Michael Audet
Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/05/13/tdr_interview_colin_campbell.php
Friday, May 13, 2005
Editor's Note: Professor Colin Campbell taught economics at Dartmouth for 31 years before retiring in 1987. He has lived in Hanover for 49 years.
The Dartmouth Review: Could you tell me a little about yourself before we begin?
Michael Audet
Colin Campbell: I am a retired professor, but I taught at Dartmouth in the economics department for thirty-one years. The college has been very good to me. I still have an office in Silsby Hall, so I still know something of the economics department even though I have been retired for a long time. It is an extremely good department.
TDR: Has the economics department changed much since you retired?
CC: Well, no. What we always wanted in the economics department was what you call professional economists. We went along with the trend at the time to insist on research. You couldn't get tenure in the department unless you were writing. When I came to Dartmouth that was a major change, under President Dickey. We still emphasized being good teachers, but we also wanted a department with people who were active in writing and doing research, and that has continued. Now the whole field of economics, with the development of the computer, has changed. The statistical techniques are so much more advanced than they were in my day, even though I was always working in statistics, but I didn't manipulate the statistics the way that they do today with these wonderful techniques. So the level of the statistical work in the department is much more sophisticated than it was thirty or forty years ago. But that's true everywhere, and the undergraduates going into economics have to take much more statistics now than they used to, but that's part of the trend. I must say the department right now is very, very good.
TDR: Some professors believe that it is impossible to remove their personal views from the teaching process, and they should make their point of view known rather than attempt to be completely impartial. How do you feel about this?
CC: In economics, it is fairly rare to sort of talk too much about your own opinion. That may be a difference with political science, for instance, I am not sure about that. In economics, your personal views...I don't think they come into it nearly as much. As far as I know there are no really what you call "radicals," no Marxists in the economics department. There are at some places, though there are very few now—but that comes from the mid 19th century, over a hundred and fifty years ago. Everything has changed since then.
TDR: What do you think of Bush's Social Security privatization plan?
CC: Actually, I used to write on Social Security. I have done a lot of writing on it. The issue of private accounts is very old. Economists have been discussing this for 30 years. They were concerned about the kind of system that developed, the "pay as you go" system that we have, and I wrote about that thirty years ago. I got involved with Social Security when they had an indexing problem with inflation, they mis-indexed, and there was a lot of work done and I was involved in that. In a sense, it is bringing it up to date. We are talking about an old, old program that has been in there a long time. We need to bring the system up to date and also to correct some of the flaws in the present system. Again, these are obvious and have been discussed by economists over the years. I also think the system of private accounts, that has developed historically and started in Chile, is a very good system. There are two kinds of systems—the one we have and a private system. They both have advantages and disadvantages, and I think it's desirable to have both, and a combination of the two is better than just one. In personal finance, you always want diversification—you don't just want to invest everything in real estate or anything. You want diversity for a system of personal finance. What the new proposal for Social Security is going to do is just that. But there are also some serious problems with the system we have that must be corrected—if they're not corrected now they have to be later. These are problems that are well known and were spotted early by economists...We are also fortunate at Dartmouth to have the Director of the Rockefeller Center, Andrew Samwick, he's one of the national authorities on this. He was a student of Martin Feldstein, one of the leading authorities on Social Security in the US, and has testified in front of Congress. Students are well set up here for understanding the problems with this issue. Frankly I think it's almost sort of pathetic, a lot of the opposition. They are doing it for political reasons, it's not based on a rational discussion. They think that any change in Social Security is bad. Anybody who knows about Social Security knows that its time to change.
TDR: What exactly are the "problems" with Social Security that you alluded to?
CC: The basic issue is...that people are living longer, and because of this the benefits are going to end. You change the ratio of workers that are paying the taxes and the number of beneficiaries, and this is affected by the birth rate—all kinds of things. The present system wouldn't have been in trouble unless people were living longer and the important social and economic changes were taking place. The conditions in the United States today are not the same as they were in 1936 when the system was founded. In anything you have to change your institutions as the social and economic systems change, and it's as simple as that. People who think you don't have to change Social Security have got their heads in the sand.
TDR: What was the College like when you first started teaching?
CC: Oh, the College has changed drastically, and is just not what it was at all. I am talking about...basic things about the College, not just co-education. That came later and that was a very important change. But in addition to this you had basic changes in the admissions policy of the College and basic changes in the curriculum of the College. Changes in admissions were terribly important. Right after World War Two and before, if you wanted to come to Dartmouth—and you could be a lousy student—you would go to some prep school like Exeter, or Andover, or Deerfield and [that was] all you needed to get into Dartmouth. It didn't matter what kind of exams you took, all you had to do was get the school's recommendation; and the same thing was true at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, no difference. They had a kind of an agreement between the Ivy League colleges and these prep schools, and they ended that. And now you can't get into Dartmouth that way any anymore. As a matter of fact, a lot of people complain that if you go to Andover or Deerfield, it's harder to get into Dartmouth than if you go to [another] high school, but I am not sure about that. And that's a great change.
TDR: Do you see Dartmouth becoming a research university?
CC: I think Dartmouth is correct in that they try to combine teaching and research. I can tell you, in going through tenure decisions, we did require of the professors that got tenure, that they not only did some writing but also be good teachers. I think compared to some other universities, the teaching is really quite good, from what I know about the economics department. Dartmouth has done well in trying to combine research and teaching. I am strongly in favor of Mr. Dickey's objective, of getting professors who are doing some writing. Professors that are doing some writing as well as teaching—you have to pay more for them. Well, Dartmouth is a rich college, and I think they should aim high. [It's] better for them to spend their money this way than some other way. Also, particularly at an elite school with good students, even if the teaching isn't so fancy, the students are good enough so they ought to be able to adjust to the differences. And particularly for good students, you want them to be taught by people who are doing research. Again I think [Trustee T.J.] Rogers is very strong on this too: you want to have the best. Our young economists now are doing just as good research as they are at other universities, and that's what Dartmouth should do. I have a great opinion of Dartmouth, and am as loyal to it as most students, and I think it should be competitive—and this is the way Mr. Rodgers talks.
TDR: Do you have any thoughts on the current Trustee election?
CC: I think it's interesting that you have outside candidates. They are usually appointed by the existing Trustees, and now we are getting candidates who are deciding to run themselves. I think it is desirable to have both; you get a greater variety....It doesn't do any harm to discuss some new ideas that might help the college. I don't mean to criticize them; the Trustees have always been a distinguished group. The only way I would criticize them is that they are too nice. They tend to be nice guys and nice girls, and sometimes it is better to have someone who is not so nice, and will not always agree with everyone else.