Categories
Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Chair annual reports to Dean, 1932-1941

 

This post takes us from the trough of the Great Depression to the eve of the U.S. entry into the Second World War. The items below are transcriptions of copies of reports written by the Harvard economics department chairmen of the time (Harold Hitchings Burbank (a.k.a. Burbie to his Buds) and Edward Hastings Chamberlin. Some chest-thumping, some whining, no notes of irony and definitely no flashes of wit…we all know this art form. Nevertheless some raw intelligence of value for working historians of economics of the present and future.

____________________________

November 12, 1932

Dear Dean Murdock,

Under the Faculty vote of December, 1931, the Chairman of each Department is requested to report in each half year to the Dean of the Faculty on the working of the plan recommended by the Committee on Instruction concerning Hour Examinations and Other Course Requirements. My report for the Department of Economics follows.

Acting on the Report from the Committee on Instruction, the Department of Economics on January 12, 1932 voted to observe the recommendations of the Committee. Following the Department meeting, I reported to you to the effect that the requirements of the Department of Economics were substantially in accord with the principles laid down by the Committee on Instruction. Ordinarily, we require not more than one Hour Examination in any one half year; ordinarily, we require not more than one thesis or report in any one half year. It is the standing rule of the Department of Economics and of the Division of History, Government, and Economics, that Senior candidates for Honors, who are writing Honors theses, shall be excused from the writing of any theses in courses within the Division. After a long discussion and with considerable reluctance, the Department voted that for Seniors who are candidates for Honors in the Division, Hour Examinations in courses within the Department shall be optional.

The vote of the Department was made known immediately to the students and observed in all of our undergraduate course (not of an introductory nature) during the second half of last year, and it is being observed in the current half year.

In the Division of History, Government, and Economics, we have had for many years a rule that all Seniors in good standing shall be exempted from final examinations in courses within the Division in their last half year. The result has been, of course, that after the April Hour Examinations, Seniors have paid little attention to courses within in the Division, and their attendance has been hardly more than occasional. The members of the Department who are more interested in courses than in General Examinations, and who perhaps doubt the efficacy of General Examinations, view this situation with increasing criticism.

When the Department voted the making of Hour Examinations optional for Seniors who are candidates for Honors, the doubting members were highly critical, fearing that our courses elected largely by Seniors would be entirely disrupted. From all that I can learn, I cannot see that there have been any untoward or undesirable results. In most of our “Senior” courses, the attendance until the Easter recess was satisfactory. Honors candidates attended lectures and, I believe, completed most of the required readings. Their records on the General Examinations were excellent. The Honors theses were among the best we have ever had.

A number of members of my Department and not a few members of the Departments of History and Government are strongly opposed to the new order. They make the point that we have in substance permitted an additional reduction in courses, that Senior Honor candidates are simply required to register in courses, but they have nether to attend them nor to do the work. All of these allegations are true enough, but it seems to me they are beside the point. To the extent that we have confidence in our examiners and tutors, I do not believe that in effect the requirements regarding the quality and quantity or work have been reduced.

The Department of History has recommended to the other departments of the Division the consideration of a motion which would require all senior candidates for Honors to complete whatever courses in History they elect. I think that probably the departments of the Division will consider in full detail the questions this motion involves.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

1933
[not found]

A copy of the report is not found with the others included in this post: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1934

Dear Dean Murdock,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics:

In this period of rapid economic evolution the problems presented to a group of university economists are both stimulating and perplexing. The changing pattern of our social and economic structure offers new data for analysis and at the same time calls for a testing of principle that involves new fields for both teaching and research.

There have been few periods in modern history more difficult to interpret, yet the responsibility for interpretation seems foremost among the duties devolving upon educational institutions. For many years the keystone of the introductory course in economics has been that the community has the right to expect political and economic leadership from the graduates of its colleges. Our undergraduate courses are directed toward the attainment of this end. But the teaching of political economy is an art not easily mastered even by those who give abundant evidence of intellectual leadership. In the instruction of undergraduates and in the training of teachers and scholars in our graduate school, the difficulties inherent in our subject must not be overlooked. The presentation of the data of economics makes demands upon the staff not felt in many other departments of the University. Looking toward the strengthening of our undergraduate instruction, the Department is now associating a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are now in charge of the large lecture courses. In Money and Banking, in the Relations of Government to Industry, and in Public Finance, this experiment is advanced sufficiently to indicate its desirability.

At the same time that our teaching problems have become intensified the need for the results of research is pressing. In periods of accelerated social evolution involving political and economic experimentation, the demand for accurate data is insistent. Relatively, economics is a young science. The foundations of fact are still being established. Investigations that may have an important bearing upon government policy should not be delayed. The economists of this University have contributed largely to their subject, but always with scant facilities in material equipment and in time.

Among the many problems confronting us as a group, that of securing the time necessary for research is perhaps the most troublesome. To our exacting teaching requirements must be added the demands for public service. Since the establishment of this Department, the requests for such service heave been continuous. Of late the increasing calls have raised a question which must be considered by the University administration. The opportunities for service to governments are gratifying. Undoubtedly these services belong among the necessary functions of a university. But obviously they do divert a considerable part of our time and energy from our strictly defined duties. Over the years the University is enriched by such services, but at any given time the responsibilities attaching to teaching and research are interrupted. If the University Includes public service among its important functions, the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the work can be performed without overtaxing our internal activities.

During the past your, the leave of absence of Professor John M. Williams was continued to allow him to serve as Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to advise on monetary and credit policies, and to direct research. In the latter part of the year, Professor Williams was called by the Department of State to investigate certain conditions in Brazil, Uraguay [sic], Argentina, and Chili [sic]  and to formulate policies of exchange controls. Daring the second half-year, Assistant Professor Edward H. Chamberlin was granted leave of absence to work with the Committee on Government Statistics and Information Services in Washington. Also, during the second half-year, though leave was not requested, Assistant Professor William T. Ham was in Washington frequently, serving as a member of the staff of the Labor Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administration. And also, though no leave was requested, Professor John D. Black devoted a substantial part of the year to public service. He served on a number of committees connected with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and land utilization. At the request of Secretary Wallace, he organized and directed the activities of committees outlining programs of economic research in (1) the marketing of farm products and (2) farm population and rural life. Also at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, he served with two others to coordinate the work of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture. In the summer months, Drs. Alan Sweezy and Lauchlin B. Currie were called to the Treasury Department to serve as special investigators.

Owing to his illness, Professor Emeritus William Z. Ripley was unable to fulfill his duties as President of the American Economic Association. In his absence, Professor Abbott P. Usher, first Vice-President of the Association, was in charge of the December, 1933 session.

Notable among our publications of the year were Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy, by S. E. Harris, and The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, by E. H. Chamberlin. Because of its significance for immediate practical application, I am including at this point the Report of the Committee on Model State and Local Taxation, by Professor C. J. Bullock’s committee of the National Tax Association. Also at this point, mention should be made of Economics of the Recovery Program, by seven members of the Department. In the course of the year, about forty-five articles were contributed to scientific journals by various members of the Department.

Within the limitations described above, the research work of the staff is going forward at a satisfactory rate. Investigations in the following subjects are well advanced: History of the Industrial Revolution; Development of Banking and Credit in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries; Evolution of English Company Law; Economic Fluctuations; Nature and Effects of Inflation; Index Numbers; Municipal Ownership of Public Utilities; State and Local Taxation; Unbalanced Budgets; The National Income; New England Agriculture; The Economics of Agricultural Production; German Trade Unionism; The Fundamentals of Sociology; Economics and Politics; Socialism as an International Movement.

