If you already know the correct answers better than the professor why are you taking the class instead of teaching it?
JC -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, January 09, 2003 7:41 AM Subject: Re: News Coverage and bad economics >Yes, indeed I was informed recently that I recieved an A- instead of an A in >one of my PhD courses because I include too much historical content in my >exam answers. I suppose there's no better way to protect faulty theory than >to ignore the lessons of economic history. > >In a message dated 1/9/03 7:00:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ><< > >Fred Foldvary a *crit : > >> >> one is a >> better economist if one knows some law, history, geography, literature, >> political science, and philosophy. And besides his specialty, a good >> economist should know some history of thought, economic history, and >> something about the various schools of thought besides his own. > >True, but what do students in economics study all that? Too much maths >usually divert students from all these topics : they just don't need all >these to pass their exams. > >begin:vcard >n:Girard;Bernard >> > > >
