Tag: WilsonEB

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Meeting of the Visiting Committee with the Economics Department. January 1944

 

Maybe attending to the routine business of the Harvard economics department was seen as a welcome respite amidst the Sturm und Drang of the Second World War. Maybe the consensus was simply shared that the transistory shock of the war would soon be over and it was time to worry again about the core missions of Harvard and its economics department. In any event, the following report outlines a “Research Program for the Department of Economics” presented to the visiting committee by the chair of the department’s Committee on Research Program, Professor John D. Black. 

____________________________

Visiting Committee Reports available at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror

Visiting Committee Report 1915

Visiting Committee Report 1974

____________________________

Meeting of the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics with the Department, on Monday, January 10, 1944.

The Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics met with the Department at seven o’clock on Monday, January 10, 1944, at the Harvard Club in Boston. There were present for the Visiting Committee: Roger N. Baldwin, Albert F. Bigelow, Paul M. Herzog, George Rublee (chairman), Charles E. Spencer, and Orrin G. Wood. For the Department: John D. Black, H. H. Burbank, W. L. Crum, John T. Dunlop, Edwin Frickey, Seymour E. Harris, Arthur E. Monroe, Wassily Leontief, Abbott P. Usher, John H. Williams, and Edwin B. Wilson. Mr. Rublee presided.

 

Mr. Rublee called on Professor Burbank, the chairman of the Department of Economics, to make an opening statement.

Professor Burbank said that in previous years we had at these dinners talked about our teaching difficulties, especially those connected with the junior staff. Last year we discussed Professor Slichter’s experiment with the labor-union representatives. This year the Department had suggested to Mr. Rublee that we consider our most pressing problem of the present, as well as the immediate and long-run future. Fundamentally, this problem is concerned with the Department’s research. We must have a vigorous and effective program of research if we are to have a dominant Department of Economic in the University or, indeed, if the University itself is to maintain its high standing. The Department of Economics has recently appointed a Committee on Research Program. Professor Black is the chairman of this committee.

Professor Black then presented the following report:

RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

A department of economics in a large university has three functions to perform:

  1. To teach and train students,
  2. To contribute to an understanding of the current problems of private enterprise and public affairs,
  3. To help develop the science of economics.

In a small college a good job of teaching is about all that can be expected of a department of economics. In a great university the second and third functions are as important as the first.

Fortunately those three functions not only need not interfere with each other, but in a large university can be performed in such a way that each strengthens the other. This does not mean that all can be performed in the same time, but rather that each is better done if the other two are also being strongly carried. As a matter of fact, however, much time and energy is saved if all three are combined. Thus what is learned from the study of current problems can be used very effectively in the classroom and at the same time furnishes needed and valuable inductive material for the development of economic science. One’s teaching, in turn, especially one’s graduate instruction, is a constant source of ideas and suggestions to be developed in research. Only, therefore, if the staff of a department of economics is large enough and well enough financed so that it can work along all three of these lines, is it able to yield a large return upon the investment in it. Only if thus set up and thus functioning is it able to realize the possible economies of combination of these functions.

The Department of Economics of Harvard University has been performing on all of these fronts ever since it was organized. But in the period while the members of this committee have been associated with it, it has by no means measured up to its opportunities on the last two of them, and what is more important, unless some action is taken in the near future, it will miss out still more on its opportunities after the war. It will not only do less well the job it has been trying to do, for reasons to be indicated presently, but also will not reach out and encompass the larger needs of the years ahead. Needless to state, society and the nation are going to be faced with major tasks of adjustment in the years just ahead and over the next decade or two and likewise breath-taking possibilities for social advancement. So important is the role of economies in these developments that if the Department of Economies of Harvard University does not contribute its part to them, this alone will almost be enough to shrink Harvard University in toto into a second- rate institution. This, therefore, is a moment for stock-taking and laying out plans.

It is not part of the assignment of this committee to consider the teaching function of the Department. But some reference must be made to it for the reasons just given. the present course offerings and methods of instruction are not well fitted to the present and the impending future. The function of teaching in a field like ours is primarily to train students to apply economics, and the methods of economic analysis, to the situations which confront them after they leave college. For Harvard undergraduates, most of these situations are situations in private enterprise, although having important public relations. A limited proportion are assignments in the public service itself. The program of teaching needs to be organized in anticipation of the kinds of jobs, mostly private, that the graduates of Harvard University get to do. The graduate teaching program needs to envisage e wide range of working assignments, a large fraction of them in the public service. Training teachers of economics is only one of the functions of graduate teaching. Because the teaching is not organized as needed, there are some large gaps in the present program, and these gaps, it will appear presently, coincide with gaps in the research activities of the department.