A considerable number of these projects are nearing completion and should be ready for publication shortly. A large project on the relation of Government to Industry involving the efforts of a number of the staff is in its initial stages. This subject is of such immediate importance that other plans for research are being put aside until it can be carried to its completion. The Quarterly Journal of Economies has continued its usual high standard. During the year, five substantial volumes were added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

Again I would press the point that the potential research capacity of the Department is severely handicapped by the demands of teaching and public service.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Kenneth B. Murdock
20 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 18, 1935

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

In the report of last year the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research were discussed briefly. More than ever we are aware of the responsibilities incumbent upon the teacher of Economics in this period of rapid and far-reaching change. Our undergraduate instruction had been, and is, receiving particular attention. A few years ago we began experimentally the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are nominally in charge of the larger lecture courses. We are quite convinced that this method of instruction is most effective. Also there is a positive, although perhaps incidental, advantage in this arrangement in that it relieves the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

I find it necessary to stress again the problem presented by the demands upon our staff for services to the public. We believe that public service belongs among the necessary functions of a university. But under existing conditions large demands for public service at any given time bring serious interruptions to both research and instruction. “If the University includes public service among its important functions the personnel of the staffs affected should be so adjusted that the additional work can be performed without taxing severely our internal activities.”

I am very happy, to write that Professor Chamberlin’s “The Theory of Monopolistic Competition”, published somewhat over a year ago, has won immediate recognition as a foremost contribution to economic theory. During the past year two books of unusual importance have appeared,—Professor John D. Black, “The Dairy Industry and the A.A.A.”, and Professor Sumner Slichter, “Towards Stability”. Six manuscripts have been completed, and should appear in book form during the present year. It is significant that five of these books have been written by the younger members of our Department whose teaching duties have been mainly of a tutorial nature. Among the publications I should note the report submitted to the Treasury Department on the “Objectives and Criteria of Monetary Policy” by Dr. Alan Sweezy, and the report to the State Department on “Foreign Exchange Control in Latin America” by Professor John Williams.

In addition to the above volumes and reports the members of the Department published somewhat over fifty articles in the scientific journals of our subject. Some of these contributions are of major importance.

The investigations of the staff are being carried forward as satisfactorily as possible with the limited facilities that are at our disposal. Two researches on a very large scale have to do with the general subject of the Trade Cycle and the Relation of Government to Industry. Numerous important, but less extensive, investigations are in process.

Perhaps I should note here that a generous grant from the Rockefeller Foundation enabled the Department to undertake the continuation of the Review of Economic Statistics and the fundamental research that is involved in this publication, The Quarterly Journal of Economics long published by the members of this Department, together with the Review of Economic Statistics, are among the more important activities of the Department. In the course of the year three volumes more added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

As in my last report, I would again bring to your attention the disturbing fact that the potential research capacity of the Department is handicapped severely by the demands of administration, teaching, and public service.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1936

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

I find it necessary to emphasize again the effects of the contemporary political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It had been necessary to bring these matters to your attention in both of the preceding years, since they present such important problems to us. We feel an increasingly positive responsibility regarding out undergraduate instruction in this period of rapid and far-reaching change.

We have continued the experiment begun some few years ago of the association of a number of the junior members of the staff with the senior members who are in charge of the large lecture courses. We believe that we are improving our instruction by this method, and at the same time this arrangement tends to relieve the pressure for the multiplication of undergraduate courses.

Perhaps as a result of the general social situation the elections of our undergraduate courses and the number of concentrators in Economics have increased very heavily. The problems of instruction presented by these overwhelming numbers are intensified perhaps by the personnel situation in which the Department finds itself. During the last dozen years the personnel of this Department—one of the largest in the University—has been changed completely. For a quarter of a century a group of eminent economists brought great prestige to the University. With the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of this group has come to an end. One cannot speak of replacing these scholars. They were unique both as individuals and as a group. Their leadership and their scholarship has left a lasting impression on the development of Economics. In the course of the passing of this group a now Department has been brought together. This new and younger Department is assuming full responsibility at the very time when questions of teaching and new methods of research are becoming insistent.

The demands upon members of our staff for public service continue. It has seemed expedient to encourage some few members to give their time and energy for public purposes. But with a minimum teaching force it has not been possible for all members of the Department to comply with the requests made. The public service relations of faculty members remains a question for the University to consider.

The Quarterly Journal of Economics celebrates this year its fiftieth anniversary. For forty years this Journal has won and held its prestige under the editorship of Professor F. W. Taussig. Professor Taussig, now emeritus, has graciously consented to continue as editor during the present year, but very shortly it will be necessary for us to provide for the editorial direction of this very important publication.

In an earlier report to you I indicated the activities of the Department in connection with the Review of Economic Statistics. The scientific work underlying this publication, as well as the journal itself, is now under the direction of a committee of the Department. The Review continues as a vehicle of publication of the results of investigations here and elsewhere regarding the business cycle. We have ambitious plans for the Review, and we have every reason to believe that its scientific usefulness will increase.

There is little question that, the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy teaching loads which have been imposed. However, the research programs of various members and of various groups within the Department have shown marked progress in the past year. As I have indicated in an earlier report the research activities of our members are of two somewhat different types. Numerous members of the staff working altogether independently are pursuing their own researches while others working as a group are developing particular aspects of a well devised project in research. In the social sciences this latter type of work is rapidly assuming importance. In general it is this type of research which receives the support of the large foundations. Within our own group there are a number of projects of this character. Messrs. Mason, Chamberlin, Wallace, Cassels, Reynolds, and Alan Sweezy are developing Industrial Organization and Control. In the process of the exploration of this subject numerous independent volumes and studies will appear. Professors Mason, Chamberlin and Dr. Wallace are already well advanced in their study of monopolistic combinations and expect to complete it in about one year. Professor Cassels and Dr. Reynolds expect to finish their study on Canadian combinations this year, and Dr. Alan Sweezy is at work on investment policies. Dr. Wallace’s monograph, Market Control in the Aluminum Industry, is now going to press, and Dr. Abbott’s monograph on The Rise of the Business Corporation has just appeared and is being, used by our undergraduate courses. The full development of this program will take a number of years, but its completion will mark, I believe, a very significant chapter in research in the relation of government to industry.

Another cooperative project on the Farm Credit Administration is being carried on by Professors Black and Harris and Dr. Galbraith, largely with the assistance of grants from the Committee on Research in the Social Sciences. Professor Black is working on the cooperative aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s policies. Professor Harris is working on the monetary and recovery aspects of the Farm Credit Administration’s loan operations. Dr. Galbraith is working on the structural aspects of the Farm Credit Administration and the mortgage, credit and production loan policies. Numerous articles resulting from this research have been published in scientific periodicals.

Professors Crum, Wilson, and Black are conducting a study of the relation of weather and other natural phenomena with the economic cycle. This study is partly financed by the United States Department of Agriculture.

I believe I have mentioned to you and to President Conant in conversation the plans which are being developed for large research projects in collaboration with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In addition to these cooperative projects all members of the Department are pursuing work along the lines of their individual interests. Professor Schumpeter’s study of time series and cyclical fluctuations is practically completed, and he hopes to send it to press by December. Professor Haberler’s major contribution—The Theory of International Trade and Its Application to Commercial Policy has been translated and is now available in English. For the past two years Professor Haberler has been working at Geneva on the Nature and Causes of the Recurrence of Economic Depressions which is soon to be published by the League of Nations. We are hoping to provide facilities for him so that the important research may be continued at Harvard. Professor Frickey’s study on a Survey of Time Series Analysis and Its Relation to Economic Theory is well advanced. The statistical work on the first volume has been completed, and he hopes to have it written by the middle of this present academic year. The statistical work on the second volume has been completed in part. Already two significant articles have been published. Professor Cole’s recent study in Fluctuations in American Business, written in collaboration with Professor W. B. Smith, was published late in 1935. Dr. Oakes’ investigations in Massachusetts Town Finance, the winner of the Wells Prize for 1935-36, is now being printed. Professor Chamberlin has continued to elaborate his Theory of Monopolistic Competition which is winning wide recognition among economist the world over. Numerous articles, some sixty in number, from members of the staff have appeared in various scientific periodicals in the course of the year.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

[Separate sheet following: I should have included Professor Harris’ Exchange Depreciation, Its Theory and History. We believe that this new book, which is being published today, will take Its place beside the significant contributions Professor Harris has made in the last half-dozen years, particularly his Monetary Problems of the British Empire and Twenty Years of Federal Reserve Policy.]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 21, 1937

Dear Dean Birkhoff:

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

Previous reports of the Department of Economics have brought to your attention the effect of the political and economic situation upon our problems of teaching and research. It is still necessary to point out that the positive responsibility of the Department regarding undergraduate instruction has not lessened.

