the university.

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

March 25, 1954

Dear Doctor _________________

On behalf of the Department of Economics, I am writing to invite you to attend a Homecoming Luncheon of Columbia Ph.D.’s in Economics. This will be held on Saturday, May 29, at 12:30 sharp, in the Men’s Faculty Club, Morningside Drive and West 117^th Street.

This Luncheon is planned as a part of Columbia University’s Bicentennial Celebration, of which, as you know, the theme is “Man’s Right to Knowledge and the free Use Thereof”. The date of May 29 is chosen in relation to the Bicentennial Conference on “National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad” in which distinguished scholars and men of affairs from the United States and other countries will take part. The final session of this Conference, to be held at three p.m. on May 29 in McMillin Academic Theater, will have as its principal speaker our own Professor John Maurice Clark. The guests at the Luncheon are cordially invited to attend the afternoon meeting.

The Luncheon itself and brief after-luncheon speeches will be devoted to reunion, reminiscence and reacquaintance with the continuing work of the Department. At the close President Grayson Kirk will present medals on behalf of the University to the principal participants in the Bicentennial Conference.

We shall be happy to welcome to the Luncheon as guests of the University all of our Ph.D.’s, wherever their homes may be, who can arrange to be in New York on May 29. We very much hope you can be with us on that day. Please reply on the form below.

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

* * * * * *

Professor Carter Goodrich
Box #22, Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

I shall be glad…
I shall be unable… to attend the Homecoming Luncheon on May 29.

(signed) ___________

Note: Please reply promptly, not later than April 20 in the case of Ph.D.’s residing in the United States, and not later than May 5 in the case of others.

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

May 6, 1954

TO: Departments of History, Math. Stat., Public and Sociology
FROM: Helen Harwell, secretary, Graduate Department of Economics

Will you please bring the following notice to the attention of the students in your Department:

A feature of Columbia’s Bicentennial celebration will be a Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, to be held May 27, 28 and 29.

The final session of the Conference will take place in McMillin Theatre at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 29. The session topic is “Economic Welfare in a Free Society”. The program is:

Session paper.

John M. Clark, John Bates Clark Professor. Emeritus of Economics, Columbia University.

Discussants:

Frank H. Knight, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
David E. Lilienthal, Industrial Consultant and Executive
Wilhelm Roepke, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva

Students in the Faculty of Political Science are cordially invited to attend this session and to bring their wives or husbands and friends who may be interested.

Tickets can be secured from Miss Helen Harwell, 505 Fayer.

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29^th, 1954

President Kirk, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Department of Economics I welcome you all to celebrate Columbia’s completion of its first two hundred years as one of the great universities. We are gratified that so many distinguished guests have come, some from afar, to participate in the Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad. We accept their presence as testimony of their esteem for the place of Columbia in the world of scholarship. Also, we welcome among us again many of the intellectual offspring of the department. We like to believe that the department is among their warmer memories. We also greet most pleasurably some past members of the department, namely Professors Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, Eugene Agger, Eveline M. Burns and Rexford Tugwell. Finally, but not least, we are pleased to have with us the administrative staff of the department who are ceaselessly ground between the oddity and irascibility of the faculty and the personal and academic tribulations of the students. Gertrude D. Stewart who is here is evidence that this burden can be graciously carried for thirty-five years without loss of charm or cheer.

We are today concerned with the place of economics within the larger scope of Columbia University. When the bell tolls the passing of so long a period of intellectual endeavor one casts an appraising eye over the past, and I am impelled to say a few retrospective words about the faculty and the students. I have been greatly assisted in this direction by the researches of our colleague, Professor Dorfman, who has been probing into our past.