The other two functions, contributing directly to an understanding of current situations, and developing economic science, are orginarily considered as research. There is considerably more to the first of these than just research, but since good research is basic to it, we will here consider them both as research and treat them under one head from this point on.

The deficiencies in the research activities of the Department of Economics, considered especially from the standpoint of the postwar can be designated under the following heads:

  1. Not enough research is being done
  2. There are gaps in it
  3. Some of it is not of enough significance.

The reasons for these deficiencies are as follows:

  1. Lack of resources to carry on the needed volume of research.
  2. This includes resources in research personnel as well as in the expenses of clerical assistants, field study, publication, and the like.
  3. Inadequate staff, or none at all, in some important fields.
  4. Very little in the way of leadership. Staff not organized in such a way as to promote research.

Let us now consider briefly these four reasons. When an economist does not have financial resources with which to do significant research, he may put in his spare energy on library work on the writings of his predecessors, the Congressional Record, and the like. For this he needs only someone to type his manuscript. If in addition, he has a little money to hire a computer, he may go to work on the census records and other official statistics. Those two descriptions about cover all the research now being done by the Harvard Department of Economics as such.

Lacking funds for anything more, two developments have followed. First, a goodly number of the staff members have taken on research or related assignments with other agencies. Merely to list these agencies tells the story. (We are purposely omitting the wartime agencies), the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Resources Planning Board, the Food and Nutrition Board, the Bureau of Economic Research, the League of Nations, the Twentieth Century Fund, the National Planning Association, the National Industrial Conference Board, etc. While most of those assignments are important, to have as many of them disorganizes the research and teaching of the Department. Also the Department as such does not get adequate recognition for work done under other auspices. Finally, there is great need for having research done that is largely independent of government agencies. This point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The second development has been that several members of the Department have started projects that they have not been able to complete thus far. They have learned by sad experience that they cannot swing ambitious projects without the help of trained younger associates who can direct the detail of the analysis and help with the writing. As a result, a number of important projects are now left suspended.

If the Department is to have a vigorous research program of its own, there must be funds with which to employ a dozen or two of these younger research associates, as well as funds for computers, clerical help, drafting, travel and field study.

The Committee is also disposed to think that a clearer recognition should be given to research duties in the total program of the Department. It would suggest that consideration be given to a plan which would differentiate teaching loads according to research carried. Staff members who do very little research, because not inclined that way, or having small capacity for it, would handle more classes under such a plan.

The nature of the gaps in the present program may be judged from a following incomplete survey of fields of research and teaching and the needs of each.

  1. Money and credit. Staff ample, but research associates, clerical and other help much needed. High time that a research showing be made.
  2. Business cycles. Staff ample. Funds to continue the program that was under way before the war.
  3. International economic relationship. Staff probably not entirely adequate and great need of developing a well-rounded research program suited to the postwar world. This program should include work on Inter-American relationships, development of resources of Latin America, international food supply and distribution and related population problems. Research associates and other financial help.
  4. Public finance. Staff ample. Research associates and other help needed.
  5. Economic history. A teaching as well as research associate needed. One professor now working alone in the field.
  6. Labor and industrial relations. The principle problem is to develop a workable program for using the research funds now available.
  7. Agriculture. A teaching associate needed, and probably two research associates with necessary supplementary funds.
  8. Commodity distribution. Needs complete staffing. An undergraduate and a graduate course are now being given on a makeshift basis. No research under way.
  9. Production economics. Courses now bracketed. Needs complete staffing.
  10. Forestry economies. A slight beginning has been made on a program in this field in collaboration with the Harvard Forest. An opportunity for an important contribution here. Needs a man to develop teaching and research with such financial support as required.
  11. Concerning the several other present fields of teaching and research in the Department, no statement is being made at this time.

The present research funds available for the Department are:

  1. A share with three other departments in the remnants of grant that will expire in June 1946. (About $40,000 left, most of which must be reserved for publication expenses.)
  2. Remnants of three other small grants, totaling about $6000, for special projects.
  3. The Wertheim fund, yielding about $3000 a year, for research in industrial relations, to be shared with other divisions of the University.