The election of our undergraduate courses remains at substantially the high level of recent years, while the number of concentrators continues to increase.

Last year I mentioned that with the resignation of Professor Gay the active services of the senior members of this Department, had come to an end. At this point it seems necessary to put into writing a matter I have discussed with you in conversation which has important ramifications. Coincident with the resignation of Professor Gay there were increased elections in certain of our courses that involve a large degree of individual instruction and also on an increase in the number of students demanding tutorial supervision. To meet these latter problems it was necessary to add to our staff a group of young men to carry on the instruction in the elementary course, Accounting, Statistics, Money and Banking, and so on. With increased numbers in courses demanding increased instruction, increased cost cannot be avoided; but it seems to us that this increasing cost because of increasing should not result in less effective intellectual leadership. To transfer a considerable part of the salary released by a retiring professor of distinguished accomplishment to the support of routine instruction in middle group courses seems to us not to be wise University policy.

Professor Taussig has resigned as editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economies. For the time being, committee of the Department will undertake the editorial direction of this publication.

The Review of Economic Statistics, which appears under the direction of a committee of the Department, is financed by funds from the Rockefeller Foundation. Should the grant be continued, it is expected that the research activities of the committee will be increased.

Not less than ten members of the Department are concerned with the activities of the Graduate School of Public Administration. In some instances—as in the case of Dean Williams—their work in the School has been compensated by a reduction of work in the Department, but for the most part the activities in the new School are simply in addition to the duties of the staff members.

The Committee on Research in the Social Sciences, of which Professor Black is Chairman, is working in close cooperation with the National Bureau of Economic Research and its cooperating University agencies. Principle among them is the project upon Fiscal Policy for which Professor Crum is acting as Chairman.

The responsibilities and activities of members of the Department tend in some instances to change the direction of our research, but in only too many instances they also tend to retard our research.

In all directions, however, the research activities of the members of the Department were sustained, with six books and approximately sixty articles appearing. Special mention should he made of the following books:

Three Years of the AAA by John D. Black

A Study of Fluid Milk Prices by John M. Cassels. Wells Prize Essay of 1934-35

Professor Chamberlin’s significant volume, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition has been revised.

Prosperity and Depression by Gottfried Haberler

Exchange Depreciation by S. E. Harris. (Came from the press last fall, and mentioned a year ago.)

Studies in Massachusetts Town Finance by E. E. Oakes. Wells Prize Essay of 1935-36

Professor Schumpeter’s book on Business Cycles has been completed, and is now ready for the press.

Economic History of Europe since 1750 by Usher, Bowden, and Karpovich

Explorations in Economics. Essays in Honor of F. W. Taussig contains contributions by most of the members of the staff.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1938

Dear Dean Birkhoff,

I beg to submit the following report for the Department of Economics.

As in previous years I am very happy, to be able to record that the research activities of the officers of the Department have been sustained. In the last two years I have been, able to enumerate an unusually large number of books actually published together with numerous contributions to our periodical literature. In the present year the number of volumes is smaller since the research activities of our staff are still in process. The most notable volumes are Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation and Professor Wallace’s Market Control in the Aluminum Industry. Professor Haberler devoted the major part of the year, and spent the summer abroad, revising his Prosperity and Depression. Also the volume by Professor Crum and Associates on Economic Statistics has been revised.

In all, some fifty or sixty periodical contributions have been made by members of the staff. Notable among these contributions have been the articles by Professor Slichter on “The Downturn of 1937” in the Review of Economic Statistics for August, 1938.

It fell to the lot of the officers of this Department, together with the officers of the Department of Government, to develop instruction in the Littauer School of Public Administration during the past year. Without going into the details of the principles upon which this instruction is based, it may be noted that research courses of a very advanced nature constitute the core of the work of the School. Professors Williams, Hansen, Black, Mason, Slichter, and Wallace are devoting a considerable proportion of their time to this work. It is expected and hoped that these activities will result in an increase in our contributions.

The grant of funds from the Rockefeller Foundation to subsidize the research underlying the Review of Economic Statistics expired with the closing of the fiscal year. This contribution made it possible to continue the Review, and to maintain the scholarly level of the contributions. In the course of the year the Review published a number of the contributions of the staff. Other contributions are nearing completion, and will be published in the present year. The accomplishments or Professors Crum and Haberler as Managing Editors of the Review should be noted. They have succeeded in restoring the very high level of scholarship which characterized the Review a decade ago. We believe that the Review in its present form adds materially to the prestige of the Department and the University.

Also I am happy to note that the Quarterly Journal of Economics under its new editorial staff is maintaining its high position.

There is little to be added to the points which have been discussed in previous reports. The Department finds itself fully occupied with the continuation of its traditional activities and the assumption of such new duties as are involved in the Graduate School of Public Administration. If the personnel of the Department remains constant, it will be necessary to reduce our activities, either in research, in teaching, or in both.

Last fall at a dinner of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics I reported in some detail regarding the increasing activities of members of the Department. This report led to the appointment of a committee to investigate the budgetary situation of the Department. The investigation conducted under the direction of Mr. George May of Price, Waterhouse, made some very interesting disclosures regarding the increasing load of the Department.

I believe that problems of undergraduate and graduate instruction, the tutorial situation, and the public service contributions of our members have been discussed sufficiently in previous reports. I can only repeat that “there is little question that the research activities of practically all members of the staff have been curtailed by the heavy loads of teaching and administration.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean George D. Birkhoff
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 16, 1939

Dear Dean Ferguson:

In accord with your recent request, I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economies for the past year.

Honors have been bestowed upon members of the Department as follows: Professor Schumpeter has received an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Sofia, Bulgaria, and Professor Leontief has been elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society. Professor Williams was elected a Vice-President of the American Economic Association.

In the field of publications, the outstanding event is the final appearance of Professor Schumpeter’s two volume work on Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalistic Process. The fruition of years of study and research, this book is of especial interest as the first major work of Professor Schumpeter in the English language, his well-known Theory of Economic Development having appeared first in German before its translation into English much later. Other books actually appearing within the academic year (the fall of 1938) were referred to in our last report, such as Professor Hansen’s Full Recovery or Stagnation?, a revision of the volume on Economic Statistics by Professor Crum and associates, and a new, enlarged and revised edition of Prosperity and Depression by Professor Haberler (published by the League of Nations). During the year arrangements have been completed for the translation into Japanese of A History of Mechanical Inventions by Professor Usher. For some years Professor Emeritus F. W. Taussig has been at work on a thorough-going revision of his textbook on the Principles of Economics. Volume I appeared last spring, Volume 2 is in the press and will appear very shortly. This much needed revision (the last was in 1921) may regain for Professor Taussig’s text some of the preeminence it held in an earlier period before it had become so badly out of date. Politics, Finance and Consequences by Professor Emeritus C. J. Bullock, the result of continuing research since his retirement, has been published during the past year in the Harvard Economic Studies. A book of which Mr. Paul M. Sweezy was a prominent co-author, An Economic Program for American Democracy, is popularly supposed to have been influential in putting the stamp of economic authority upon recent economic policies of the Federal Government. Finally, some sixty-odd articles, addresses, and reviews by members of the Department have appeared in journals, both professional and popular, during the past year.