On the side of the faculty, there have been many changes, but there are also many continuities. First let me note some of the changes. As in Europe, economics made its way into the university through moral philosophy, and our College students were reading the works of Frances Hutcheson in 1763. But at the end of the 18^th century, there seems to have been an atmosphere of unhurried certainty and comprehensiveness of view that has now passed away. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a colleague of today launching a work entitled “Natural Principles of Rectitude for the Conduct of Man in All States and Situations in Life Demonstrated and Explained in a Systematic Treatise on Moral Philosophy”. But one of early predecessors, Professor Gross, published such a work in 1795.

The field of professorial vision has also change. The professor Gross whom I have just mentioned occupied no narrow chair but what might better be called a sofa—that of “Moral Philosophy, German Language and Geography”. Professor McVickar, early in the nineteenth century, reclined on the even more generous sofa of “Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Rhetoric, Belles Lettres and Political Economy”. By now, however, political economy at least existed officially and, in 1821, the College gave its undergraduates a parting touch of materialist sophistication in some twenty lectures on political economy during the last two months of their senior year.

But by the middle of the century, integration was giving way to specialization. McVickar’s sofa was cut into three parts, one of which was a still spacious chair of “History and Political Science”, into which Francis Lieber sank for a brief uneasy period. His successor, John W. Burgess, pushed specialization further. He asked for an assistant to take over the work in political economy. Moreover, his request was granted and Richmond Mayo Smith, then appointed, later became Professor of Political Economy, which, however, included Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. The staff of the department was doubled in 1885 by the appointment of E. R. A. Seligman to a three-year lectureship, and by 1891 he had become a professor of Political Economy and Finance. Subsequent fission has separated Sociology and Anthropology and now we are professors of economics, and the days when political economy was covered in twenty lectures seem long ago.

Other changes stand out in our history. The speed of promotion of the faculty has markedly slowed down. Richmond Mayo Smith started as an instructor in 1877 but was a professor after seven years of teaching at the age of 27. E. R. A. Seligman even speeded matters a little and became a professor after six years of teaching. But the University has since turned from this headlong progression to a more stately gait. One last change I mention for the benefit of President Kirk, although without expectation of warm appreciation from him. President Low paid J. B. Clark’s salary out of his own pocket for the first three years of the appointment.

I turn now to some of the continuities in the history of the department. Professor McVickar displayed a concern for public affairs that has continued since his time early in the nineteenth century. He was interested in the tariff and banking but, notably, also in what he called “economic convulsions”, a term aptly suggesting an economy afflicted with the “falling sickness”. Somewhat less than a century later the subject had been rechristened “business cycles” to remove some of the nastiness of the earlier name, and professor Wesley Mitchell was focusing attention on this same subject.

The Columbia department has also shown a persistent interest in economic measurement. Professor Lieber campaigned for a government statistical bureau in the middle of the 19^th century and Richmond Mayo Smith continued this interest in statistics and in the Census. Henry L. Moore, who came to the department in 1902, promoted with great devotion Mathematical Economics and Statistics with particular reference to the statistical verification of theory. This interest in quantification remains vigorous among us.

There is also a long continuity in the department’s interest in the historical and institutional setting of economic problems and in their public policy aspect. E. R. A. Seligman did not introduce, but he emphasized this approach. He began teaching the History of Theory and proceeded to Railroad Problems and the Financial and Tariff History of the United States, and of course, Public Finance. John Bates Clark, who joined the department in 1895 to provide advanced training in economics to women who were excluded from the faculty of Political Science, became keenly interested in government policy towards monopolies and in the problem of war. Henry R. Seager, in 1902, brought his warm and genial personality to add to the empirical work in the department in labor and trust problems. Vladimir G. Simkhovitch began to teach economic history in 1905 at the same time pursuing many and varied other interests, and we greet him here today. And our lately deceased colleague, Robert Murray Haig, continued the work in Public Finance both as teacher and advisor to governments.

