Sam, Actually, increasingly it is the case that the students admitted into the top econ grad programs are math undergrad majors. Much preferred as a major to econ which is viewed as being taught at the undergrad level in a much too "watered down" (non-math) fashion. Plus, one might have gone to one of those undergrad institutions with a bunch of leftover lefty old fogies, :-). Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: S Pawlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Saturday, May 15, 1999 5:20 PM Subject: [PEN-L:6865] Re: Re: RE: Old "foggies"/"fogeys" >Peter Dorman wrote: > >> I don't think this is a useful analysis, for two reasons. >> >> 1. It assumes a stark opposition between neoclassical economics and >> Marxism, with neither overlap nor third alternatives. This doesn't >> describe the actual political/ideological/methodological situation >> within economics, either now or in the past. (It sure doesn't describe >> me.) >> >> 2. It's use of ideology critique (explanation of the hegemony of certain >> ideas according to the interests they reflect) is too abstract. The >> economics profession is an institution with its own internal structures >> of power and influence. True, it is connected to the outside world of >> "real" economic and political domination -- but in specific ways that >> intersect with its own institutions. One has to look at the role of >> soft money, the NBER, the agendas set by government, and so on. Even >> so, I'm not sure we have a good explanation for the sheer intellectual >> arrogance displayed by mainstream economics. It is more intense than >> one finds in other fields, and academics who are not economists >> generally find it objectionable. >> >> Incidentally, the fetishism of technique that so many on this list >> complain about is not specific to economics. > >It seemed to me when studying undergraduate economics that many economists were >just looking for an excuse to do mathematics. That's cool if that's what you want >to do, but why not just walk over to the Math Dpt. and do the real thing? Why >waste the time of young undergrads enrolled in Econ courses who want to learn how >actual economies work in the real world? The Micro courses I took were basically a >repetition of the calculus courses. The hegemonic discourse in Economics like >other disciplines has a lot to do with the state of the class struggle in the real >world.You know, the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. >When Capital was on the defensive, there were a lot more rads teaching, more job >opportunity's for them and more opportunity's to teach the really interesting >stuff like classical political economy and economic history. > > >Sam Pawlett > > > >