A matter not mentioned in our last report was a new policy adopted by the Quarterly Journal of Economics of publishing at intervals of approximately one year a series of supplements devoted to articles and studies of interest to scholars but of such length as to make their publication in the regular issues impractical. These supplements are sent to subscribers without charge, and additional copies are sold separately. The first of these appeared in May 1938, Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians by Professor Crum. Two other manuscripts have been accepted and will appear shortly.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has carried on the publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics but because of the expiration of its grant of research money many of its new research investigation have been greatly curtailed. Quarterly issues of the Review of Economic Statistics, in addition to carrying the studies of current economic history which present a quarterly record of economic statistics for the United States with their interpretation, have published a wide range of articles on various aspects of the trade cycle problem. Several of these articles have been contributed by foreign specialists but more than half were produced by American writers (in this connection we may note that about one-fourth of the subscribers are located abroad). In addition to the normal research activities involved in studying current history the Committee has financed during the year a continuation of the special investigation by Dr. J. B. Hubbard of the remarkable developments in the issuance of securities since 1933. A further article in Dr. Hubbard’s series will appear in the issue of November 1939.

Mention has been made in previous reports of the burden placed upon particular members of the Department and thus upon the group as a whole by the responsibilities of public service. These responsibilities have continued and expanded during the past year. The adjustment of this burden is a pressing problem. Its immediate influence upon both teaching and research is adverse, yet no ready solution appears at hand. The additional burden of uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration presents an even more serious problem. For the most part the seminars and other activities of this School constitute a net additional load for those members of the Department responsible for them, and inevitably throw a heavier burden of administrative and other work upon others not directly concerned. Budgetary allowance for courses given within the School is an obvious answer to this problem, whenever it may become possible.

You have asked, among other things. for an account of “any changes in the methods of instruction”, of the Department. The changes here have been revolutionary. Over a long period of years there has been built up in the Department a staff of trained instructors and tutors, carrying on established traditions of teaching and constantly experimenting in the adaptation of methods to new problems. These men were sifted constantly, and the best of them retained for a substantial period, after which, if not advanced, they were without exception placed to advantage elsewhere. In view of the singular success with which in the past the personnel problem has been handled in Economics, it is not surprising that the Department is unanimous in viewing with dismay and discouragement the situation in which we now find ourselves. Fifteen teachers and tutors at the instructor or assistant professor level have left us within the past year, seven the preceding year. The general effect upon teaching may be indicated by the tutorial situation. Sixty-seven per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, forty-three per cent by men of no tutorial experience whatsoever, Furthermore, it has been our policy in the past to stagger new men as between tutoring and Economics A, having them start in with either one alone and take up the other the following year. This fall we have been obliged to take on five men who are both teaching Economics A and tutoring for the first time. It has been our policy also to provide more experienced instruction in middle group courses through a period of apprenticeship in Economics A. This fall we have been obliged to put men of no classroom experience whatever directly into middle group courses. We are already experiencing in acute form the devastating effects upon instruction of a rapid turnover, brought on by the mass exodus of last year.

It takes time (and patience on the part of someone) to train men in the discussion method of teaching Economics which has been developed with such success in Economics A at Harvard University. Much is learned by slow experience, by making mistakes and by discussing techniques with fellow instructors, especially with those who have been through the mill. It is impossible to assimilate new men unless the collective experience of the group is maintained at a fairly high level. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that anyone in the Department will be interested in training them unless a substantial portion stay long enough to make it worth while.

Very sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
20 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1940

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report of the work by the Department of Economics for the past year. There is very little to report—no events or changes of outstanding importance, and only a few isolated items which might be of interest.

Professor Black has been elected to honorary membership in the Swedish Royal Society of Agriculture. Professor Slichter has been honored by appointment as Lamont University Professor.

In the field of publications there is the usual long list of articles in the professional periodicals, but no major work of importance by any member of the Department. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions was during the year translated into Japanese. Also in the field of publications it is of interest that there has been begun under the supervision of a committee in the Department and financed in part by a grant from the A. W. Shaw Fund a new series entitled The Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition. The first two volumes of this series appeared within the year, — the first, Corporate Size and Earning Power, by Professor W. L. Crum, and the second, Control of Competition in Canada, by Lloyd Reynolds.

The Committee on Problems of the Business Cycle has continued publication of the quarterly Review of Economic Statistics. In place of the general reviews of current economic developments in the United States, which in earlier years had been regular features of each quarterly issue, the Review introduced this past year the policy of presenting each quarter an article pertaining to some specific problem of current interest. The November 1939 issue contained a study of the impact of the war on America commodity prices; the February 1940 number included a study of the current gold problem and the American economy; a review of recent developments in agriculture and the influences of the war on American agriculture appeared in May; while the August 1940 issue presented a comparison and evaluation of various estimates of unemployment in the United States. These studies have been made by members of the Department, with the Committee staff contributing assistance, whenever it was desired, in the preparation of the articles for publication. As in previous years, the Review has also presented articles covering a wide range of studies on various trade cycle problems; and the Review staff has continued the compilation of selected current economic series which have been used in research studies by Department members and graduate student within the Department.

There have been no important changes in policy in the year by the Quarterly Journal of Economics. The policy begun the previous year of publishing occasional supplements sent to subscribers without charge has been continued. Two supplements appeared during the year, Exchange Control in Austria and Hungary and Exchange Control in Germany, both by Professor Howard S. Ellis. Through an arrangement with the Harvard Economic Studies they will shortly appear in that series as a single volume.

During the year Professor Emeritus Frank W. Taussig attained his eightieth birthday. A tribute and greeting was presented to him on this occasion signed by some two hundred of his former students.

I call attention again to the continuing problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. The situation here remains substantially as described in my last report. It remains one of the most serious problems which the Department has to meet in maintaining the standards of its instruction.

The quality of instruction given by the Department continues to suffer from the heavy losses in the junior personnel during the past few years. Sixty-four per cent of the students concentrating in Economics this year are tutored by men of two years or less experience, fifty-five per cent by men of one year or less. The difficulties of maintaining satisfactory instruction with such a rapid turnover remain almost insuperable, and concentration in Economics which has fallen off steadily over the past four years slumped most disastrously for the year 1940-41. Although most of the liquidation of our more experienced instructors and tutors had taken place before the year on which I am reporting, we have during that year again lost a number of our best men because of the limited inducement which could be offered for them to remain with us even for a short period.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

____________________________

October 15, 1941

Dear Dean Ferguson:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

Professor Slichter has been elected President of the American Economic Association. This is the third time in the past five years that this honor has gone to an economist from Harvard, Professor Sprague having been elected in 1937-38 and Professor Hansen in 1938-39.

In the field of publications there have appeared, in addition to the usual long list of articles, several books of possible importance. I should mention especially Professor Slichter’s Union Policies and Industrial Management, Professor Leontief’s The Structure of American Economy: An Empirical Application of Equilibrium Analysis, and Dr. Triffin’s Monopolistic Competition and General Equilibrium Theory. The latter appeared in the Harvard Economic Studies of which there have now been published 70 volumes, four within the past year. The new series of Harvard Studies in Monopoly and Competition has been augmented by two new volumes during the past year, bringing the total to four. Professor Usher’s History of Mechanical Inventions has again been translated, this time into Spanish. During the past year an arrangement was made with the Rockefeller Foundation (for the current year only) which if continued may prove to be of real importance to the members of our Department. Professor Crum has been relieved of one-half of his teaching duties for research through the payment by the Foundation of the salary of someone to replace him in his teaching assignment. In addition to providing possibilities for research to members of the Department, such an arrangement would have the added advantage of making it possible to invite to Harvard for short period either possible candidates for permanent appointments or others whose presence here for one year would prove stimulating to our students.

Again I call attention to the problem of the added burden to members of the Department for uncompensated teaching in the Graduate School of Public Administration. This has been from the beginning a serious matter in maintaining standards of instruction. It is especially a factor in concentrating the activities of the older members of the Department in the graduate field, leaving undergraduate instruction to be taken care of in undue degree by younger men whose experience on the average seems to decline further each year.