The committee suggests as a method of approach to the situation outlined that the Department set up a committee to draft a research program for the Department, and another one to develop a procedure for securing the necessary support for the program.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Professor Black added that in the natural sciences the idea of large laboratories is well established. In Economics also we need extensive laboratories and personnel therefor. Further, we need funds for field workers and for traveling expenses.

Mr. Bigelow asked whether there were any project being worked on in the School of Public Administration which could be coordinated with the research of the Economics Department. Professor Black answered that the idea of combining has already been carried as far as possible. The School of Public Administration funds are sufficient only to take care of the assembling of materials and other routine connected with the seminars.

Mr. Baldwin asked what the Department did with its research funds in the past when such funds were available. Professor Black answered that we made small grants to individual professors to help them finish projects in which they were engaged. These grants covered such activities as preliminary research, computing, and typing, but in general not much was available for field work or for traveling. Some eight or ten books have been published as a result of these projects. The publication of these books, as well as the research behind them, depended largely on research grants. Our research funds are now almost exhausted; we have very little money available for the future.

Professor Usher pointed out that in these earlier grants the modes and procedures were laid down by the donors. The Department did not have a free hand in organizing and planning research.

Mr. Baldwin asked whether the Economics Department today has a claim for research funds superior to that of other departments. Professor Burbank urged that a very strong case can be made out for such a position.

Professor Wilson observed that in days gone by great emphasis was laid on “inter-disciplinary” research. A second-rate “interdisciplinary” project would be given preference over a first-rate piece of restricted research. Professor Wilson further remarked that the research programs of the natural sciences were well set up thirty or forty years ago. Our social sciences, on the other hand, were for a long time treated as mere teaching departments. The movement away from this stand received a great impetus from an article by the late Professor Charles J. Bullock, in the Harvard Graduates’ Magazine for June 1915. This article called attention to the need of more generous and systematic provision for economic research. Our research program for Economics needs to be extended to a scale comparable with that of the natural sciences—unless, indeed, the United States government is to handle all the economic research in this country!

There was some discussion regarding the relation of university research in Economics to governmental research. Professor Usher pointed out that university research can be the basis for developing techniques of analysis which government bureaus can later put into “mass production.” Mr. Bigelow suggested that the development of techniques is more difficult in the social sciences than in the natural sciences. Professor Leontief predicted that the Economies Department’s research will set the direction for larger-scale governmental or “foundation” research, and emphasized that independent research, especially in its earlier stages, can never be reproduced in the “rough and tumble” conditions of governmental work. Dean Williams supported this view: a situation has been developing for some time—not just in connection with the War emergency—in which men are pulled out of university work to become mere administrators, to “run” projects; furthermore, working under governmental supervision may mean a certain loss of independence of thought, for consciously or unconsciously a men may be affected by considerations of “official policy.” Dr. Dunlop declared that you simply cannot do fundamental research under governmental auspices, there are always too many pressing current problems.

Mr. Herzog urged that the Department’s next step is to present cogent arguments to support its contentions regarding research needs. In this connection, it will be quite important to show people what contributions the Department has made in the past with the research grants allotted to it—what, for example, has resulted for practical use of the Government. Professor Burbank responded that we might take as an example the history of the statistical work on the Balance of International Payments. At the end of the last war the government and business men were vitally interested in this subject. Dean Williams was a pioneer in the field. Dean Williams briefly outlined the record. He began with an examination of the balance of payments for Argentina. Then, under the auspices of the Harvard Economics Society he, together with Professor Bullock and Mr. Tucker, made and presented a historical study of the Balance of Payments of the United States from 1789 to 1920. He kept this study up to date for several years and then turned it over to the Department of Commerce, working with them for a transition period of one year. The Department of Commerce has subsequently carried on the study currently.

As a suggestion regarding further possibilities of this sort, Professor Burbank referred to the problems connected with the incidence of taxation; these are most certainly current issues of the utmost importance. The country needs evidence for the formulation of governmental policy. We have in the Department a young man of high ability who has made a start on the investigation of these problems. We have no funds to help him, not even money for clerical and mechanical assistance.

Professor Burbank indicated that the Department would work a report along the lines of Mr. Herzog’s suggestion.

