tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post2893959323823893469..comments2024-03-09T10:26:48.789+00:00Comments on economics, psychology, policy: Behavioural Economics and HumanitiesEmma Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11466193733741012673noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-66129181101022192512010-10-03T19:59:05.070+00:002010-10-03T19:59:05.070+00:00Stock/Flow just refers to your remarks about prefe...Stock/Flow just refers to your remarks about preferring to keep up with current trends. As you agree, it is better for undergrads to learn the basic stock of knowledge rather than keeping up with precise latest flows of developments in particular disciplines. <br /><br />I agree that what we do in UCD is pretty much norm and I had not UCD in mind as a target for criticism. <br /><br />Agree with you on how economics is assessed. Dave Madden and myself have been doing exactly what you suggest in terms of getting the students to do case studies and present and, in general, have to talk more about what they have read. It has definitely gone very well so far in the sense that everyone seems up for it and the standard has been very high. It is hard, as you know, to do this for very large class sizes but not for final year single honours students. <br /><br />I am playing with the idea of a broad curriculum course on economics aimed at a wide social science and philosophy audience. I think it is a big ommission from the standard curriculum. I will keep the blog posted.Liam Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905424104233324535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-8906106925717356902010-10-03T19:41:53.868+00:002010-10-03T19:41:53.868+00:00Us agree? I dunno... Seriously, I think the conten...Us agree? I dunno... Seriously, I think the content (in terms of topics etc) of the UCD degree is fairly close to the norm and I am happy enough with that. <br />Where I think the problem is that we are not focused enough on enabling students. So we teach students the theory of this and that but whether students can actually <i>do</i> stuff afterwards is another matter. Our assessment is heavily exam based for a start. Could one of our graduates take some data and do a good analysis on the basis of it or take some current economic event and write a cogent analysis? I suspect a lot couldn't: we don't really train them to (& I am not an exception to this trend).<br />As for the maths content issue, its not just post-grad schools that will value this.I think employers will value quantitative skills too and numerically they are more important.<br />One reason for lack of emphasis on enabling is lack of resources although I am not sure that is the only reason. <br />But if there was a good way to introduce the material you have in mind then I would be all for it. I don't understand your stock/flow point, I certainly don't think undergrads should be reading journal papers.Kevin Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891633553910348880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-3670862070354371392010-10-03T17:58:56.823+00:002010-10-03T17:58:56.823+00:00In fact Kevin, we seem to agree. I am not suggesti...In fact Kevin, we seem to agree. I am not suggesting much more than what you started with. But at present, this isn't happening. <br /><br />"I am not against a broad education and yes students should know about Rawls,Bentham, Ricardo etc"Liam Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905424104233324535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-28587061583068784552010-10-03T17:55:12.435+00:002010-10-03T17:55:12.435+00:00Again Kevin - I find it hard to disagree with you ...Again Kevin - I find it hard to disagree with you that anybody giving a course in anything at all should know their stuff and prepare well, and communicate clearly and so on - whether they are teaching a "broad" module or teaching any economics module. I am sure you had both bad and good courses in mathematical economics when you were a student also. <br /><br />The second point is more relevant, namely that graduate schools, and arguably employers, place a high value on students who have taken and done well in advanced mathematical courses and, being honest, courses in things like history of economic thought, ethics etc., are heavily discounted. I think about that issue and I have a lot of suggestions about how you could tackle it while also broadening the curriculum. They are definitely not mutually exclusive aims. For example, you could identify and fasttrack students clearly showing the potential and interest to conduct advanced graduate studies in economics. This is one for another post but economics students taking maths modules happens too infrequently in Ireland and this would also help on that front. And you have already pointed out that this is a relatively small percentage of students who could be catered for in such a way. I have in mind bright non-research focused students who want to learn broadly about economics for the purpose of understanding the world more. You seem more or less happy with the current state of how economics is taught to undergraduates but I can't agree. I don't have any UCD-specific thread in my comments here. I am talking in a general sense. If you are a good mathematician then Economics is a very welcoming undergraduate. If you are interested in philosophy then you will have very little outlet in most undergraduate economics degrees and this is lopsided. <br /><br />As a publishing