The quality of instruction by the junior staff continues to be a grave concern to our Department. Last year I mentioned that 64 per cent of the students concentrating in Economics were tutored by men of two years or less experience. This year the percentage has increased to 72, and the problem of finding enough experienced and competent tutors in the right fields for distinction seniors has become impossible to solve. The general situation is reflected also in Economics A where the percentage of new instructors has jumped alarmingly for the current year. For the five years 1936-41 the sections taught by new men averaged 24 per cent of the total. For the current year 39 per cent of the sections are taught by new men. For the same five years the sections taught by men of one year or less experience averaged 45 per cent of the total. For the current year this figure has advanced to 61 per cent. The large volume of complaints on the part of students as to the inexperience of their tutors and Economics A section instructors leaves no doubt in the minds of the Department that the continuing decline in concentration in Economies is mainly a reflection of this situation. In view of the competing opportunities for our younger men which have repeatedly been pointed out the problem for our Department continues to be not to maintain a high rate of turnover as the present rules of tenure seem designed to do, but to be able through more flexible arrangements both with respect to tenure and to salaries to maintain a staff sufficiently experienced to give satisfactory instruction to our undergraduates. Such instruction is clearly not being given at the present time.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Chamberlin

Dean W. S. Ferguson
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Report to the Dean on the Department 1932-…”

Image Source: Harold Hitchings Burbank from the Harvard Class Album 1934.

 

Categories
Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Responses of Wassily Leontief to Questionnaire from Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case, 1937

 

For background on the 1937 case involving the Harvard economics instructors Alan R. Sweezy (brother of Paul Sweezy) and John Raymond Walsh, whose appointments were not renewed in spite of positive recommendations from the department of economics, see

Lovejoy, Arthur O. “Harvard University and Drs. Walsh and Sweezy: A Review of the Faculty Committee’s Report.” Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955), vol. 24, no. 7, 1938, pp. 598–608. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40219387. 

The artifact of value that concludes this post is a draft of Wassily Leontief’s responses to fifteen questions sent out to junior instructional officers at Harvard by the Faculty Committee tasked to review the case and which ultimately released two reports:

Report on the terminating appointments of Dr. J.R. Walsh and Dr. A.R. Sweezy, by the special committee appointed by the President of Harvard University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Report on some problems of personnel in the Faculty of arts and sciences by a special committee appointed by the president of Harvard university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

__________________________

Conant Appoints Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case
Dodd, Morison, Morgan, Perry, Murdock, Schlesinger, Shapley, Frankfurter, Kohler Named

The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937

The complete text of President Conant’s report to the Overseers may be found in column four. [next item below]

Admitting “the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action” in regard to the Walsh-Sweezy case, President Conant wrote a letter to the Overseers dated May 26th in which he announced he had appointed a committee to investigate the affair.

The committee will be made up of the nine professor who received a memorandum from 131 junior teachers requesting a report on the issues involved.

At the same time President Conant wrote both Walsh and Sweezy announcing that he very much regretted the misconstruction of the University’s April 6th statement “as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability.” In the last paragraph of the letter the President pointed out that the committee will investigate not only the case of the two men but also “the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men.

The text of the President’s letters to Walsh and Sweezy follow:

Text of Letter

“I understand that the University’s statement issued on April 6 has been misconstrued in some quarters as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability. I very much regret this. No such reflection was intended; the statement in my opinion cannot justly be taken as implying that you are not an able teacher or scholar. All that was meant or implied was that your political views and activities outside the University had nothing to do with the decision and that the choice among several candidates was made according to academic criteria.

“I am writing you this letter, after appointing a committee to investigate your case and some of the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men, in order that you may not be under any misapprehension as to my personal feelings toward you. “Very sincerely yours,   James B. Conant.”

__________________________

TEXT OF REPORT

The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937

“To the Board of Overseers:

“In view of the fact that there is not another stated meeting of the Board until Commencement Day, I am reporting to you in writing concerning the case of the two instructors in Economics which I discussed with the Board at the meeting on April 12.

“On May 18, I was informed by a group of senior professors that they had received a memorandum from 131 junior teaching officers of the University requesting them to report upon the issues raised by the University’s action in respect to Messrs. J. R. Walsh and A. R. Sweezy, instructors in Economics. The memorandum was addressed to the following nine professors: E. Merrick Dodd, Jr., Felix Frankfurter, Elmer P. Kohler, Edmund M. Morgan, Samuel E. Morison, Kenneth B. Murdock, Ralph B. Perry, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Harlow Shapley.

“This group informed me that they would prefer to have this inquiry conducted by a committee appointed by the President. I have replied that it is clear that the nine men to whom the memorandum was addressed have the confidence of the petitioners. For that reason I have requested them to make the investigation which the petitioners desire and have appointed them a committee for that purpose. I assured them that the University would make available any information they may desire, and I might add that the Chairman of the Department of Economics has informed me that he welcomes the inquiry.

“I expressed the hope that the report of the committee would he available by the middle of the coming academic year. Since the appointments of Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy run for two years, there is ample time for me to reopen their cases if the committee’s report warrants it.

“Inasmuch as there has been some misunderstanding about a public statement issued on April 6, I have written letters to Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy of which copies are appended.

“No further action or comment on my part would seem to be required until the committee have made their report. I should, however, like to say that the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action is sufficient ground for welcoming an inquiry.”

__________________________

 

Questionnaire of the Committee on the appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers at Harvard.

Interleaved with a draft copy of Wassily Leontief’s responses.

CONFIDENTIAL

September 20, 1937

Dear Sir:

The undersigned Committee has been appointed by the President to consider certain questions relating to the method of appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers in Harvard College. It will be of great assistance to the Committee if you will write frank answers to the questions below, together with any general comments you care to make on the broad problems involved, and send them before October 9, 1937, to the Secretary of the Committee, Kenneth B. Murdock, Master’s Lodgings, Leverett House, Cambridge. Your answers and comments will be regarded as strictly confidential and shown to no one except members of the Committee. If it seems desirable to quote from or refer to them in the Committee’s final report, this will be done anonymously.

  1. In your opinion, is the treatment of junior teaching officers at Harvard and the administrative policy and procedure in respect to their appointment and promotion satisfactory; or have you suggestions as to how it might be improved so as to create a better opportunity for intellectual development and professional advancement?

Leontief: For the lower ranks of the teaching staff the problem of creating a “better opportunity for intellectual development” is fundamentally a question of firing and not of hiring and promoting.
As long as the position of instructorship is considered to be a temporary one and while only a small proportion of the junior staff can be absorbed by promotion into the higher ranks, the position of the average junior officer will necessarily be precarious. No administrative devices can obviate the necessity of discharging annually a large number of tutors and instructors. At best it might be possible to secure new jobs for some of these the university could help the parting[?] men in their search[?] for new positions, In any case it is well to avoid in parting any at worst [it] should be possible to avoid unnecessary affront to their personal sensibilities. ([The] case Sweezy, Walsh is a good example of how it should not be done).

  1. Has any pressure been exerted upon you to publish, as a condition of your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, do you consider this pressure advantageous or harmful to your intellectual development? From whom has the pressure come?

Leontief: The pressure to publish comes from the fact that no man can be promoted without having shown some printed results of his scientific work. It is not personal pressure but pressure of “circumstances”. I find that this pressure is harmful only insofar as it is associated with the presumption that articles are not “real” publications and thus puts a premium on wordiness.

  1. Has your research and publication grown continuously out of your doctor’s thesis and graduate studies; or has there been a conflict or change of interest? If the latter, specify the causes and nature of the conflict or change.

Leontief: My research and publications developed rather continuously, without serious conflicts.

  1. Have you been given a clear definition of what you should do, in scholarly work and teaching, in order to merit appointment or promotion? By whom? Has such advice been helpful or misleading? In answering this question specify your relations to senior members of your Department, the Dean of the Faculty, senior colleagues or personal friends in other Departments.