Mr. Wood urged that the Department visualize its projects and lay them out fully, with an indication of minimum and maximum amounts of money needed. Very little will be gained by talking in generalizations; the program must be concrete. Incidentally, with the Federal tax situation as it is, the present is a propitious time to obtain money for research—with reference both to individuals and to corporations.

Mr. Rublee raised question as to the exact significance of the title “Research Associate.” Professor Black answered that we have something in mind beyond a mere statistical clerk. Between the man in charge of a project and those doing the mechanical work, we need trained young economists who can assume the burden of direct supervision and also can help in writing up the results. Other Research Associates are needed to do traveling and field work. Professor Leontief suggested that the appointment of Research Associates is important for still another reason. Many of the young men thus appointed will become leaders in the economic developments of the future. The experience gained on our projects will be extremely valuable to them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Mr. Rublee asked Dr. Dunlop to say a few words about the progress of the trade-union experiment which was described by Professor Slichter in this meeting last year. Dr. Dunlop said that this year we have gone ahead with the program, although of necessity on a reduced scale because of man power shortage in the various unions. We have six union representatives who, on the whole, are superior to the group we had last year. We have continued the development of techniques of instruction and we have widened our range of contacts with the unions. The unions are supporting the program and we are establishing new connections with certain important unions. In spite of the fact that the teaching staff has been somewhat depleted and we have had to furnish instruction on the basis of special arrangements, we feel that the year has been decidedly profitable and worth while, both for the union representatives and for us.

Mr. Herzog urged that by all means the work should continue, even though it had to be on a reduced scale. It is much easier to keep on with a going concern than to start afresh. He confirmed Dr. Dunlop’s impressions as to the high quality of the union personnel. He also reported the sincere testimony of a leading member of the labor-union group that the work at Harvard was felt to be highly worth while—to be a vital and crucial experience.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The meeting closed with general expressions of appreciation for Mr. Rublee’s work as chairman of the visiting Committee during the past few years and of the deep indebtedness which the Department feels to him for this work.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 25. Folder: “Visiting Committee Correspondence, 1943-45.”

Image Source: Cropped image of  John D. Black (1938). Harvard Library, Digital Collections.

Categories
Curriculum Economics Programs Fields Harvard Statistics

Harvard. Report on statistics and national income courses. Crum and Frickey, 1945

Crum Frickey

 

William Leonard Crum and Edward Frickey taught Harvard’s economic statistics courses in the 1930s and 1940s.  Paul Samuelson recounted his second semester (Spring 1936) as a graduate student following his previous semester’s worth of Crum: “…I was able to learn genuine modern statistics from E. B. Wilson, bypassing Edwin Frickey (who with Leonard Crum taught at Harvard courses against modern statistics!)” [On this, Roger E. Backhouse’s Vol I: Becoming Samuelson, 1915-1948, p.101].

Reading the following intradepartmental report on economic statistics courses and how to integrate national income and product accounting into the graduate curriculum that was written by a committee of two (Crum and Frickey), one discovers that even a decade after Samuelson’s experience, the proper preparation of “ink charts” was a subject that warranted faculty discussion.  Harvard Ph.D. Robert Solow later went to Columbia to play catch-up ball with respect to statistical analysis before starting his M.I.T. contract.  Harvard economics was a full generation behind the times with respect to statistical method at mid-20th century.

A 1947 Crum/Frickey  joint memo regarding preparation for taking the comprehensive field exam in statistics has been posted earlier.

______________________

6 March 1945

Report on the course offerings in Statistics, and in National Income

At the Department meeting of 13 February, 1945, the undersigned were named a committee to study course offerings and proposed offerings in Statistics and in National Income, discuss their findings with the Chairman, and report to the Department. Attached are the two reports: I, on Statistics; II, (page 10) on National Income.

W.L. Crum
Edwin Frickey

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

I. The Offering in Statistics

At the meeting of the Harvard Economics Department on 13 February, 1945. W. L. C. and E. F. sought opinions from colleagues as to additional instruction needed in statistics and as to changes needed in existing instruction. The following is in part a report of the informal discussion, in part an indication of what W. L. C. and E. F. think can advisedly be done. The present statement is preliminary; a more definitive report will be prepared, after consultation with H. H. B., for submission to the Department at a later meeting.