Lastly, among these continuities is an interest in theory. E. R. A. Seligman focused attention on the history of theory. John Bates Clark was an outstanding figure in the field too well known to all of us for it to be necessary to particularize as to his work. Wesley C. Mitchell developed his course on “Current Types of Economic Theory” after 1913 and continued to give it almost continuously until 1945. The Clark dynasty was continued when John Maurice Clark joined the department as research professor in 1926. He became emeritus in 1952, but fortunately he still teaches, and neither students nor faculty are denied the stimulation of his gentle inquiring mind. He was the first appointee to the John Bates Clark professorship in 1952 and succeeded Wesley Mitchell as the second recipient of the Francis A. Walker medal of the American Economic Association in the same year.

Much of this development of the department was guided by that gracious patriarch E. R. A. Seligman who was Executive Officer of the Department for about 30 years from 1901. With benign affection and pride he smiled upon his growing academic family creating a high standard of leadership for his successors. But the period of his tenure set too high a standard and executive Officers now come and go like fireflies emitting as many gleams of light as they can in but three years of service. Seligman and J. B. Clark actively participated in the formation of the American Economic Association in which J. B. Clark hoped to include “younger men who do not believe implicitly in laisser faire doctrines nor the use of the deductive method exclusively”.

Among other members of the department I must mention Eugene Agger, Edward Van Dyke Robinson, William E. Weld, and Rexford Tugwell, who were active in College teaching, and Alvin Johnson, Benjamin Anderson and Joseph Schumpeter, who were with the department for short periods. Discretion dictates that I list none of my contemporaries, but I leave them for such mention as subsequent speakers may care to make.

When one turns to the students who are responsible for so much of the history of the department, one is faced by an embarrassment of riches. Alexander Hamilton is one of the most distinguished political economists among the alumni of the College. Richard T. Ely was the first to achieve academic reputation. In the 1880’s, he was giving economics a more humane and historical flavor. Walter F. Wilcox, a student of Mayo Smith, obtained his Ph.D. in 1891 and contributed notably to statistical measurement after he became Chief Statistician of the Census in 1891, and we extend a special welcome to him here today. Herman Hollerith (Ph.D. 1890) contributed in another way to statistics by his development of tabulating machinery. Alvin Johnson was a student as well as teacher. It is recorded that he opened his paper on rent at J. B. Clark’s seminar with the characteristically wry comment that all the things worth saying about rent had been said by J. B. Clark and his own paper was concerned with “some of the other things”. Among other past students are W. Z. Ripley, B. M. Anderson, Willard Thorp, John Maurice Clark, Senator Paul Douglas, Henry Schultz and Simon Kuznets. The last of these we greet as the present President of the American Economic Association. But the list grows too long. It should include many more of those here present as well as many who are absent, but I am going to invite two past students and one present student to fill some of the gaps in my story of the department.

I have heard that a notorious American educator some years ago told the students at Commencement that he hoped he would never see them again. They were going out into the world with the clear minds and lofty ideals which were the gift of university life. Thenceforward they would be distorted by economic interest, political pressure, and family concerns and would never again be the same pellucid and beautiful beings as at that time. I confess that the thought is troubling. But in inviting our students back we have overcome our doubts and we now confidently call upon a few of them. The first of these is George W. Stocking who, after successfully defending a dissertation on “The Oil Industry and the Competitive System” in 1925, has continued to pursue his interest in competition and monopoly as you all know. He is now at Vanderbilt University.

The second of our offspring whom I will call upon is Paul Strayer. He is one of the best pre-war vintages—full bodied, if I may borrow from the jargon of the vintner without offense to our speaker. Or I might say fruity, but again not without danger of misunderstanding. Perhaps I had better leave him to speak for himself. Paul Strayer, now of Princeton University, graduated in 1939, having completed a dissertation on the painful topic of “The Taxation of Small Incomes”.

The third speaker is Rodney H. Mills, a contemporary student and past president of the Graduate Economics Students Association. He has not yet decided on his future presidencies, but we shall watch his career with warm interest. He has a past, not a pluperfect, but certainly a future. Just now, however, no distance lends enchantment to his view of the department. And I now call upon him to share his view with us.