Leontief: I never asked anybody for a clear definition of what to do to merit promotion. I was told, however, by the head of the department that since I am working in a rather new field it will be necessary to wait and see what the ultimate results will be before deciding whether or not I am to be kept on. I spoke with the Dean of the faculty once; I discuss my current academic problems with the head of the department two or three times a year; among my close friends I have senior as well as junior members of the department. My relations to all others are quite cordial.

  1. Have you felt any conflict between research and teaching, either in respect to the amount of time given to each, or the type of ability and interest required for each? Have you ever been advised to neglect one in favor of the other? If so, by whom? Can you give an approximate statement of the proportion of your time given to teaching, and the proportion to research?

Leontief: Considering the issue of teaching vs. research from a somewhat more general standpoint than that of your question I wish to call your attention to the fact that in the field of economics it acquires a quite peculiar aspect.
The problems, methods and the general body of knowledge change so frequently that one not actively engaged in the process of scientific work would most likely be ignorant of the most significant present day developments.
While a “good teacher” in physics or history can naturally be expected to command a solid, up to date knowledge of his subject, the “good teacher” in economics—if not engaged in active research—lacks with a very few exceptions this elementary prerequisite of pedagogical activity. This applies not only to graduate instruction but also to the higher type undergraduate courses. I personally have never experienced any conflict between my research and teaching activities for the simple reason that both coincided in their subject matter. Approximately one third of my time is devoted to actual teaching.

  1. To what extent have you received help and encouragement from your senior colleagues, in your teaching, and in your research?

Leontief: With some of my colleagues I maintain a very close contact in research as well as collaboration in teaching. In one instance, for example, we visit each other’s lectures (advanced courses) with a view to closer coordination of subject matter and methods.

  1. At what point in his career does it seem to you that a teacher at Harvard should have definite assurance of permanent tenure?

Leontief: [Blank]

  1. By what standards, and by whom, do you feel that your qualifications for permanent appointment are likely to be appraised? Do you feel confident that the appraisal will be just? If not, what method can you suggest for securing a just appraisal?

Leontief: So far as I know, in the department of Economics appointment to associate professorship is discussed and decided by a “committee of full professors” or the “executive committee” which comprises also associate professors. I have no reason to believe that an “appraisal” by such a committee would not be just.
I think that my standing as a scientist and teacher will determine the opinion of the senior members of the department in the first instance. Secondary considerations of “strategic” character however are also likely to influence in greater or smaller degree their attitude.
In order to achieve a greater uniformity of standards and reduce the influence of various subjective motivations to a minimum it would be advisable in my opinion to
a) define more rigidly the membership of the appointing committee.
b) to require each member of the committee to submit a written, motivating opinion (however short) which would be forwarded to the president of the university together with the final vote of the committee.

  1. Do you believe that serving at Harvard prior to any decision as to your permanent appointment has been beneficial to you as regards your teaching, your scholarship, and your professional career?

Leontief: Yes.

  1. Have you refused offers from other institutions since you have been at Harvard? What reasons led you to refuse them?

Leontief: No.

  1. Do you believe that your personal opinions, in relation to your own field or to other subjects, have in any way influenced your treatment at Harvard? If so, what evidence have you to support this belief? Has a regard for your position or advancement at Harvard limited your freedom of opinion either within or outside of your own field?

Leontief: I do not think that my personal opinion (as distinct from my “personality” in general) has influenced my position in Harvard, nor did a regard for my position or advancement influence or limit the freedom of my opinion.

  1. Have you engaged in any “outside activities”? If so, what proportion of your time have they occupied? How have they been related to your scholarly activities? Do you believe that such outside activities have in any way influenced or jeopardized your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, what evidence can you offer in support of this belief?

Leontief: I have hardly ever been engaged in any “outside” activity.

  1. Has your salary been sufficient to meet your living expenses? Has it seemed to you appropriate and just? In answering this and the following question, state whether you are married or unmarried; and, if married, give the size of your family.

Leontief: I am married and have one child. Since the time of my marriage five years ago I have been able to put aside $600. My wife’s medical expenses connected with an automobile accident absorbed all these savings. This financial situation is not typical because unlike most of my colleagues I do not receive any supplementary income from instruction in Radcliffe College or in the Harvard Summer School.

  1. Have you found living conditions, housing, schooling, etc. satisfactory in Cambridge?

Leontief: I find the cost of living comparatively high, the public schools inadequate and private schools beyond the reach of my budget.

  1. Have you been delayed in completing your research by inability to finance publication or by the cost of securing requisite materials not available in Cambridge? What remedy do you suggest?

Leontief: My research work is supported by the Harvard Committee for Research in Social Sciences which has nearly without exception granted all my requests for financial assistance.

In answering the above questions, the Committee hopes that you will support and illustrate your comments by specific citations from your own experience, or that of others.

Very truly yours,

Ralph Barton Perry, Chairman
Professor of Philosophy

Elmer Peter Kohler
Professor of Chemistry

William Scott Feguson
Professor of History

Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law

Edmund Morris Morgan
Professor of Law

Edwin Merrick Dodd, Jr.
Professor of Law

Arthur Meier Schlesinger
Professor of History

Harlow Shapley
Professor of Astronomy

Kenneth B. Murdock, Secretary
Professor of English

Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Wassily Leontief (HUG 4517.7). Box: Personal correspondence etc. Dates mainly from 1920’s and 1930’s. Folder: [W.L.-Personal]

Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album 1934.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard

Harvard. Taussig/Schumpeter/A.Sweezy’s final examination in value and distribution theory, 1935

 

 

In an earlier posting the course readings for the topics “Urban Rent” and “Broader Aspects of Rent” were transcribed for the team-taught course at Harvard of Taussig and Schumpeter, assisted by Alan Sweezy, on theories of value and distribution (first term, 1934-35). From the final examination questions below, we can see that the reading lists from the Harvard Archives collection of course outlines is indeed incomplete for this course. It is entirely likely that other assignments were simply written on the board as needed.

When Taussig taught the course himself in 1932-33 the course description notes “Course 7b undertakes a critical examination of current theories of wages, interest, rent, and profits, particular attention being given to Marshall’s treatment. The course is carried on mainly by discussion. It is meant primarily, though not solely, for candidates for the degree with honors. Students who have attained a grade of A or B in Economics A are admitted without further inquiry. Others must secure the consent of the instructor.”

_____________________________

Final Examination
Theories of Value and Distribution
Professors Taussig and Schumpeter, Dr. A. Sweezy

1934-35
HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ECONOMICS 7b1

  1. Are the earnings (rental) of an urban site used for retail trade a cause or an effect of prices of goods there sold? Are the earnings of a skilled craftsman cause or effect of the prices of the goods made (or services rendered) by him? Are the earnings of a business man?
  2. Does Marshall’s distinction between “situation value” and “site value” bear upon the problems of monopolistic competition? If so, why and how? If not, why not?
  3. “In estimating the utility of an entire supply of apples, we must distinguish between the total utility and the marginal utility of the stock. The total utility of a stock is obtained by adding the utility of each additional apple to that of its predecessor. It will accordingly grow until the point of satiety has been reached. Ten apples possess more total utility than five. The marginal utility of the stock, however, is always equal to the marginal utility of the final unit multiplied by the number of units. The marginal utility of two apples will be twice that of the second, of four apples four times that of the fourth.”
    Do you agree?
  4. “Real costs,” “money costs,” “expenses of production,” “supply price.” The same? If different, wherein?
  5. Are “profits,” as defined by

(1) Marshall
(2) Clark
(3) Schumpeter

to be reckoned among the expenses of production?

  1. Explain briefly two of the following:

(1) Difference between selling and production costs.
(2) Determination of equilibrium of the individual firm under conditions of monopoly and competition.
(3) Effect of product differentiation on price, costs, output of the individual firm, and profits.

 

Final. 1935.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001 (HUC 7000.28, 77 of 284). Examination Papers, June, 1935.