  1. Opinion was expressed that many of our graduate students show conspicuous lack of ability to present statistical material in the form of chart or table, for example, in theses. Instruction in statistics here has for several years relied upon capacity of students to learn by emulation—they have abundant opportunity to acquaint themselves with good statistical presentation, both tabular and graphic, in our courses in statistics and in the source materials of other courses. In course 21a, some instruction is incidentally given in orderly tabulation of limited sorts, but we make no attempt to teach students to prepare ink charts. Apparently, something more is needed; and three suggestions, perhaps all to be followed together, are made:
    1. By compressing some other parts of the work, we can include a small amount of instruction on presentation in course 21a. This should help put those graduate students who are required to take that course here on the right track.
    2. For students not required to take 21a, because they have had the “equivalent” elsewhere, one possibly helpful device is to require in course 121b a written report involving presentation in tabular and graphic form. Such report could be graded if sufficient funds are available to cover the grading, and the instructors could make a moderate effort to advise particular students about defects in their reports. The reports would presumably be required of all students in 121b, whether or not they had had 21a.
    3. The Department’s specialists in statistics could advise any graduate student, whose thesis involved matters of statistical presentation, concerning such matters. When the Department acquires a general research laboratory, with a regular supervisor, the supervisor could give such advice. In the meantime, the instructors in statistics could stand ready to give such advice in appropriate cases. The undersigned emphasize that this advice should be understood to concern presentation of statistical materials: they do not feel but they should be called upon ordinarily to advise such as student about sources of statistics for his thesis, or about the methods of analyzing the statistics, or about their interpretation. They have often given advice on such matters in certain cases, and will continue to do so, but take the stand that they should not be regarded as under the obligation to give such advice to all comers. The point is that; if the candidate proposes to write a statistical thesis in any field of economics, a vital part of his job is to obtain, analyze, and interpret his data. We see no reason why faculty specialists in statistics should make an extraordinary contribution to a thesis which happens to have quantitative aspects.
  2. Little emphasis appeared, in any opinions expressed, on the need for laboratory instruction in statistics in our graduate offering. Some suggestion was advanced that the “homework” type of problem task could helpfully be employed. W. L. C. and E. F. have a little faith that much could be accomplished in this way – the great advantage of the supervised laboratory is that the supervisor can get students actively started on the task and can catch and clear away difficulties as they arise. (We assume, of course, any problem work of this sort, in graduate courses, should be on an advanced – not elementary – level.) To meet this suggestion, we propose only that point A2 above be put into effect, and that the following change in present operations be considered. At present, course 121a includes two home-work problems, which stretch over several weeks, but are not graded and are not used as bases for specific advice to individual students. The proposed change is that these problems be handed in, and treated like the problem described in A2. (In these cases, as in that case, grading of the reports would be feasible if funds are available for the purpose.)

An emphatic suggestion was made that graduate students have the use of laboratory equipment, and be made welcome in the laboratory. We do not believe this can be managed with the laboratory facilities of course 21a. We note, however, that a moderate chance now exists that the University will presently provide the Department with a research laboratory in statistics, adequately equipped, and under competent supervision. If and when this is done, no difficulty will arise in making ample place for work by graduate students on any statistical tasks in which they may properly be interested. We remark that the arguments in favor of a general research laboratory in statistics are much more likely to bring conviction in responsible quarters that the argument, however strongly put, in favor of facilities merely for the occasional use of graduate students.

  1. Supposing we are to give an additional half graduate course in statistics, opinions pointed toward three alternatives:
    1. A course in theory, intermediate between course 121a and Prof. Wilson’s course 122b. This does not appear a good use of our manpower, for the election in such a course would inevitably be small, especially as the mathematics prerequisites would necessarily be much more severe than those – almost nil – on which we now limp through 121a.
    2. A further course was suggested – beyond 121b and perhaps alternating with it – in topics in the application of statistics to economic fields. Economics 121b now includes a selected list of such topics, which varies moderately from year to year; but it is by no means a comprehensive coverage of all even of the major possibilities. We could readily prepare an additional half course to be called 121c of further topics in the applied fields, and many students would probably like such a course. Such a course can be described as follows:

Economics 121c will be a half-course which might be entitled Topics in Applied Economic Statistics. Economics 21a or its equivalent will be a prerequisite. Properly qualified undergraduates may, with the consent of the instructor, be admitted to economics 121c.

