Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

applegrove

(118,658 posts)
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:34 AM Dec 2013

"Colleges are teaching economics backwards"

Colleges are teaching economics backwards

Posted by Mike Konczal at the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/30/colleges-are-teaching-economics-backwards/

"SNIP..................................


Notice how this orients the casual student, the non-major who will only encounter economics once in this survey course. They start off with an abstract market that always works, versus having to see the messy parts when it doesn’t. They then proceed to the long-run, and only after everything else do they get to something that might help them understand why unemployment is so high for young college graduates. Only then might they be introduced to the institutions that make markets happen, if those are discussed at all.

So, what if we just reversed all that?

What if macroeconomics came first, before the study of individual markets? If were to reverse the typical curriculum, the first thing undergraduates would encounter wouldn’t be abstract theories about people optimizing, but instead the idea of involuntary unemployment and the idea that the economy could operate below its potential. They’d study the economy in the short-run before going to issues of long-term growth, with professors having to explain the theories on how the two are linked, bringing in crucial concepts like hysteresis.

Then, in the second class, they would get to microeconomics. But that too would be taught backwards. They’d start with institutions, understanding what enables a market economy to exist. Then they’d move on to the issue of firms with market power and externalities. Then, only at the very end, they’d get to the purest abstraction of perfect markets, with a final emphasis on what it means to be the isolated, optimizing Robinson Crusoe at the very end.

None of the core elements of today’s economics survey would go missing. But it would radically alter the content, shifting the subtle priorities and emphases communicated to students in how the materials are laid out. Economics would be less the study of abstract, perfect individuals and markets, but instead start with the messy business of the business cycle, of there being a macroeconomy that works or doesn’t, and also the institutions that make such things possible.



.................................SNIP"
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Colleges are teaching economics backwards" (Original Post) applegrove Dec 2013 OP
Same with medicine postulater Dec 2013 #1
Absolutely true. laundry_queen Dec 2013 #2
I don't disagree with the idea - enlightenment Dec 2013 #3
Gah. It's a religious indoctrination however it's served up. hunter Dec 2013 #4
I got stuck with a microeconomics course LumosMaxima Dec 2013 #5
"Free market" economics is unfalsifiable bullshit. bemildred Dec 2013 #6

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)
2. Absolutely true.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:45 AM
Dec 2013

I'm going to business school right now. I remember how much hair I tore out of my head with econ 101 (I went back as a mature student with a decent understanding of the economy). I think I even posted about my frustration here. Macro was annoying too but at least not as bad. My major is in accounting though, so I'm only now registering in my 3rd econ course as an elective. Crossing my fingers that it's decent.

enlightenment

(8,830 posts)
3. I don't disagree with the idea -
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:51 AM
Dec 2013

but do schools really demand that students take micro before macro? Particularly for the casual student - and assuming that the two survey courses are part of the GE requirements - it is much more likely that they would take whatever comes available first.

I did, as an undergrad. Macro was offered. I took it. The following semester (or year, I don't recall which), I took micro. No one told me I couldn't. It is not required at the college where I teach, but there are no pre-reqs for either course, so students can take them in any order. Same thing at the university. No rule stipulating micro before macro.

Does this happen a lot elsewhere?

hunter

(38,312 posts)
4. Gah. It's a religious indoctrination however it's served up.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:31 AM
Dec 2013

I've got strong opinions about this.

I had a good background in ecology and evolutionary biology when I took my first economics class.

Macroeconomics reminded me more of a catechism class than anything else, even though it was dressed up in science-like stuff.

The economy works for the same reason a church works, people believe (whatever that means).

Ain't much difference between a dollar and a communion wafer; they are both articles of faith.

LumosMaxima

(585 posts)
5. I got stuck with a microeconomics course
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:37 AM
Dec 2013

And I hated it. I wanted to take macro, but it wasn't possible. Micro was an almost total waste of my time.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
6. "Free market" economics is unfalsifiable bullshit.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 09:24 AM
Dec 2013

"Faith based economics" is a better description for it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Colleges are teachi...