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
>
>
>
>