Economics 121c will deal with statistical problems arising in connection with the use of basic statistical data in a selected list of economic topics. (As compared with 121b this course will lay more emphasis on the basic material and less emphasis on statistical theory.)

On each topic each student will be expected to familiarize himself with the immediate and the basic sources of the main materials, through actual examination of such materials, and to present a critical appraisal of these fundamental statistics. The instructor will give a succinct historical background – an outline of the principal work which is already been done on the topic. The instructor and the class will work out together conclusions as to what are the leading issues involved, and will consider what it is that statisticians are trying to measure and what they should be trying to measure.

Such topics as the following will be included:

Consumption
Commodity prices
Cost-of-living
Employment and unemployment
Wages
Money and Banking
Production and Trade (certain phases)
Balance of international payments
Public Finance

        1. The subordinate suggestion that, in this case, basic preparation for the oral exam and also the write-off field might consist of 121a and either 121b or 121c, was advanced. A strong objection to this appears in the fact that 121b, although made up largely of topics in applied statistics, now includes – and should continue to do so – certain topics which need to be covered by every general economist (we do not here have in mind the statistical specialist) who is to have “literacy” in the field of economic statistics today. Several of the “applied” topics now in 121b include in fact fundamental matters of statistical theory needed by all economists, and not elsewhere covered in our instruction. These include, for example: the theory of index numbers, statistical deflation, secular trends in business cycles, the basic theory of measuring production and income, and at least demand and cost curves not to mention more sophisticated matters of econometrics. These essentially theoretical topics in statistics should remain part of the basic graduate year course in statistics. (This goes also for our present topic of national income: even if the Department offer a course in that subject, the course will not be taken by all students, and all should have at least the brief survey now in 121b). For the foregoing reason, we emphatically urge that 121a and 121b stand as the basic year course in the field, and that the new course 121c be regarded as an additional – but not an alternative–half course.
        2. The subordinate suggestion at 121b and 121c be given in alternate years appears to fall for the same reason given in C2a.

 

    1. Instead of the course described under C2 suggestion was made that we introduce a course in administrative (we use this word provisionally, for want of a better) statistics – mainly, but not exclusively, governmental statistics. We have not outlined such a course in full, but can suggest its nature by indicating that it would emphasize the problems encountered in actually doing statistical work in government or private agencies. Such topics as the preparation and use of index numbers of prices and production; the compilation and use of data on employment and the labor force; statistics of farm production and operation; the gathering of and analysis of facts concerning trade, both foreign and domestic; financial data such as are developed by the treasury, the S. E. C, the F. R. B., and private agencies; statistics used in the analysis of particular enterprises; the rapidly developing field of quality control in industry, suggest themselves for inclusion. The nature of the course can also be indicated by somewhat loose contrast with the course described under C2 above: in that course, the point of view is of the user (economist, or other analyst) of statistics, and attention is given to the origin of the statistics only in so far as it is needed to guide and inform the user. In this course, the point of view is of the maker of statistics, and attention is given to the use of the statistics only in so far as it is needed to guide the maker in his work. This course would go far toward meeting the contention that our students, while well founded in statistical theory, are not ready to handle the kind of statistical tasks which they encounter in government or other research agencies.

At the moment we are not ready to choose between the courses described under C2 and C3, the former (and obviously the latter) being understood as in addition to, and not alternative to, 121b.

 

  1. No opinion was expressed concerning course 122b, and we think it should continue to be given in alternate years.

No opinion was offered concerning the content of course 121a. We have in mind some compression of one of the topics know given. This, plus the longer term under the peace-time schedule, will enable us to give more satisfactory attention to the topic of small samples.

We were commissioned to report also on national income. This is covered in a separate memorandum.

 

  1. We layout now, in tentative form and subject to revision by the Department, our recommendation as to the entire offering in statistics in the early post-war years.

21a. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in A1.

121a. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in B and the change noted in D.

121b. Substantially as at present, but with the change outlined in A2.

(Courses 121a and 121b to be regarded as the core of the preparation in the field of statistics, and to be recommended to the candidates for the general oral in statistics as the most helpful unit in their preparation.)

121c. A new half course, either that described under C2 or that under C3. To be open to graduate students who have had 21a or by consent of the instructor to those who have had the equivalent of 21a, and by consent of the instructor to properly qualified undergraduates who have had 21a.