So far we have been egocentric and appropriately so. But many other centres of economic learning are represented here, and among them the London School of Economics of which I am proud as my own Alma Mater. I now call upon Professor Lionel Robbins of Polecon (as it used sometimes to be known) to respond briefly on behalf of our guests at the Conference. His nature and significance are or shall I say, is, too well known to you to need elaboration.

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Bicentennial Celebration”.

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

BURNS, Arthur Robert, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1938) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1895; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1920, Ph.D. (Econ.), 1926, London Sch. of Econ. Fields 5a, 3bc, 12b. Doc. dis. Money and monetary policy in early times (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., London, 1926). Pub. Decline of competition (McGraw-Hill 1936); Comparative economic organization (Prentice-Hall, 1955); Electric power and government policy (dir. of res.) (Twentieth Century Fund, 1948) . Res. General studies in economic development. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci., III, Dir. of Amer. Schol.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July, 1957), p. 40.

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns. Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Tags Agger, Anderson, Burgess, BurnsAF, BurnsAR, BurnsEM, ClarkJB, ClarkJM, DorfmanJ, Douglas, Ely, Goodrich, GrossJD, Haig, Hollerith, JohnsonA, Knight, Kuznets, Lieber, Mayo-Smith, McVickar, Mills, Mitchell, Moore, Ripley, RobinsonEVD, Roepke, SchultzH, Schumpeter, Seager, Seligman, Simkhovitch, Stocking, Strayer, Thorp, Tugwell, Weld, Wilcox

Columbia Economists Funny Business M.I.T.

Columbia. Kindleberger remembers Simkhovitch, mid-1930s

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2016-03-18

Welcome to my blog, Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled for you to sample or click on the search icon in the upper right to explore by name, university, or category. You can subscribe to my blog below. There is also an opportunity to comment following each posting….

__________________________

We met the curious Columbia University Professor Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch in an earlier posting. To recall briefly, Simkhovitch was a Russian born, German-trained economic historian who taught economic history and the course on socialist economics (more like anti-Marxian socialist economics) that he took over from John Bates Clark at Columbia. Milton Friedman took Simkhovitch’s economic history course.

Simkhovitch, Vladimir G. Marxism vs. Socialism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1913. Book first published in installments 1908-12 in Political Science Quarterly.

Charles Kindleberger was both a gentleman and a scholar who was respected and loved by his colleagues and former students. Upon the occasion of his eightieth birthday (he went on to live to the age of 92), he was presented a bound volume of brief reminiscences from everybodys who are (famous) anybodys to somebodys who are (relative) nobodys but who were all touched in some way by Kindleberger.

Today’s posting provides an assist to Professor Frank Fisher, the volunteer “custodian of [part of the Kindlberger] oral tradition”. One detail gets incorrectly transmitted in the Fisher rendition—Kindleberger was never a colleague of Simkhovitch, the two of them overlapped when Kindleberger was a Columbia graduate student in the mid 1930s. In his reminiscence for the birthday volume, Fisher wrote:

“When Charlie Kindleberger retired from M.I.T., he asked at his party, “Who will tell my Simkhovitch stories?” I don’t know whether Charlie heard me, but I said I would.

Simkhovitch, who was Charlie’s colleague at Columbia, is the principal character in two stories (so far as I know). I have given both of them a good home and it seems appropriate that I should use them today.

In story number one, the young Kindleberger, having carefully planned out his lectures for the term, finds that with some time left to spare in his first lecture he has used up all the material for the course. After vamping for the rest of the lecture period, he seeks Simkhovitch’s advice and is told: “Recipe for education: take teaspoon full of ideas and five gallons water. Stir. Dispense with eye dropper.”…

…In story number two, a student is on the verge of failing his Ph.D. exams and the department is debating what to do. Simkhovitch says: “This man want degree. We got plenty degrees. Give him degree.”