Image Source: Harvard Class Albums: Taussig (1923), Schumpeter (1939), A. Sweezy (1929).

Categories
Bibliography Harvard Suggested Reading

Harvard. Theories of Rent Readings Lists. Taussig, Schumpeter, Alan Sweezy. 1934

 

 

One page containing the course bibliographies for the topics “Urban Rent” and “Broader Aspects of Rent” from Economics 7b, Theories of Value and Distribution, jointly offered by Frank W. Taussig, Joseph A. Schumpeter and Alan R. Sweezy was found in the collection of course syllabi and reading lists in the Harvard Archives. One would have expected that there would have been separate bibliographies prepared for “Wages”, “Profits” and possibly “Interest” for this course on distribution. I find it less likely that the course was a single “topics” course that happened to be focused on “Rent” for the semester. This was confirmed after looking at the final examination questions for the course. 

Note: Alan’s brother Paul did not receive his Ph.D. until 1937 and Alan was given a three-year appointment at the rank of “faculty instructor” beginning in the Fall of 1934 following his previous year as “graduate instructor”. Hence “Dr. Sweezy” clearly refers to Alan. I have appended a 1955 article from the Harvard Crimson about the famous Sweezy-Walsh case for those who might not be familiar with that episode in the history of tenure review procedures.

 

__________________________

 

*Economics 7b 1hf. Theories of Value and Distribution
[from Course Announcement]

Half-course (first half-year). Tu., Th., at 2, and a third hour at the pleasure of the instructors. Professors Taussig and Schumpeter, and Dr. Sweezy.

 

Source: Harvard University. Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1934-35 (2nd ed). Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXI, No. 38 (September 20, 1934), p. 126

__________________________

Course Enrollment

*7b 1hf. Professors Taussig and Schumpeter, and Dr. Sweezy.—Theories of Value and Distribution.

Total 23: 14 Seniors, 4 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 5 Others.

 

Source: Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1934-1935, p. 81.

__________________________

 

Economics 7b

1934-35 [pencil note]

Urban Rent

E.H. Chamberlin, Monopolistic Competition, appen. D, pp. 200-203
W. C. Clark & J. L. Kingston, The Skyscraper: A Study of the Economic Heighth of Modern Office Buildings, esp. ch. 2, 3, and conclusion.
H. B. Dorau & A. G. Hinman, Urban Land Economics, pp. 158-223. Characteristics of Urban Land. Part V Urban Land Income and Value. (Note: The whole of the book is relevant, but much of it can be skipped over superficially for the problem in hand.)
H. J. Davenport, Economics of Enterprise, ch. 13.
R. M. Haig, “Toward and Understanding of the Metropolis”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February and May 1926
R. M. Hurd, Principle of City Land Values, especially ch. 6.
F. W. Taussig, Principles, vol. 2, ch. 43.
R. T. Ely, Outlines of Economics, 5th ed., ch. 22.

 

Broader Aspects of Rent

J. B. Clark, either Distribution of Wealth, ch. 13, or “Distribution as Determined by a Law of Rent”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 5, 1890-91
F. A. Fetter, “The Passing of the Old Concept of Rent”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 15, 1900-01.
A. S. Johnson, “Rent in Modern Economic Theory”, American Economic Association Publications, 3rd. series, vol. 3(1902).
A. E. Monroe, Value and Income, pp. 65-67, 188-194.
Joan Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Bk. III, ch. 8, pp. 102-116

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003 (HUC 8522.2.1), Box 2, Folder “Economics, 1934-1935”.

Image Sources:  Harvard Class Album.  Taussig (1934), Schumpeter (1939), Alan Sweezy (1929).

 

__________________________

The Sweezy-Walsh Case

Harvard Crimson
January 12, 1955

In a letter elsewhere on the page, Dean Bender rightly points out that the CRIMSON has inadvertently perpetuated an untruth we have long tried to bury. Alan R. Sweezy ’29, it is true, was given a “terminating appointment,” and it was no secret that his views were to the left of most political centers. By working solely from these two facts, some liberals on the Faculty and elsewhere came to a conclusion which was long to prove embarrassing to President Conant. More important, the dropping of Sweezy and the other instructor in the case, J. Raymond Walsh, forced a reform in the University’s appointment system in one of the few instances that the Harvard Faculty has rebelled against its Administration.

Both Sweezy and Walsh were popular and able teachers in the Economics department. Both men held three-year appointments as instructors and when this period was up, In 1937, the Department strongly recommended that both men be retained. When they were not rehired, and when the Administration released a statement that its decision was reached solely on the grounds of “teaching capacity and scholarly ability,” charges accusing the University of various infringements were raised from coast to coast.

The CRIMSON immediately editorialized that, though the University’s statement was “ill-timed and impolitic,” the political views of the two men had nothing to do with the case. By that time, however, alarmists and those Communists who capitalize on such misunderstandings were off and running, joined by friends of the two men who were genuinely confused by the Administration’s actions.

Within a few weeks, the cry about their hue forced Conant to make a special report to the Overseers. The President, who at that time did not enjoy the complete confidence of the Faculty he was later accorded, held fast, arguing that the University cannot appoint a man just because his views are unorthodox. “If academic decisions are to be influenced by the fear of their being misinterpreted as interference with academic freedom,” Conant said, “then academic freedom itself, to my mind disappears.” The New York Herald-Tribune hailed Conant and his stand, describing his as a man “tolerant of everything except intolerance.”

Since even the two principals were now convinced that their politics were not the issue, the outburst began to quiet. But the Faculty, while willing to forgive, could not forget. One hundred and thirty-one of the nonpermanent teaching staff requested an entire investigation of the tenure system. Even if the financial pressures of the depression made it impossible for Conant to keep men like Sweezy, these teachers did not feel that the current methods of selecting permanent appointees were as accurate and well-defined as they might be.

It was significant, and extraordinary, that the appeal for a re-evaluation was not made to Conant but to a committee of eight respected professors including Ralph Barton Perry, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Samuel E. Morison, and Felix Frankfurter. These men wrote to Conant, suggesting what they wanted to study and making it pointedly clear that if they were not authorized to investigate, they would do so anyway.

Two separate reports were issued by this committee, one on Walsh and Sweezy, the second on the entire tenure question. The first recommendation–that the two instructors be re-appointed–was vetoed by the Corporation. The Faculty accepted this action without much comment; by that time, the second report was the chief interest among professors. Published in March, 1939, the report recommended a mathematical evaluation of departments, their concentrators and staffs, with more rigid rules about how often permanent additions could be made to the Faculty.

Conant substantially accepted this report and it was forwarded to the full Faculty and the Corporation which also agreed to its principles. The many complications were referred to the new Assistant Deans of the Faculty, W. C. Graustein and Paul H. Buck. Before his tragic death in an accident, Graustein had worked carefully on the plan and it came to bear his name. Dean of the Faculty Ferguson, who had agreed to hold an Administrative post only during this stormy interim period, soon resigned his position. With the promotion of Paul Buck to the job, the Walsh-Sweezy affair became history and Conant found that he had made his most successful appointment to the Deanship.

 

Categories
Harvard

Harvard. Statistical Tables about Economics Ph.D.’s, 1931-35

In 1937 the Harvard Department of Economics was caught up in a storm that came to be known as the Sweezy-Walsh Affair.  Alan R. Sweezy (A.B. Harvard, 1929; Ph.D. Harvard, 1932) and J. Raymond Walsh (B.A. Beloit College, 1921; Ph.D. Harvard, 1934) were given notice in March 1937 that their first-term appointments as faculty instructors that were to expire on August 31, 1937 would be followed by two year “terminating appointments”.  A public uproar ensued involving allegations that these dismissals had been politically motivated.