122b. Substantially as at present, and to be given in alternate years as at present.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

II. Offering in National Income

The suggestion is made that a half course, at the graduate level, in National Income be offered. The main purpose of such a course would be to give our students an extensive factual basis for their use of national income concepts and data in a wide range of our theoretical and applied fields. The course by itself could provide only a beginning for specialization the subject of national income for its own sake, and we do not understand that the Department contemplates recognizing the field in that subject.

While the course should be concerned primarily with the facts of national income, we understand that some attention could properly be given to the interpretation of those facts into their economic and social implications. Moreover, even to handle properly the factual side, the course would need give much attention to matters of definition and concept, matters which actually stand at the root of most of the “problems” of measuring national income and its chief constituents.

The core of the course would consist of the presentation, discussion, and criticism of the existing statistical facts on the national income and its constituents. These materials would presumably be limited to the United States; although some of the critical portions of the course, dealing with concepts and the like, would necessarily make large drafts on studies in certain other countries. Emphasis would be on the problems of measurement, the effectiveness and validity of the methods used, and the appropriateness of the results obtained as answers to questions posed by the economist.

In addition to the over-all aggregate of national income, viewed in real and money terms and in its variations over time, the course would examine the chief constituents of national income. These would include:

  1. Contributions to national income by various types of economic activity.
  2. Contributions from various geographical regions (much less is known on this.)
  3. Allocation, so far as it is known, to the several factors of production.
  4. Distribution according to size of income (money income) received by individuals.
  5. Distribution of income according to use: consumption expenditures of individuals (perishable, semi-durable), consumption through government, savings (by individuals, by enterprises, by government).
  6. Capital formation, and its relation to savings.
  7. Relation of taxes and public expenditures to the flow of income.

Your committee makes no recommendation as to the personnel to be assigned the task of conducting such a course. It does recommend: that the course be limited to graduate students, and to those advanced concentrators who receive permission from the instructor(s); that all students who take the course be required to have completed one half year course at the graduate level in economic theory and in statistics; that the course be given each year, rather than in alternate years; that the course be considered as a pro-seminar in statistics for the purpose of excuse – under our existing rules for reducing the oral examination to three fields – from the oral examination in statistics.

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers, 1902-1950. Box 23. Folder “Course Announcement 1945-46”.

Image Source: Crum and Frickey in the Harvard Class Album, 1942 and 1950.

Categories
Curriculum Fields Harvard

Harvard. Mathematical Economics Recognized as Subfield of Theory. E.B. Wilson, Crum, and Schumpeter, 1933

 

What I find particularly striking in the following report of the Committee on Instruction in Mathematical Economics at Harvard (note the  first named of the trio is E. B. Wilson) is the forecast that economics graduate students will need to acquire tools of mathematical economics and statistics already in the mid 1930s because they will need them later, 1953-63, when they will be “at the height of their activity” and by which time (implicitly) the “rapidly increasing importance of theoretical and statistical work involving higher mathematics” will have caught up with them. I have appended the course names for the statistics and mathematics courses referred to by number in the report.

Related postings: 

_____________________

Meeting of the Committee (Wilson, Crum, Schumpeter) on
Instruction in the Mathematical Economics
Tuesday, May 9 [1933]

In view of the rapidly increasing importance of theoretical and statistical work involving higher mathematics, and of the possibility that a considerable number of economists may have to be adequately familiar with both mathematical theory and statistical procedure twenty to thirty years from now, that is, when many of our present students will be at the height of their activity, the Committee (Wilson, Crum, Schumpeter) agreed on the following recommendations to be submitted to the Department which they believe to be both necessary and sufficient in order to provide facilities for events to work in mathematical theory as applied to economics:

(1) Any student who may wish to do so should be allowed to offer mathematical economics as his special field within the requirements for the Ph.D. This would involve but a slight alteration of existing practice which permits students to choose some branch of economic theory as a special field. The committee’s suggestion is merely that mathematical economics should be added to the other special subjects in economic theory which a student may select.

It seems desirable, moreover, to permit that any such student may select mathematics or rather some branch of pure or applied mathematics in place of one of the two remaining fields he has to offer.

(2) Advanced work in mathematical economics should conform to modern tendencies by stressing equally the mathematical side of economic theory and mathematical statistics. No student who elects mathematical economics as his special field should be allowed to do the one without the other. Especially courses 31a and 32b should be required also from students mainly interested in pure theory.