Source: Excerpt from Frank Fisher’s contribution to the collection: Reminiscences of Charles P. Kindleberger on his Eightieth Birthday, October 12, 1990 in the Charles P. Kindleberger Papers, Box 24, MIT Libraries, Institute Archives and Special Collections.

Image Source: Charles Kindleberger in MIT Technique, 1950.

Tags Franklin Fisher, Kindleberger, Simkhovitch

Bibliography Columbia Courses Economists

Columbia. Economic History Course taught by Simkhovitch. Attended by Friedman, 1933.

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-10-16

Of six graduate courses taken for credit at Columbia University by Milton Friedman, one was taught by the Professor of Economic History, Vladimir Gregorievitch Simkhovitch — Economics 119. According to Friedman’s own listing of his coursework in economics found in his papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, he took Simkhovitch’s economic history course during the winter semester of the academic year 1933-34.

Simkhovitch was a multifaceted character and Universalgelehrter which can be loosely translated as an academic “utility infielder”. Because of his relative (or even absolute) obscurity now in the history of economics, here a bit of biographical information to chew on.

V. G. Simkhovitch was born in Russia in 1874, received his doctorate from Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) in 1898, and emigrated to the U.S. after completing graduate work where he began a fellowship at Cornell. He was hired by Columbia University in 1904 to teach economic history. Besides his economic history courses, Simkhovitch also regularly lectured on the subjects of socialist economics and Marxism until retiring from Columbia in 1942. Of considerably more note than himself was his wife Mary Melina Kingsbury, whom he met in Berlin during their student years. They married in New York City in 1899 with Mary Simkhovitch going on to become a prominent housing reform and neighborhood activist. Greenwich House, still in existence, was a model settlement house that she founded. Husband and wife were prominent enough, mostly thanks to her, to have their 50^th wedding anniversary reported in the New York Times (January 6, 1949). Objects from Vladimir Simkhovitch’s art collections were reported in his obituary (New York Times, December 10, 1959) to have been displayed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Pierrpont Morgan Library in New York as well as museums in Boston, Cleveland and Philadelphia. It is not difficult to find objects once owned by him in art auction house listings today.

__________________________

Eli Ginzberg’s recollections of Simkhovitch

In his brief memoir essay “Economics at Columbia: Recollections of the early 1930s” [The American Economist, vol. 34, No. 2, (Fall, 1990), 14-19], Simkhovitch does not come off well, certainly not personally.

“The hard core of the old department in addition to Seligman, Seager and Moore included Vladimir G. Simkhovitch who offered courses on socialism and economic history. Russian by birth and German by education, Simkhovitch, even with the perspective of time is not easy to characterize and even harder to evaluate. A collector of Chinese art and a grower of delphiniums in Perry, Maine, he was recognized as an expert in both fields. Most students, the bright as well as the dull, considered his lectures somewhat tedious distraction from serious work on contemporary economics; they had little interest in his exhaustion of the soil explanation for the decline of Rome or his Edward Bernstein-modified critique of Karl Marx. But a few of us recognized V.G.’s insightfulness and over looked his failings, defects which included a proneness for character defamation and vindictiveness as well as immature behavior toward female students.” p. 14.

“If the relations between the Graduate Economics Department and the School of Business were close and for the most part friendly, this was not the case with respect to the Graduate Economic Department’s attitude to the economists who taught in the undergraduate department headed by Rexford G. Tugwell. Tugwell fancied himself to be an expert in agricultural economics which may have brought him into conflict with Simkhovitch who devoted much of his time and energy to creating and maintaining feuds. The tension may have been nothing more than snobbery run riot. Tugwell did not teach any course in the Graduate Department of Economics. But I can personally attest to the fact that Tugwell was sensitive about collegial relations.” p. 17

Ahem…“immature behavior toward female students”! Certainly not the first, nor regrettably the last…but definitely one of them. It was good for Eli Ginzberg to have put that in the historical record.

