Wilson and the Case for MIT
An important element in the story concerns Edwin Bidwell Wilson. On October 3, the day after the meeting of the Executive Committee, he wrote to Samuelson about the decision he was having to make.
After saying that he did not want to make the decision for him, Wilson drew clear parallels between Samuelson’s position and the situation he had been in early in his own career. Wilson had received an offer from MIT during his first year at Yale, and “although there were many people at Yale who couldn’t understand why I should change from Yale to MIT under any circumstances and although I was very happy at Yale and perhaps better situated socially there than at MIT,” he had never regretted his decision to move.9 Wilson might now be at Harvard, but he knew what it was like to give up a much-prized position at an Ivy League university in order to go to MIT, and difficult as his decision had been, he was in no doubt that it had been correct. Wilson, who for three years had been co-president of MIT, then changed his tone to that of an MIT insider, saying that he had thought a lot about economics at “Tech.” After the death of Francis A. Walker, first president of the American Economic Association and president of MIT from 1881 to 1897, economics had not been given the support it should have received. In particular, the mathematical and statistical side of economics had not been developed: the faculty at MIT had failed to take advantage of the fact that because it was an engineering school, their students were all required to have two years of mathematics, physics, and chemistry, with many of them having studied applied mechanics and thermodynamics (a subject that Wilson and Samuelson had discussed at length). If Samuelson went to MIT, he could take advantage of his situation there.Realizing that Samuelson would be finding it difficult to break away from a department that included mathematical economists, Wilson wrote about the transformation that had taken place at MIT during his own time there; despite having thought he would be going into “utter mathematical darkness,” MIT’s mathematics department had developed into one of the best research departments in the country.
This had been the result of appointing a group of able young people; though he could not be certain this would happen in economics if Samuelson went to MIT, he noted that “they are starting out well if they secure you.”Wilson then sought to weigh Samuelson’s prospects at MIT and at Harvard. He thought that there was a very good chance that Samuelson would be offered a permanent position at MIT and that having the title of professor would also make it easier to get offers elsewhere. In contrast, there was great uncertainty about whether Samuelson would get tenure at Harvard; recent decisions had made it much harder for young people to get tenure, Harvard was well stocked with economic theorists (at least in relation to its teaching needs), and it had shortages of people in other fields that were becoming very important, such as agricultural economics. On the other hand, Samuelson would enjoy being at Harvard, and he would, Wilson thought, be very likely to be offered a five-year instructorship the following year. His knowledge of economic theory would make it possible for him to work up some other branch of economics, increasing his chances of advancement. There were arguments on both sides, but the decision was weighted heavily in favor of going to MIT. On October 9, Samuelson replied by saying that “in view of the age distribution and composition of the Department, and taking into consideration the rather attractive conditions at the Institute, it [accepting MIT’s offer] seemed the best thing to do.”11
On October 14, Wilson wrote again. Now that Samuelson had made up his mind, Wilson’s tone changed and he explained much more explicitly than in his previous letter why he thought Samuelson’s decision was the correct one. He laid out a vision of the advantages that could accrue to both MIT and Harvard from Samuelson’s move, as well as the development of MIT. The letter needs to be quoted at length in order to show how deeply he was thinking about the question:
Cambridge, Massachusetts is one of the best places in the world to study mathematics because there are two good departments, one at Harvard and one at Tech which taken together are perhaps better than can be found in any one place elsewhere.
There would be a possibility of an exception in Princeton, New Jersey where Princeton University has a good department and where the Institute of Advanced Study concentrates a good deal of its effort into mathematical lines. In the same way Cambridge is a great center of research in physics since MIT built up a large research department in physics. Harvard has always had a good department for many, many years. When I came to the Tech in 1907 Cambridge was a fine place to study geology because both Harvard and Tech had strong departments. I fear that the department at Tech has fallen down a good deal since then. Jagger went to Hawaii, Daly went to Harvard and I don't think the replacements have kept the department up.In respect to all three departments there was enough difference in the environment and in the problems which came to the staff so that the combined departments undoubtedly covered the ground more widely than it would have been covered at either institution if the department there had been as large as the two departments combined and there had been no department at the other school.
Now I see no reason why there should not be some kind of fraternization between the Tech department of economics and the Harvard department whether in Cambridge or at the Business School as there was 30 years ago between the departments of geology (which may continue for ought I know) and as there is between the departments of physics in the two institutions. It seems to me clear that economics at Tech because it is at Tech will be kept closer to practical applied problems than in Cambridge though perhaps no more so than at the Harvard Business School. One reason there has not been very much influence of the Tech department on Harvard or of Harvard on Tech is because the department at Tech has been rather weak. For a long time the department of physics was weak and busied itself only with teaching and with rather low-grade practical research. For a long time there was no research done in mathematics worthy of the name. I think one of the good things about your going to Tech will be not only that the department is thereby greatly strengthened on the theoretical side but that you have a chance to broaden yourself out on certain types of application and that moreover this appointment may be but the beginning of a real interlocking in interest between the departments.10
Wilson was thus assuring Samuelson that he had made the right decision to go to MIT, not just for himself but also for Harvard. Going to MIT would pull Samuelson's research in new directions—it was still very much an engineering school—but due to the synergy that would result from having two strong but different departments, economics in Cambridge would be stronger than if Samuelson were to stay at Harvard and MIT were to remain weak.