The Sweezy-Walsh Affair ultimately resulted in a pair of reports written by a committee of senior Harvard faculty. Both reports are important documents in the history of American higher education, but today’s post is limited to cherry-picking two appendices from the second report (Report on Some Problems of Personnel in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences) that provide a few interesting statistics on the Ph.D. recipients from the departments of English, History, Government, Economics and Physics during the period 1931-35.

 

 

From the Preface

…In May, 1937, a Memorandum signed by 131 junior teachers in Harvard College was sent by them to the following full professors: E. Merrick Dodd, Jr. [Law], Felix Frankfurter [Law], Elmer P. Kohler [Chemistry], Edmund M. Morgan  [Law], Kenneth B. Murdock [English], Samuel E. Morison [History], Ralph Barton Perry [Philosophy], Arthur M. Schlesinger [History], and Harlow Shapley [Astronomy]. This Memorandum set forth certain “misgivings” of the signers relating both to the particular case of the terminating appointments given to Drs. Walsh and Sweezy of the Department of Economics, and to the general question of the status of junior teachers in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

By the letter dated May 18,1937, eight of the nine professors to whom the Memorandum was addressed urged upon the President the desirability of an investigation, “conducted by a committee regularly appointed by the President,” which should report on “the action taken in the cases of Walsh and Sweezy” and also on “the larger and more fundamental question of whether the method by which in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences the fitness of younger men for appointment, reappointment, and promotion is decided, insures fair judgment of the merits of scholars and teachers, and guarantees academic freedom.” In a letter dated May 26, 1937, the President requested the nine professors to whom the Memorandum was addressed “to make the investigation which the petitioners desire” and “appointed them a committee for that purpose.” At the Committee’s suggestion, Professor William S. Ferguson [History] was appointed in place of Professor Samuel E. Morison [History], who was to be absent on leave. Professor Elmer P. Kohler [Chemistry] died on May 24, 1938, and his place was not filled.

…the Committee sent to 221 younger teachers within the jurisdiction of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, including (with a few exceptions) all annual instructors of two or more years of service, faculty instructors, and assistant professors, a questionnaire in which they were asked to give their opinions on various matters covered by the inquiry. A similar questionnaire was later sent to 62 other teachers (6 associate professors, 56 annual instructors and assistants) who had signed the Memorandum. A letter of inquiry was sent to chairmen of departments. All of the chairmen and 201 of the teachers (164 of the first group, and 37 of the second group) replied, and the Committee has made full use of their statements and suggestions.

After completion of the first report in May, 1938, various topics were assigned to the individual members of the Committee for preliminary investigation and analysis. The Committee reassembled in September, 1938, and since then has devoted every Wednesday afternoon and numerous additional meetings to the discussion of its problems and to the consideration of initial drafts of portions of this report, prepared either by individual members or by sub-committees.

… Statistical and other materials compiled by the Committee but not published in the present report, will, so far as they are non-confidential in nature, and conceivably useful for future inquiries, be deposited in the archives of the University.

 

APPENDIX II

 

Analysis of careers of graduate students in English, History, Government, Economics, and Physics taking their doctorate in the years 1931-35 inclusive.

I. Their present representation on Harvard staff.

Of the 293 men who took degrees between 1931 and 1935 inclusive, 18 are now on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; 3 are in other departments (2 in the Business School and 1 in the Medical School). Of the 18, 6 are in English or English and Comparative Literature, 4 in History, 3 in Government, 2 in Economics, and 3 in Physics.

Percentages are:

English 7.3
History 5.33
Government 8.33
Economics 2.95
Physics 8.37
Average [of the above] 7.17

Of the 293, 82 took their Ph.D. before their 28th year. Of these 6, or 7.2%, were on the Faculty in 1937-38.

 

II. Gross average age of men at time of taking doctorate.

English 31.11 82 men
History 31.83 75 men
Government 30.61 36 men
Economics 30.76 68 men
Physics 28.50 32 men
[Average of above] 30.86

 

Omitting men who entered late or dropped out for a relatively large number of years during the course of study (viz. 15, 14, 8, 11, and 1 in English, History, Government, Economics, and Physics respectively) the normal ages at which the doctorate was taken were:

English 29.3 67 men
History 30.05 61 men
Government 28.60 28 men
Economics 29.20 57 men
Physics 28.2 31 men
[Average of above] 29.55

 

III. Distribution of youngest groups by departments.

The percentages of all men taking the doctorate while under 27 (I) years and under 28 (II) years of age were:

I

II

Per cent

Number Per cent

Number

English

17.0 14 24.4 20
History

10.66

8 16.0

12

Government

19.4

7 38.9

14

Economics

20.6

17 30.9

21

Physics

40.66 13 46.9

15

IV. Academic year-span.

Omitting as abnormal men taking 10 or more academic years between entering Harvard and getting the doctorate, the academic year-span in the five Departments was as follows:

English 5.72
History 5.72
Government 5.41
Economics 4.85
Physics 4.83
Average [of the above] 5.36

 

The abnormal men mentioned above were distributed as follows:

Per cent Number
English 15.85 13
History 24.0 18
Government 5.5 2
Economics 11.76 6
Physics 9.37 3

 

V. Distribution by departments of men who dropped out temporarily, left before taking final examinations, or stayed on to the end.

Percentages of normal men (here or hereafter in the sense of II) whose courses were interrupted by absence from Harvard between entering and discontinuing graduate studies here were as follows:

Per cent

Number

English

52.25

35

History

22.95

14

Government

35.71

10

Economics

24.56

14

Physics

12.90

4

 

The following percentages of normal men left Harvard and took their degrees one or more years afterwards:

Per cent Number
English

31.34

21

History

59.01

36

Government

60.71

17

Economics

49.12

28

Physics

16.13

5

 

Normal men whose program toward the doctorate was uninterrupted by either of these reasons:

Per cent Number
English 34.32 23
History 36.06 22
Government 17.86 5
Economics 35.08 20
Physics 70.96 22

 

Men who both dropped out and “left”:

English 18
History 11
Government 3
Economics 5
Physics 0

This accounts for the excesses in the percentages given above.

 

VI. Analysis of numbers of men whose study was uninterrupted.

 

Number Per cent Average of acad. years Average age Non-teachers Teaching at Harvard Teachers before coming to Harvard*
English 23 34.32 4.217 27.83 14 3 7 (1)
History 22 36.06 5.73 29.52 7 14 5 (4)
Government 5 17.86 4.0 27.21 0 4 2 (1)
Economics 20 35.08 4.9 28.78 3 16 3 (2)
Physics 22 70.96 4.63 27.27 8 14 1 (1)

*[in parentheses, “both” taught at and previous to Harvard]

 

VII. Effect of teaching on age at graduation.

 

English: Teachers normal age 29.47
Non-teachers normal age 27.05
History: Teachers normal age 30.64
Non-teachers normal age 28.19
Government: Teachers normal age 28.19
Non-teachers normal age 29.16
Economics: Teachers normal age 29.13
Non-teachers normal age 29.18
Physics: Teachers normal age 29.18
Non-teachers normal age 26.09

 

VIII. Teaching of normal men.

Non-teachers Taught at Harvard Taught elsewhere Percentage of Teachers
Number Per cent
English 27 17 25.4 23 59.7
History 18 31* 50.8 12 70.5
Government 10 13 46.4 5 46.4
Economics 18 30 52.6 9 68.4
Physics 10 20 67.7 1 67.7

*In History, readers who had a corporation appointment are included though they occasionally received as little as $150 salary: these should be eliminated. Similar eliminations should probably be made in other departments.

Some of the non-teachers may have taught outside Harvard: the records are incomplete.

[…]

APPENDIX IV

No. of graduate-student tutors No. of their tutees Total Concentration Percentage tutored by graduate-students
English 14 156 336½ 46.3
History 2 47 273½ 17.1
Government 11 168 389 43.2
Economics 18 284 462½ 61.4
Physics 3 19½ 49 39.8

 

 

Source:  Special Committee appointed by the President of Harvard University. Report on Some Problems of Personnel in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1939, pp. vii-ix, 160-163.