__________________________

[Course Description]

Economics 119—Economic history. 3 points Winter Session. Professor V. G. SIMKHOVITCH.
Tu., 2:10-3 in 401 Fayerweather and 4:10-5 in 302 Fayerweather.

A general survey of the chief phases of the economic development of classical antiquity, of the Middle Ages, and of modern times, as well as of historical approaches.

Source: History, Economics, Public Law, and Social Science: Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science for Winter and Spring Sessions, 1933-34. Columbia University, Bulletin of Information, 33^rd Series, No. 26 (March 25, 1933)

__________________________

ECONOMIC HISTORY

V. Simkhovitch “Approaches to History”

I Political Science Quarterly, December 1929 S
II [ditto] December, 1930 S
III [ditto] September, 1932 R

Towards an Understanding of Jesus R
Rome’s Fall Reconsidered S
Hay and History S
Marxism v. Socialism Chapter on the Economic Interpretation of History

R Roth Clausing The Roman Colonate 5-62

R F. de Coulanges The Origin of Property in Land 1-73; 149-52

S Buecher Industrial Evolution 83-151

R Edward Meyer Entwicklungsgeschichte des Altertums in Kleine Schriften Vol. 81-160

R H. Bradley Enclosures in England 11-45; 72; 85; 105-7

S Seligman The Economic Interpretation of History 1-24; 146-186

R Schoenberg “Zunftswesen im Mittelalter” Jahrbucher fur Nationaloekonomie und Statistik 1867

R Renard Guilds in the Middle Ages 1-26; 32-67; 73 -115

R Brentano History and Development of the Guilds

R Cunningham Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Paragraphs 61, 72-7, 84, 103, 122, 128, 149-9

S Ashley Introduction to English Economic Theory and History, Volume I pp. 1-113

R Toynbee Industrial Revolution Chapters 7 and 8

R Toutain The Economic Life of the Ancient World Chapters 5-6

R Read S Study carefully

Source: Milton Friedman Papers. Hoover Institution Archives. Box 5, Folder 12, “Student years”.

__________________________

Image Source: Standing Royal Figure. Brooklyn Museum, Gift of Helena Simkhovitch in memory of her father, Vladimir G. Simkhovitch.

Tags Friedman, Simkhovitch

Chicago Columbia Economists Transcript

Milton Friedman’s Coursework in Economics, Statistics and Mathematics

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2015-07-10
1 Comment on Milton Friedman’s Coursework in Economics, Statistics and Mathematics

Before Milton Friedman could be a teacher of economics, he was of course the student of many teachers. This list of his relevant coursework and teachers is complete. I merely add here that his transcript also shows three semesters of college French and four semesters of college German and that he entered Rutgers with advanced credits in French.

Rutgers University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
Dept. of Agriculture Graduate School

Rutgers University (1928-32)

Principles of Economics	E. E. Agger	1929-30
Money and Banking	E. E. Agger	1930-31
Statistical Methods	Homer Jones	1930-31
Business Cycles	Arthur F. Burns	1931-32
Economic Research	Ivan V. Emelianoff	1931-32
Principles of Insurance	Homer Jones	1931-32
College Algebra		1928-29, 1st term
Analytical Geometry		1928-29, 2^nd term
Calculus		1929-30
Advanced Calculus		1930-31
Theory of Numbers		1929-30, 2^nd term
Theory of Equations		1930-31, 1^st term
Differential Equations		1930-31, 2^nd term
Analysis		1931-32
Elliptic Integrals		1931-32, 2^nd term

University of Chicago (1932-33, 1934-35)