(3) Work in the Department of Mathematics through Math 5 should be considered as the minimum requirement as to mathematical training. Credit should be given only for Math 5, but not for any of the still more elementary course preparatory to it, which most of the students taking up mathematical economics will have had anyhow in their undergraduate period.

(4) No further steps should be taken at present. It seems best to see what the response will be before attempting to organize a special graduate course. The mathematical aspect of our subject is being dealt with in some courses already, and any Ph.D. candidates who may present themselves in case the rules be altered as recommended could easily be taken care of individually.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Copy of Letter from Harold H. Burbank to Joseph Schumpeter

October 3, 1933

Dear Joe,

I have read and approved without qualification the report of the Committee on Instruction in Mathematical Economics.

I think this report should be brought before the Department on the evening of Tuesday, October 10.

Very sincerely yours,

Prof. J. A. Schumpeter
2 Scott Street

HHB:VS

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Graduate Instruction in the Mathematical Economics
Department Vote, October 10, 1933

In view of the rapidly increasing importance of theoretical and statistical work involving higher mathematics, and of the possibility that a considerable number of economists may have to be adequately familiar with both mathematical theory and statistical procedure twenty to thirty years from now, that is, when many of our present students will be at the height of their activity, the Committee (Wilson, Crum, Schumpeter) agreed on the following recommendations to be submitted to the Department which they believe to be both necessary and sufficient in order to provide facilities for events to work in mathematical theory as applied to economics.

The Department voted to accept the recommendations stated as follows:

(1) Any student who may wish to do so should be allowed to offer mathematical economics as his special field within the requirements for the Ph.D. This would involve no alteration of existing practice, which permits students to choose some branch of economic theory as a special field. The committee’s suggestion is that mathematical economics should be admissible.

(2) Any students using mathematical economics as his special field should be allowed to offer some branch of pure or applied mathematics as an allied field.

Work in the Department of Mathematics through Math 5, or the equivalent, should be considered as the minimum requirement as to mathematical training. Credit should be given only for Math 5, but not for any more elementary course preparatory to it.

(3) Advanced work in mathematical economics should conform to modern tendencies by stressing equally the mathematical side of economic theory and mathematical statistics. Therefore courses 31a and 32b should be required of anyone in electing mathematical theory as his special field.

(4) No further steps need be taken at present. It seems best to see what the response will be before attempting to organize a special graduate course. Any individual cases calling for special attention can be dealt with, under the proposed regulation, as our courses now stand.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and papers 1930-1961. (UAV349.11), Box 13.

_____________________

Statistics Courses offered in the Department of Economics
at Harvard, 1934-35

Economics 31a 1hf (formerly Economics 41a). Theory of Economic Statistics, I

Half-course (first half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Crum and Asst. Professor Frickey.
Economics 1a, or its equivalent, is a prerequisite for this course.

Economics 31b 2hf (formerly Economics 41b). Theory of Economic Statistics, II

Half-course (second half-year). Mon., Wed., Fri., at 9. Professor Crum and Asst. Professor Frickey.
Economics 1a, or its equivalent, is a prerequisite for this course.

Economics 32b 2hf (formerly Economics 42). Foundations of Statistical Theory

Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th., 3 to 4.30. Professor E. B. Wilson.
Economics 31a and one year of Calculus are prerequisites for this course.

Source: Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1933-34(second edition), Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXX, No. 39 (September 20, 1933), p. 128.

_____________________

Undergraduate Mathematics Courses
at Harvard, 1934-35

Mostly Freshmen

[Mathematics] A. Professors J. L Coolidge et al. — Analytic Geometry; Introduction to the Calculus.

Mostly Sophomores

[Mathematics] 2. Professors Graustein et al. — Differential and Integral Calculus; Analytic Geometry.

Mostly Juniors

[Mathematics] 5a1hf. Professor Morse. — Differential and Integral Calculus (advanced course), Part I

[Mathematics] 5a2hf. Professor Morse. — Differential and Integral Calculus (advanced course), Part II

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1934-35, p. 86.

 

Images:  Left to right: William Leonard Crum, Joseph A. Schumpeter, Edwin Bidwell Wilson. From the 1934 (Crum) and 1939 (Schumpeter and Wilson) Harvard Class Albums.