academic it is not surprising that you prefer to devote more time to the flow of knowledge rather than the stock but I am not sure the flow of journal articles in a given year is where 18 year olds should be starting.Liam Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905424104233324535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-67109841798797847842010-10-03T15:16:56.673+00:002010-10-03T15:16:56.673+00:00I am not against a broad education and yes student...I am not against a broad education and yes students should know about Rawls,Bentham, Ricardo etc. On the other hand I am not sure that our students end up knowing too much calculus and econometrics- speaking as one who tries to teach our students calculus. So we reduce that stuff at our peril. If our graduates go to good PhD programs (& yes only a few do) they will typically find the level of mathematics challenging.<br />The other peril is that its essential to have the right expertise. Many years ago I sat through some rather poor courses (& one very good one) on the topics you mention. This probably biased me for life against the subject. So if you can't do it well better not at all I would say.<br />The trend away from this material may partly reflect this lack of interest by the profession. It doesn't bother me that much as I tend to share that indifference: its hard enough to keep up with developments in contemporary economics.Kevin Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891633553910348880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-32696595435989555722010-10-03T10:40:20.222+00:002010-10-03T10:40:20.222+00:00I have your point Kevin - you don't like catc...I have your point Kevin - you don't like catchy titles. I am more or less with you on that. But the PAE stuff wasn't an attempt to sell something - they were making a valid intellectual point (albeit clumsily with the title). At some stage, the ideas in that cluster should be talked about on this blog rather than just debating their choice of name. In particular, there has to be room in the university for some undergraduate economics modules that are not taught through calculus and that are more grounded in philosophy. It is possible to get through an economics degree in Ireland at present without ever hearing of John Rawls or Jeremy Bentham. I don't think undergraduate economists need to read continental philosophy but it is completely lopsided that they learn so much about calculus and econometrics and don't even get a basic introduction to ethics, philosophy of science, history of economic thought and so on. I know you can point to exceptions where these are taught (e.g. Cormac O'Grada's course). But these are exceptions and in general the trend is away from these types of courses. One positive consequence of the bust is that a lot of senior folks are calling for these types of courses to be reintegrated into the economics curriculum.Liam Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905424104233324535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-70653297658927061682010-10-03T01:02:38.637+00:002010-10-03T01:02:38.637+00:00Autism, zombies, humanomics, freakonomics blah bla...Autism, zombies, humanomics, freakonomics blah blah. I find this all rather tiresome but I guess it sells. Anyway I am just an reconstructed post-post-modernist.Kevin Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891633553910348880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-1022244946990327802010-10-02T23:57:09.087+00:002010-10-02T23:57:09.087+00:00It is aimed as a critique of how we teach economic...It is aimed as a critique of how we teach economics. Quiggin has a book out called Zombie Economics which attacks many of the same things.Liam Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905424104233324535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-56614704626058557712010-10-02T23:55:19.177+00:002010-10-02T23:55:19.177+00:00"Real world economics" while not offensi..."Real world economics" while not offensive like its predecessor implies I presume that what the rest of us are doing is somehow unreal or surreal? Right.Kevin Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891633553910348880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-66824508270860315082010-10-02T23:06:17.173+00:002010-10-02T23:06:17.173+00:00We dealt with the autism one before Kevin. It is p...We dealt with the autism one before Kevin. It is partly a bad translation from the French. They initially stuck to their guns and now they are generally useing "real world economics" as their tag. I take your point on that Kevin but they are worth reading and, in general, the rebellious spirit that they instilled was a positive contribution to making economics more vital and relevant for students.Liam Delaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04905424104233324535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38545607.post-1768064019111200962010-10-02T22:59:02.759+00:002010-10-02T22:59:02.759+00:00I know foucalt about Derrida. I won't say anyt...I know foucalt about Derrida. I won't say anything there as its such an easy target: all that shower are obvious obscurantists and mountebanks.<br />I deplore any group coining the phrase "post autistic economics" as it trivialises a very real and profound developmental problem just as people woefully and routinely misuse the phrase "schizophrenic" to mean any form of contrast no matter how banal.Kevin Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891633553910348880noreply@blogger.com