Econ 301	Prices and Distribution Theory	Jacob Viner	Autumn Quarter 1932
Econ 302	History of Economic Thought	Frank H. Knight	Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 303	Modern Tendencies in Economics	Jacob Viner	Spring Quarter 1933
Econ 311	Correlation and Curve Fitting	Henry Schultz	Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 312	Statistical Graphics	Henry Schultz	Spring Quarter 1933
Econ 330	Graduate Study of Money and Banking	Lloyd W. Mints	Autumn Quarter 1932
Econ 370	International Trade and Finance	Jacob Viner	Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 220	Economic History of the United States, not taken for credit	Chester Wright	Winter Quarter 1935
Econ 220	Economic History of Europe, not taken for credit	John U. Nef	Autumn Quarter 1934
	Labor (visited)	Paul H. Douglas	1934-35
	Theory of Demand (visited)	Henry Schultz	1934-35
Math 306	Introduction to Higher Algebra	E. Dickson	Autumn Quarter 1932
Math 341	Calculus of Variations	G. Bliss	Autumn Quarter 1932
Math 324	Theory of Algebraic Numbers	A. Albert	Winter Quarter 1933
Math 310	Functions of a Complex Variable (not taken for credit)	L. M. Graves

Master’s thesis: An empirical study of the relationship between railroad stock prices and railroad earnings for the period 1921-31.

Columbia University (1933-34)

Stat 111-12	Statistical Inference	Harold Hotelling	Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 117-18	Mathematical Economics	Harold Hotelling	Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 119	Economic History	V. G. Simkhovitch	Winter semester
Econ 128	Currency and Credit	James W. Angell	Spring semester
Econ 211-12	Business Cycles	Wesley Claire Mitchell	Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 315-16	Economic Theory Seminar	John M. Clark, James W. Angell, and Wesley C. Mitchell	Winter/Spring semesters
	Social Economics (visited)	J. M. Clark
	Labor (visited)	Leo Wolman
	Theory (visited)	R. W. Souter

Department of Agriculture Graduate School (1936-37)

Statistics 17-18

Adjustment of Observations

Source: Assembled from transcripts and course lists kept by Milton Friedman. Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 5, Folders 11, 13 (Student years).

Image Source: Columbia University, Columbia 250 Celebrates Columbians Ahead of Their Time.

Tags Agger, Angell, BurnsAF, ClarkJM, Douglas, Emelianoff, Friedman, Hotelling, JonesHomer, Knight, Mints, Mitchell, Nef, SchultzH, Simkhovitch, Souter, Viner, Wolman, WrightC

April 17, 1936

Appendix to Minutes

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE [April 17, 1936]

December 11, 1936

Memorandum Concerning Dissertation Examination on Type-script

April 21, 1939

Norton Townshend Dodge

For more, especially about Dodge’s art collecting

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

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

Seligman to President Butler

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

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

Remarks of the Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, Chairman, at the first meeting of the President’s Committee on the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, held on December 9, 1936.

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

OTHER OFFICERS

GROUP III—ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

GRADUATE COURSES

Subject A—Political Economy and Finance

Subject B—Sociology and Statistics

Subject C—Social Economy

COURSES IN THE SCHOOL OF PHILANTHROPY

COURSES IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE

COURSES IN BARNARD COLLEGE

COURSES IN THE SUMMER SESSION

MEMORANDUM in reference to PROFESSOR CLARK’S RETIREMENT.

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University in the City of New York [New York 27, N.Y.] FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University in the City of New York [New York 27, N.Y.] FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Session paper.

Discussants:

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon May 29th, 1954

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Eli Ginzberg’s recollections of Simkhovitch

[Course Description]

ECONOMIC HISTORY

Rutgers University (1928-32)

University of Chicago (1932-33, 1934-35)

Columbia University (1933-34)

Department of Agriculture Graduate School (1936-37)

MEMORANDUM ON THE PRINTING REQUIREMENT FOR PH.D. DISSERTATIONS IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
[April 17, 1936]

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

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

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29^th, 1954