I think most of us would agree that any high school economics class should focus on
the basics and be as intuitive as possible. However, two things stand in the way. Few
high school teachers understand economics well enough to to know what the basics are,
let alone have the understanding necessary to teach the material intuitively. Second,
one important goal of a high school course is preparation for the AP test. I bet the
test measures how well students have learned the watered-down, mechanical, graduate
school version of economics that most introductory texts pass off as the _principles_
of economics.
The short run answer is that the teachers need to use a book that they can teach, and
that will give the students what they need. I am going to put my vote in for Mankiw.
He knows how to keep it simple yet still covers the important stuff like comparative
advantage and efficiency that many texts skip (I am referring to Micro here since I
have never taught Macro principles).
The long run solutin is to do a better job at the principles level so that future
teachers and designers fo the AP test better understand economics.
Judging from the market for texts, I am probably alone in believing that most micro
texts have it wrong. At the principles level we do not need to be producing students
who have a tenuous understanding of what Ph.D. economics students learn. Instead, we
should be teaching students how to think like economists. Opportunity cost, gains from
trade, how markets work, substitution possiblities in consumption and increasing
opportunity cost in production, efficiency, market power and lack thereof, market
failure etc. (The intermediate level is a whole different story.)
The one bright spot in the universe of principles texts is Heyne, Boettke, and
Paychitko's "The Economic Way of Thinking." (which happens to be the text assigned
when I took micro principles — and it is probably the reason I became an economist) —
Thanks Pete, for helping keep that wonderful book going.
Anyway, I cannot even get my own department to listen to me. We teach a
departmentalized course where everyone (including M.S. holding instructors and
masters students who teach for us) uses the same text. I cannot even get anyone else
to read Heyne because the text doesn't have enough graphs. Of course, I am not sure
what type of job a non-Ph.D. could do with Heyne in a lecture class of 150.
Thanks for listening to me rant.
Comments?
-Jeffrey Rous
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/24/02 11:57PM >>>
Howdy,
Let me apologize in advance for this letter being too
long.
With all due respect, I think I may be disagreeing
with Mr. Foldarvy. First, I think his list may be too
ambitious for a high school class. Second, I really
think that your efforts should be toward making
economics interesting for those few who will be
excited enough to pursue it in college. In that
regard, I'd almost recommend following the book for
which this list is named: The Armchair Economist.
Also, Landsburg's book Fair Play may be good as well,
I have only read his online chapter on int'l trade and
I think it is very important. It is here:
www.netacc.net/~fairplay/chapter.htm
I think that The Armchair Economist gives such a good
overview of what economics IS as opposed to what it is
generally thought to be that it would make a fine
intro designed to pique the interest of the curious.
I lent my copy to my dad and he was AMAZED! at what
economics is really about.
That said, there are a few issues that I think should
be covered--issues that I didn't see until I was in a
Ph.D. program, and I think that it is a crime that
these issues aren't addressed earlier. First, I'd
really define what it is to be economically rational.
Do it intuitively: there are relationships between
things, let's say "taller than." Explain that. Then
transitivity (if that tree is taller than my house,
and my house is taller than that shrub, then that tree
is taller than that shrub), and completeness (every
thing is taller than, not as tall as, or as tall as
everything else). Myriad examples fit that scheme,
I'd spend a week covering examples, so that when you
inject ("as good as") preferences, transitivity and
completeness are already well grounded.
Second, I'd be sure to cover the first AND second
fundamental theorems of welfare economics--at least
intuitively. For example, the competitive market will
distribute, say medical care, (Pareto) efficiently,
but is it reasonable that a well-educated, affluent
person who knew better gets great AIDS treatments
while the working poor get very little medical care at
all? Surely that could generate some discussion.
Third, I'd make it clear that people choose. People
face the world and they choose. This concept, while
seemingly simple, is very subtle and significant in
regards to public policy. Suppose, using an example
inappropriate for H.S. students, that I want to outlaw
adult pornography, because I feel that it exploits the
actors. Fair enough--except that they chose that
career becaues it was their best option available! If
acting in adult film is a crappy option, that implies
that what they turned down to be porn stars is even
crappier--and if we outlaw porn, those peope will be
forced to abandon a crappy option and into a crappier
one! I think the idea that restricting people's
available options is inherently detrimental to their
well being not really appreciated by society at large,
especially as the U.S. becomes more and more of a
nanny state. (Oops! I think I've just inject some
politics--sorry about that.)
Two final thing of utmost importance. Explain that
(and why) capitalism is not the root of all evil.
Also, explain why free trade is good for everybody;
furthermore, drive home the fact that blocking free
trade starves real people in poor nations. In the
words of a Bangledeshi representative at the
now-infamous Seattle WTO meeting, expressing his
confusion regarding the protestor's motives (saving
sea turtles), "We love sea turtles, too. But we love
our children more." In today's society, these last
two are vital.
Sorry about going on so long,
-jsh
=====
"...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that
other has done him no wrong."
-Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
