G'day Rod, Ormerod is one who makes much of the power of Economics 101 to close the mind. By the end of this crucial year, it seems, students have internalised the homo oekonomicus view of self and others to the degree it has altered their behaviour in games. A third-year introduction to dissenting economics is to run the risk of having your teachings taken on board only as interesting deviations from the truth. I like the way Ormerod structures his book (*The Death of Economics* - I realise Michael Perelman wrote a similarly titled book, but it costs nearly three figures over here, so I've not seen it). He begins by teaching the reader the basic assumptions of economics and their vital role in the modelling, and then summarily shafts said premises with a little logic and the odd bit of historical differentiation. The book at once does the job of telling the students the stuff they need to know for second year technical units, and puts in place from the off a lasting critical mind-set. Third year might be the right time to teach complex critiques, but first-year is the time to teach (a) that models are only models (useful while their limits and abstractions are recognised, and bloody dangerous where they are not), and (b) that assumptions must be checked by way of a peek out the window every now and then. That isn't too time-intensive, but it is very timely. Of course, if they actually had the time to read the purported 'founding father' texts, Adam Smith and David Ricardo themselves would go a long way to dispelling the power of today's prevailing economic myth. But students generally have to hold part-time jobs, look after their little ones, and, sadly, haven't as much contextual historical general knowledge available to them as we did but a generation ago (true here in Oz anyway). Might this be right? Cheers, Rob. ---------- > From: "Rod Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:10496] Re: Re: request on teaching > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:58:21 PDT > >I find it hard enough getting students to understand the concepts in a first >year principles course. Economic thinking is counter intuitive for most >first year students. To other criticise of the concepts howerer desirable, >seems only to confuse them. I had thought of just teaching an alternative >course, but then they would suffer by not being prepared for courses at a >more advance level. The critical courses seem more effective at a third year >level, when they have a good grasp of neoclassical thinking. > > > > >Rod Hay >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >The History of Economic Thought Archives >http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html >Batoche Books >http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html >http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ > > > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >
