Somehow I missed this when it happened a couple of weeks ago and I didn’t see any of my co-conspirators post on it. But I read that a couple of weeks ago a bunch of Harvard students staged a walkout of Greg Mankiw’s introductory economics course because of its purported conservative bias. They wrote in a letter explaining their action: “Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.”
Leave aside that it seems somewhat questionable whether Mankiw’s class is biased as opposed to being just good economics (a detailed description of the course to date is provided here). Mankiw, of course, is a well-respected economist of the highest order and the author of one of the most popular introductory economics textbooks (apparently he sells 700 a year at Harvard alone–man, that’s a big class!).
Now here’s the humor in the cluelessness of the students who walked out–apparently Mankiw’s class is set up like a typical introductory economics course: the first semester focuses on micro economics and the second semester focuses on macro. So the Keynesian macroeconomic theory that the students are demanding will be covered in the second semester of the course–when he actually teaches, you know, macroeconomics.
And here’s the irony: when one considers the number of left-wing professor proselytizing from the podium in higher education today, it is comical to think of these students are unable to tolerate the uncongenial views of even a single conservative professor. If I had walked out of every class where my professors were saying things that were uncongenial to my ideological worldview then I would never have been able to finish enough courses to complete a degree. By contrast, these students can–and, it seems, probably will–spend their entire four years hearing from professors who will never challenge their preexisting worldview. I find it quite disconcerting that these kids at one of the premier universities in the world are so resistant to having their worldview challenged in even the slightest fashion.
Houston Lawyer says:
They will be well prepared to join their OWS brothers in arms.
November 15, 2011, 5:08 pmCornellian says:
By contrast, these students can–and, it seems, probably will–spend their entire four years hearing from professors who will never challenge their preexisting worldview.
Preexisting? I thought they came in as conservatives and were brainwashed by left-leaning professors?
November 15, 2011, 5:14 pmRich says:
There is only one world view — you speak heresy and need to be burned at the stake if it does not match their enlightened views
November 15, 2011, 5:14 pmRedman says:
Funny, if it wasn’t tragic.
People who may have been in high school a year ago want to dictate to a well regarded professor what he will teach them.
November 15, 2011, 5:15 pmDotar Sojat says:
You think a bunch of freshmen, even there, thought of this all by their lonesomes?
November 15, 2011, 5:16 pmgab says:
This bit of snark makes little sense to me. We’re talking about some of the smartest kids in the country right, and you’re implying that they didn’t know macro was coming? Not one of ‘em was bright enough to read the syllabus?
Strikes me as very unlikely.
November 15, 2011, 5:18 pmBen P says:
Only at Harvard would a bunch of 18 and 19 year olds be so presumptive as to assume their professor is teaching them about things in completely the wrong way and that they can walk out as a political statement.
November 15, 2011, 5:20 pmChris Rhodes says:
Well, if you presuppose the answer to your question, you can come to any conclusion. ;)
November 15, 2011, 5:23 pmDotar Sojat says:
Since they are all going to work for governments, NGOs and non-profits anyway, they really don’t need to know any economics.
November 15, 2011, 5:24 pmJAE says:
If I hadn’t taken classes with professors who challenged my worldview, I wouldn’t be reading this site. I think that as a student I learned the most from people I originally disagreed with.
November 15, 2011, 5:28 pmBen P says:
Yeah, but to be fair, even though Keynesianism is taught as a default (with more advanced monetary approaches following) I don’t really recall it addressing the impact of inequality. While there is certainly some economics that address that, it’s not within the scope of a basic macro course. (nor would I bet could it be easily taught without the underlying ground of basic macro).
November 15, 2011, 5:28 pmberkeley conservative says:
This seems to me a big part of the problem with education today; students only seem to want to “learn” what they already know. When I was an undergrad at Berkeley (with a conservative slant) I actively sought out alternate viewpoints just for the experience — taking “Economics of Marxism” for example. And I was amused when the Communist Revolutionary Youth Brigade commandeered my introductory econ class. Nothing to protest or walk out on.
November 15, 2011, 5:33 pmCletus says:
Just to be clear, there’d be equal jeering here if it were conservative students walking out on a lefty prof’s class, right? Just making sure that this is about misplaced and unwarranted student grievances, and not some dumb shot at lefties.
November 15, 2011, 5:34 pmgooners says:
Really? Overconfidence, knowing it all, and challenging authority always seemed pretty common in teenagers to me.
November 15, 2011, 5:34 pmDennis says:
Tough. Let them drop the course and take a different one. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, take the notes, and be able to regurgitate what the prof said. Or argue against it, but be damnsure you can sustain your argument or learn to like Fs.
November 15, 2011, 5:36 pmJohn says:
I know all teenagers think they know the answers to everything, but my question to these students that walked out is, if you already know the answers why are you going to classes as a student and not teaching them?
November 15, 2011, 5:38 pmThus my suggestion for the professor (although this is probably to hostile for a college campus) is for him to respond by allowing any student who walked out (must be a student) to come teach the class for a day. However, they cannot stand there and give talking points, they must have a substantive presentation. Of course the professor will be asking questions to make sure they truly understand what they are espousing, but that’s probably to confrontational and would bruise the students egos which of course we can no longer allow.
Mark N. says:
I could see this at, say, the University of Chicago (which teaches a highly ideological version of economics), but Mankiw is not even particularly partisan in his economics. Hell, on the Keynesian point, he is broadly some variety of New Keynesian.
November 15, 2011, 5:40 pmGuest13 says:
According to Wikipedia, Mankiw wrote in the NYT: “If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront.”
Hilarious.
November 15, 2011, 5:42 pmDawnsblood says:
They need to learn what their job is as a student in an institution of higher learning. Their job is to attend class, study whatever the professor gives them and repeat it in various assignments. Sadly few if any classes reward original (or preconceived) thought. If they do not like that then take a different class/educator. That is the way it is in almost every classroom these days.
November 15, 2011, 5:43 pmEric says:
“As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics”
Perhaps they are hampered in this regard because Harvard’s moribund library system has no access to such materials. Thus, even if they wanted to, these poor victims would be unable to look up academic journals and “primary sources” on their lonesome.
I had a similar conversation with my engineering professor– after all, when I signed up for a survey course, I wanted the latest academic articles, as well as primary sources– parchment paper where available.
Without these essentials for a freshman course, I was simply unable to grapple with what REALLY knocked over the World Trade Center. Fortunately, advanced theorists on YouTube were able to help me uncover the truth.
Still. If Harvard can’t design its survey courses to reinforce the belief system of those taking the courses, it’s time to consider disbanding the institution.
November 15, 2011, 5:46 pmTed says:
Well, 1 out of 3 is pretty good. Extra points for stating your position in a confident, knowledgeable way though.
And my question to you: Is there an epistemological difference between knowing everything and knowing nothing? If you question what someone knows, are you really suggesting that you know?
Lots of condescending attitudes to some of the most high-achieving students in the country. Why is that?
November 15, 2011, 5:55 pmShelbyC says:
I wonder how much of the material they missed will be on the exam.
November 15, 2011, 5:55 pmChrisHo says:
Too good to be offended at what they like and too smart to know better.
November 15, 2011, 5:59 pmTed says:
Another! As a duty-shirking student I might ask, “If there are few classes that reward original thought, and almost every class requires rote repetition, how can I find a class that resolves my concerns?”
November 15, 2011, 6:04 pmJohn Regan says:
The letter seems to reflect a relatively unfocused act in solidarity with the whole “occupy” thing. To the extent it has focus, I would guess the reference to “alternative” theories of economics would be a fairer thing to seize on than the reference to Adam Smith and Keynes.
Of course 18 and 19 year olds are pretty ignorant, even at Harvard. But then that’s why they are going to school.
Such incidents would ordinarily be better met with patience, understanding and instruction than disdain or disparagement. At least up to a point. It’s not as if the teacher-learner relationship is entirely one way: the teacher may learn something from the student as well.
Maybe it’s only my opinion for now, but I think the occupy thing is stemming from very, very deep dysfunction in the body politic. The dysfunction is primarily economic, but it’s also even deeper than that.
It might be a good idea to listen, as opposed to responding reflexively with a faintly belligerent assertion of authority, however understandable that may be in some ways.
November 15, 2011, 6:08 pmerp says:
What are the chances a freshman even at Harvard ever had an original thought? Puts me to mind of a professor of computer science at a prestigious college who said he only answers questions he’s never had before. The class moved right along without the usual smart alecs trying to show they were smarter than the teacher.
November 15, 2011, 6:14 pmZack says:
Silly. I had his textbooks for micro and macro in college 10+ years ago and found them well-written and free of bias (from what I remember). They definitely covered Keynesian principles and spent a lot of time on externalities. I remember actually being surprised when I learned that he was such an influential Republican economist.
November 15, 2011, 6:15 pmGreg Q says:
What’s ironic about that? The left has always been the domain of close-minded self-righteous twits who think that the “fact” that they “care” trumps any wisdom from anyone else.
It’s why talk of “epistemic closure” on the right has always been such a farce: it’s just another example of the left’s habit of projecting on others what they actually do themselves. (In 8 years of post-high school classes, I don’t think I ever once had a class taught from a right-wing perspective. I’ve had far too many to count taught from a left-wing perspective.)
November 15, 2011, 6:16 pmDemosthenes says:
It doesn’t to me, though not for any partisan reason. Students these days don’t read syllabi.
Take it from someone who’s in a position to know. Can’t tell you how many questions I’ve had to answer that my students could have answered themselves in thirty seconds by reading the syllabus, rather than waiting several hours for me to respond to their e-mail.
November 15, 2011, 6:19 pmDemosthenes says:
Depends on the reason, in either case. I walked out on two classes in my college career. The first was when the professor insulted my entire area of the country. The second was when the professor decided to open the class by telling George Bush jokes — on September 12, 2001.
Had Mankiw done anything similar, I’d be behind the students. As nothing indicates that he did, they need to grow up.
November 15, 2011, 6:25 pmragebot says:
You can always tell a Harvard man, you just can’t tell him very much.
November 15, 2011, 6:35 pmgab says:
Here’s the course description for Econ 10 (condensed version):
Economics 10 (formerly Social Analysis 10). Principles of Economics
N. Gregory Mankiw, and members of the Economics Department
“Introduction to economic issues and basic principles and methods of economics. Fall term focuses on microeconomics: Spring term focuses on macroeconomics: economic growth, inflation, unemployment, the business cycle, the financial system, international capital flows and trade imbalances, and the impact of monetary and fiscal policy.
Note: Microeconomics (taught in the fall term) is a prerequisite for macroeconomics (taught in the spring term). Students may elect to take only the fall microeconomics course and receive a half-course credit. a required course for all economics concentrators and a prerequisite for higher level courses in economics.”
Now, does anyone care to claim that the students at Harvard didn’t even read the course description?
I’ll stick with my previous conclusion — they knew macro was coming in the spring.
November 15, 2011, 6:37 pmTed says:
Don’t you get it, Gab? They are:
Duh!
November 15, 2011, 6:57 pmgooners says:
Not from me. I say more power to them. Though I don’t know why so many will cede Adam Smith to the right-wing when he wrote about the dangers of income inequality and runaway free marketism.
November 15, 2011, 6:58 pmClark says:
Poor Zywicki. Run out on a rail from Dartmouth’s board after rants about academia’s sickness from which apparently only he and his illustrious brothers on Volokh are immune. And aren’t you going below your paygrade here? Mankiw surely doesn’t have as much wealth, even despite his monopoly control of his students’ textbook, as your favorite institutions that you like to carry water for.
I have no idea what Mankiw’s class is like, or whether this walkout is justified, but I hope his class is not as one-side as his blog world apologetics for right wing talking points on deficits after shepherding Bush’s deficit growth team.
November 15, 2011, 7:07 pmTollhouse says:
gab said: I’ll stick with my previous conclusion — they knew macro was coming in the spring.
You are making the assumption that they even know that Keynesian is macro.
November 15, 2011, 7:08 pmGU says:
Mankiw is a “New Keynesian,” and also a fan of pigouvian taxes (e.g. a carbon tax). What a rabid conservative ideologue!
November 15, 2011, 7:13 pmKazinski says:
When Manikow gets around the Keynes in the 2nd semester they are likely to walk out again when he tells them how Keynes felt about structural deficits.
Keynes would probably attribute the failure of the Obama stimulus to the fact that we were already in long term deficit spending mode. I’m guessing that when they said “for example, Keynesian theory” what they really were thinking of is Marxism, not Keynesism, but they didn’t want to say it out loud.
November 15, 2011, 7:22 pmq says:
What they didn’t know was that Keynes would be taught in the macro half of the course, ’cause you know Keynes is a macroeconomist, otherwise they wouldn’t have made the laughable claim about not enough Keynes.
November 15, 2011, 7:31 pmScott says:
Kick their self indulgant asses off campus with a grade of “F” as a parting gift.
November 15, 2011, 7:34 pmq says:
Actually, the ironic thing was that the class they walked out of was a class discussion on income inequality.
November 15, 2011, 7:34 pmMartinned says:
Same here. Still, I must say I find all this sudden support for the professor surprising. Who knew that the students’ job is to simply shut up and take notes?
November 15, 2011, 7:44 pmBlue says:
I just chalk this up to outrageously unmerited self-regard on the part of kids who attend Harvard.
November 15, 2011, 7:49 pmJason says:
Someone needs to Occupy Mankiw’s Class.
November 15, 2011, 7:51 pmSarcastro says:
Screw the test, grade them on dickishness!
[I lament that they are too self-absorbed to revel in contrariansim. You can learn a lot from a smart guy, even if you think he’s wrong. In fact, for my money it’s more fun that way.]
November 15, 2011, 8:04 pmSarcastro's Little Brother says:
But Mankiw worked for George W. Bush. So he must be evil.
November 15, 2011, 8:23 pmleo marvin says:
Didn’t Mankiw have a dog named “Keynes”?
November 15, 2011, 8:24 pmdunce says:
I fail to understand what they are trying to accomplish. If it is a required course for them they will get an incomplete and have to take the course later. If it is not a required course why sign up in the first place?
November 15, 2011, 8:54 pmAJK says:
The University of Chicago uses Mankiw’s textbook.
November 15, 2011, 9:33 pmbbbeard says:
Hmm. Is this possibly related to http://volokh.com/2010/05/06/the-further-left-you-are-the-less-you-know-about-economicsr/?
November 15, 2011, 10:04 pmcaptcrisis says:
Inside the academy, for the most part, combative conservatives are rebels.
Outside the academy, for the most part, combative conservatives are cosseted and privileged, and are bullies, defending the rich and powerful against the weak and poor.
November 15, 2011, 10:32 pmRicardo says:
And then there is this blog post from 2006 where he notes he includes an estimate in his text book of the fiscal policy multiplier of 1.93.
It’s obvious that in his political commenting Mankiw skews right. I don’t know enough about the content of his teaching to know if there is any ideological bias although I rather doubt it.
November 15, 2011, 10:45 pmRicardo says:
Kazinsky, I know you are trying to be snarky but do you really have no idea of Mankiw’s previous role in government, what his advice to George W. Bush on fiscal policy was and what is role in creating said structural deficits was?
One of the benefits of economics education is to get people to start thinking in marginal terms. To avoid fallacies like this.
November 15, 2011, 10:53 pmjanesmith says:
Ouch. I’d be pretty red-faced to triumphantly wave a study around weeks after the author, with embarrassment and apologies, retracted its claims. The study you’re pointing to contained only basic economics that challenged liberal beliefs, not conservatives beliefs. The authors’ found in a new study that *also* included economics that challenging conservatives and libertarians’ beliefs found that they, like liberals, bombed when economics disagreed with their politics.
The question is, can you ditch selective reasoning and bias enough to acknowledge your error and apologize for your fatuous attack?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/i-was-wrong-and-so-are-you/8713/
November 15, 2011, 11:08 pmRicardo says:
Greg Mankiw from 2003:
(The projections Mankiw refers to turned out to be wrong. The total deficit (including SS surplus) was 3.4% of GDP in FY2003 and 3.2% in FY2008. The deficit went below 2% in 2006 and 2007 but that was because of the economic recovery, not because of any “spending restraint” on the part of government.)
November 15, 2011, 11:11 pmjoe says:
Those damn students! Everyone knows that the way you deal with a professor that isn’t politically neutral is by creating a website denouncing them as an enemy of the nation!
November 15, 2011, 11:41 pmgeokstr says:
Dude, like, that is so, like, you know, 1980s. That’s what the Annenberg Challenge was all about. Get ‘em when they’re still in diapers, and by the time they get to college, they’ll be able to put the condom on the banana correctly, every time, with one hand, in the dark, while reciting the Rules and passages from Das Kapital from memory at the very same time.
November 15, 2011, 11:54 pmGary Britt says:
I don’t know if this applies here, but if a bunch of students signed up for a class with the pre-arranged notion they would walk out and drop the class during the time period it could be dropped without penalty it could have the effect of 1. Denying others the opportunity to take the class and 2. making the class almost empty and perhaps a black eye for the professor of some kind.
Gary
November 16, 2011, 12:21 amVisitor Again says:
Deleted because of format difficulties.
November 16, 2011, 12:48 amVisitor Again says:
Same. Sorry. Will try once more.
November 16, 2011, 12:57 amJohn Skookum says:
Fixed it for ya.
November 16, 2011, 1:03 amJohn Skookum says:
Fixed it for ya.
November 16, 2011, 1:03 amJeffrey Hall says:
Fixed a typo there.
November 16, 2011, 1:05 ambbbeard says:
Thanks for the link. But: what attack? I was merely pointing out that Todd Zywicki has addressed similar topics before, right here at VC. There was a lengthy comment thread discussing the meaning of the B-K study in which I supported the conclusions of the study — and mainstream economics — but called the study itself “flawed”. Here was one of my comments:
In other words, it wasn’t the survey, it was the leftist rebuttal that provided the more substantial evidence for the hypothesis. After reading Klein’s article in Atlantic, I sympathize with his plight, but I suspect his new survey is equally flawed. So neither the original survey nor the follow-up are dispositive for the hypothesis.
Here’s the gist of another comment I made:
I think we know better what the stark contrast means — Klein and Butorovic now assert that their survey is largely an exercise in confirmation bias. The whole episode is a lesson in the difficulty of obtaining objective answers for the questions they have.
The question remains, though: do leftists have a “problem” with economics? I’d say that there is plenty of evidence supporting that hypothesis — including the Mankiw walkout. But the jury is still out. I imagine we shall still be arguing this question a thousand years from now.
Oh, and come on — “fatuous”? Ignorant, maybe, but not fatuous. ;-)
BBB
November 16, 2011, 2:13 amVisitor Again says:
Disdain, if not outright hatred, for young people who dare to question authority has been standard in this country for a long time. At least these students care enough about something serious to take action. The course of action they have chosen might well be unwise, the merits of their position might well be wrong, but they ought to be treated with understanding and decency.
Instead of scoffing at protesting students and condemning them from the outset as the default approach–one apparently endorsed by most of the commenters here–why not try treating them with respect and discussing their grievances with them? Why not show them what tolerance really means and how civilized and mature citizens treat dissent?
Peremptory dismissal of student grievances accompanied by the usual expressions of scorn or hatred is the best way to ensure escalation of the conflict. Even in the 1960s and 1970s, protesting students, including the most radical, seldom turned their backs on sincere attempts to discuss things with them.
But I must say I’m not in the least surprised to see the attitude of the vast majority of commenters on the Volokh Conspiracy and of Todd Zywicki, the author of the main piece, is to heap scorn on the students and to dismiss their complaints out of hand. Yes, Zywicki, just call them clueless and scoff at them. That’s bound to convince them they’re wrong, isn’t it?
November 16, 2011, 2:19 amRicardo says:
You would have to first define “leftist” and “economics.” My experience is that if I reference an article by Paul Krugman that is more or less straight economics, I get comments back about how I shouldn’t be linking to a “partisan hack” and “a former Enron adviser.” Some even make disparaging comments about his wife, referring to her as an “angry black woman.”
Everyone is free to vent whatever ad hominem arguments they want to against Krugman but the reality is that much of his economics is grounded in fairly standard analysis, albeit definitely an old-school Keynesian version of textbook economics. When attacked on this point, his riposte is simply that he has been mostly right in his predictions while most of his critics have been wrong.
Does this represent “a problem with economics”? I think it does represent a certain worldview that says economics is all just hidden ideology anyway so conservatives might as well just promote whatever economics arguments support their partisan agenda, regardless of whether they have actually been tested against the data or not.
November 16, 2011, 2:31 amJames K says:
Indeed. If that ever happened in my classroom, I’d give the lecture and make it the central theme of the final exam.
November 16, 2011, 2:44 amrequired says:
What the OWS crowd should take from Smith is his rejection of runaway corporations, refer to the section on the East India Company. Smith really, really didn’t like joint stock companies (what most people mean by “corporation” these days) and thought they perverted capitalism.
November 16, 2011, 3:18 amFederal Dog says:
” I find it quite disconcerting that these kids at one of the premier universities in the world are so resistant to having their worldview challenged in even the slightest fashion.”
That is not the whole of the syndrome. They are putting themselves on a very public form of self-display. It’s making a spectacle of themselves that counts, regardless of how ill-informed it is.
November 16, 2011, 6:25 amAllan Leedy says:
Mankiw in his public writings is a shameless and unprincipled partisan hack. In his public service he led this country and the world a long way down the road to ruin. But I’m sure he’s a fine, upstanding teacher.
November 16, 2011, 8:50 amSteveL says:
Of course they did. However, it is likely that none of them actually know that Keynesian economics would be considered macroeconomics. My guess is that they were put up to it by other professors with more Marxist leanings, who don’t like the idea of any class espousing capitalist notions.
November 16, 2011, 8:56 ambadlaw says:
The VC has been lacking in current events/political commentary lately. I know this is a legal blog, but are all of you guys locked up in your offices lately? Rejoin the world.
November 16, 2011, 9:12 ambbbeard says:
Well, that is the problem with their letter and walkout... it’s really very unclear what they think is the alternative to the garden variety microeconomics that Mankiw has been teaching. Once can read all sorts of disreputable variants of economics into their letter. Do they want to learn about Steve Keen (“Debunking Economics”)? Do they think Karl Marx deserves an at-bat? They only alternative they mention is Keynes, who is discussed in the macroeconomics part of the course. So what do they want?
There may be something in what you say. I have noticed that people (alas, including myself at times) tend to cling to economic paradigms as if they really were laws of nature. There is a degree of belief in things like “supply and demand” that approaches a level that can only be explained by ideology.
November 16, 2011, 9:18 amSykes Five says:
Add me to the list of persons distressed at the students’ dismissal of Adam Smith as some kind of modern right-winger. Smith was to my mind revolutionary for explaining why poverty was not the fault of the poor’s lack of industry but rather the structures the rich had set up to maintain their wealth and power, frustrating that industry. Smith also called taxes a “badge of liberty” and thought the rich should pay more than their share (i.e., progressive taxation). I think–though I may be misremembering this–he explained why, with a regressive tax structure, no one can ever get richer, because the system so heavily favors the already-rich.
It is unfortunate, then, that students are protesting their idea of what Smith might have said, when they could discover Smith and see that he actually supported some of their positions. That is, if they have positions.
November 16, 2011, 9:43 amJoe Photon says:
Intelligence is no substitute for judgment. One of the most deflating lessons of my adult life.
November 16, 2011, 9:48 amMnZ says:
Because they have already shown themselves to not be interested in dialogue. If you read their letters, you notice two things — laziness and close-mindedness. They didn’t bother to find out that Mankiw would be teaching several classes on Keynes in the second semester. They didn’t bother to figure out that Mankiw was a neo-Keynesian. They criticized Mankiw because he had said that the goals of economic efficiency can be at odds with the goal of economic quality. (They even admit he used the words “can”.) I could go on, but in my opinion, these students have an issue with any professor who will entertain the notion that certain views held by the students are wrong.
Sometimes you need to perform educational triage, dismiss the students that refuse to make it, and move on to the students who are willing to work and learn.
November 16, 2011, 9:49 amW. J. J. Hoge says:
To reopen an earlier can of worms ...
I wonder how many of the students are STEM majors? How many have come to the university to study the real world as it is (perhaps with a goal of learning how to remake it), and how many have come to study the world as others have imagined it to be?
November 16, 2011, 10:07 amGOOCH says:
Clearly, you aren’t a teacher. D.GOOCH
November 16, 2011, 10:08 amGOOCH says:
Depends on why they walked out. If they walked out of a class called “Marxism and Class Conflict” because the class was about revolutionary communism and seemed to spend a majority of its time on the theories and ideas of one Karl Marx, then yeah, those are misplaced and unwarranted student grievances worthy of derision and ridicule.
It’s not that they walked out on a professor–it is WHY they walked out that makes all the difference. D.GOOCH
November 16, 2011, 10:14 amGOOCH says:
Keynes is well to the Right of the campus Left.
NB: I’m not going to comment on the UofC attack except to say that you ought to back that up with something if you’re going to disparage the well-respected economists who teach at UofC.
D.GOOCH
November 16, 2011, 10:18 amGOOCH says:
Now there is some “A” quality snark right there. D.GOOCH
November 16, 2011, 10:21 amGOOCH says:
Then rather than being foolishly ignorant, they were gob-smackingly stupid.
That’s your defense of them? With friends like you...
D.GOOCH (NB: I’m sure far fewer read the course description as opposed to the syllabus, and it would shock your socks off to see how many students skip that)
November 16, 2011, 10:26 amGOOCH says:
Strange, here I thought there might be something between shutting up and taking notes and petulantly walking out on a course for not teaching you things the class isn’t supposed to cover. D.GOOCH
November 16, 2011, 10:30 amAsher says:
A truly rightwing class would involve something like advocating for the end of female suffrage. If you could distill Smith’s writing to one passage I would say it’s the one where he describes businesses and workers doing things for consumers not out of sentiment but out of the desire to increase their own well-being. The first insight of economics is that people will do something for complete strangers for one of two reasons a) money b) they are forced to. There is no third category, despite all the wailing and moaning on the left about alternative economics.
The left wants to use the power of the state to force me to do all sorts of stuff but wants to use verbal chicanery to insist that, because it’s rooted in compassion, it’s not really force.
Rightwing classes? Get back to me when you find one advocating for the end of female suffrage or another claiming the some ethnic group is not worthy of any moral consideration. Yes, I’m comparing Marxists with the KKK, although I’m being entirely ungenerous to the KKK.
November 16, 2011, 10:44 amAsher says:
My idea of introductory economics is to teach Buchanan’s and Tullock’s Public Choice theories. Those students wouldn’t just walk out, they would soil their panties.
student (n): someone who doesn’t know crap
For those of you wedded to the notion that the academy is a place of enlightened, autonomous investigation I would point out it’s real history.
The Frankfurt School
Cultural Anthropology
Women’s Studies
Ethnic Studies
Social Constructionism
etc etc etc
In retrospect, almost all of the focus of those 60s and 70s students was a load of horse manure. The only reason for the vast bulk of academia, today, is that courts do not apply strict scrutiny in disparate impact. If I, as an employer, use a personality test in hiring that creates a disparate impact by ethnicity I have to affirmatively defend that test. However, courts do not apply the same standard to college degrees. Applying the strict scrutiny standard to college degrees would almost instantly collapse the university system.
November 16, 2011, 10:59 amParadox says:
Most students aren’t bright enough to read the syllabus, speaking from experience. Or read instructions on exams. This regardless of SAT score or smarts in general.
November 16, 2011, 11:07 amSparky says:
But Adam Smith’s theories were as “fundamental” and “basic” as you can get. I mean, the dude was basically the world’s first economist.
November 16, 2011, 11:10 amMAM says:
Considering Mankiw’s track record and the general record of present-day conservative economic thought, those students are pretty wise to protest the teachings of someone who has advocated ideas that, when tested, didn’t turn out so well for college graduates, let alone the country. That Mankiw was a part of the political apparatus that instituted many of his ideas further gives license to the students to walkout.
Conservative economic thought has had their day in court for the past 30 years and the record has not been kind.
November 16, 2011, 11:23 amRicardo says:
No. First, fundamental economic theory (and common sense) says people pursue utility and that money is just one of several possible means to that end. Moreover, you can still believe your above statement if you choose but you certainly cannot attribute it to Adam Smith, author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments.”
November 16, 2011, 11:23 amMnZ says:
Well, if you want to play “us-vs-them,” let’s compare the effects of “left” economic thought over the past 100 years to “right” economic thought.
Wait...wait...why are you walking out? Was it something I said?
November 16, 2011, 11:30 amMAM says:
We had the greatest downturn since the Great Depression. We’ve had the most ideologically conservative economic policies since the Guilded Age. A prime architect of current policies prior to the Great Recession, a political appointee, is now teaching policies that had a not-so-small role in crafting these economic policies. Young Harvard students, who currently have the bleakest job prospects in generation and see income inequality that is wasn’t seen since the 1920’s, walkout of one day’s class from an architect of this meltdown.
Way to hold people accountable, I say.
Good for them.
November 16, 2011, 11:46 amAcademic says:
The real issue is that intro to econ (and a lot of undergrad econ) teaches wrote memorization of theory. This misleads many students (and anyone whose knowledge of econ is around the 101 level) to treat theory as fact as misapply it to real life situations without even thinking of whether the theory has been tested, or considering reasons why the theory may or may not hold in situation x.
Econ departments could learn from history departments. Any decent history department does not teach undergrads to memorize textbook descriptions. Instead, they start by “doing History” from Day 1 in intro classes — analyzing primary sources to understand how history is constructed.
Of course, “doing economics” is more difficult because it involves a lot of math that 101 students probably do not have. So I don’t expect econ to be able to teach “doing economics” from day 1. However, it would go along way if econ 101 presented the theory as theory and spent more time discussing the assumptions behind the theory, when they may or may not hold, and assigning or suggesting some primary sources on the academic debate. Also, the undergrad curriculum should get students into econometrics much earlier... perhaps 102.
In addition, econ 101 could do a better job with the examples it uses it presenting the theory. The classic example of a price floor presented in econ 101 is the minimum wage. This may be true at some level. However, it’s debatable whether the minimum wage as actually practiced in reality has had this effect (see Card and Krueger and the debate around their work). Yet there are thousands of econ 101ers out there (including some on this blog) talking about the minimum wage reducing employment. So perhaps econ 101 should find a better example.
November 16, 2011, 11:54 amMarcus says:
I like this thread. It is the equivalent of “You kids get off the Volokh Conspiracy’s lawn! Damn hippies.”
MnZ, other than a distraction from the policies that collapsed our economy and have increasingly concentrated wealth in this country into fewer and fewer pockets, and that stunningly enough continue to be proposed as the solution for our economy, what usefulness would there be in expanding the discussion to cover a 100 years of “economic thought”?
November 16, 2011, 11:56 amAcademic says:
Wait... you’re denying the validity of social constructionism? Do you also deny that the sky is blue? Is water not wet? It also sounds like have a general bias to studying culture — i.e. you don’t believe in the value of describing people as they actually are. And don’t come back at me with “econ is better for describing society” crap because even Milton Friedman acknowledges that the value of econ lies in its predictive power, not it’s descriptive power.
November 16, 2011, 12:04 pmMnZ says:
Marcus, my point is rather simple. You and MAM want to discredit your opponents (and thereby have license to ignore them) by real and perceived failures. However, that line of thinking would almost certainly discredit your allies as well.
Does the fact that government involvement in certain economies resulted in the deaths of millions from starvation discredit government involvement in the economy?
November 16, 2011, 12:06 pmpmorem says:
I agree. The conservative approach to economics has done terribly.
November 16, 2011, 12:09 pmNo Great Leap Forward.
No killing fields.
No Cultural Revolutions.
The Butcher has been deprived.
(/sarc)
Martinned says:
From Paul Krugman’s blog, on Monday:
November 16, 2011, 12:24 pmVisitor Again says:
An excellent illustration of what I wrote in the first senetence of my comment: “Disdain, if not outright hatred, for young people who dare to question authority has been standard in this country for a long time.”
November 16, 2011, 1:21 pmVisitor Again says:
An excellent illustration of what I wrote in the first senetence of my comment: “Disdain, if not outright hatred, for young people who dare to question authority has been standard in this country for a long time.”
November 16, 2011, 1:23 pmFederal Dog says:
“We’re talking about some of the smartest kids in the country right, ...?”
No. People get into Harvard for lots of different reasons, many of them completely unrelated to intelligence.
November 16, 2011, 1:37 pmbbbeard says:
I think part of the criticism here is that they are not so much questioning authority as ignoring it — which is quite a different thing. If the students had engaged Professor Mankiw in a lively in-class discussion, there would be no headlines, because that’s what students are supposed to do. Walking out on class in protest marks you as an intolerant obscurantist and an easy target for ridicule.
The next time you see one of those “Question Authority” bumper stickers, maybe you should say quietly to yourself, “Oh, yeah? Sez who?” .... Just a suggestion.
November 16, 2011, 1:50 pmMaestro Pupi says:
An excellent illustration of what I wrote in the first senetence of my comment: “Disdain, if not outright hatred, for young people who dare to question authority has been standard in this country for a long time.”
That may well be true, but walking out on a professor seems much more like behaving immaturely rather than questioning authority.
Sometimes disdain is the appropriate response.
November 16, 2011, 2:02 pmLTEC says:
To those who say it was conservative policies that caused the recession. Can you please describe things that were all of the following:
1) conservative policies that Reagan and Bush and Bush and Mankiw advocated
2) policies that Clinton and Frank and Dodd and Obama opposed
3) policies that caused the recession.
Please note that I am not interested merely in policies that you happen not to like, but those that all three points above apply to.
November 16, 2011, 2:08 pm(Frank, for example, admitted that he was part of the problem in opposing changes that Bush wanted to make.)
Asher says:
@MnZ
The key modifier was “complete strangers”. People pursue all sorts of utility related to those whom they socially value or identify. I live in Seattle. The only possible interaction I could have with some random person chosen off the streets of, say, Miami, is via money or force.
@Academic
Agreed, all truth claims have a social component. Honestly, though, I don’t see how claims such as “the sky is blue” are even vaguely interesting. But social constructionism ended up going from “all knowledge has a social component” to “we can construct truth to suit whatever fancy we may have”. You ended up with the following types of notions:
All justice is really in service of power ... but we know what real justice is
All morality is a product of social circumstance ... but we have true morality on our side
All cultures are equally valid ... but Western Culture is irredeemably evil
I mean, if truth is really that socially constructed then “no” doesn’t necessarily mean no. Instead of outlawing rape why don’t we just teach women that rape doesn’t harm them. Of course, no one advocates this because no one takes social constructionism seriously, not even its proponents.
Finally, I am not a huge defender of standard economics. According to most economists of all persuasions a country is just fine flooding itself with low IQ immigrant groups — the average of recent entrants through the southern border is about 87 (yes, it’s mostly genetic). So, standard economic theories end up positively analyzing policies that weaken society, in the long run.
November 16, 2011, 2:10 pmMarcus says:
Oh, I see.
Here is some unsolicited and likely to be unheeded advice: Get some perspective. Short term deficit spending, government investment in infrastructure and public/private partnerships are in no way equivalent to the Great Leap Forward, the Killing Fields, or whatever other example you are dreaming up that you believe defends and makes right the failures of American conservative economic policy of the last 30 years. A five percent tax on income over $1,000,000 is not the first salvo in the next Cultural Revolution. And speaking in favor of a fairer economic system, similar to the system we once had that boasted of plenty of wealthy people and a strong middle class, does not make Josef Stalin my ally.
Per. Spec. Tive. Try some.
November 16, 2011, 2:12 pmMarcus says:
Sorry, MnZ, it appears I may have partially miapplied my previous comment. I think what you were mostly saying was, although the policies of the right focusing on tax cuts/giveaways to the wealthy and deregulation of industry have been proven time and time again to not only not provide the promised economic gains but to actually have an adverse effect on our economy, that is insufficient to disregard people who continue to promote those policies. I disagree and refer you to the case of “Same Thing Over And Over v. Expecting Different Results.”
November 16, 2011, 2:23 pmpmorem says:
Marcus,
That’s my comment you’re objecting to, not MnZ.
From where I stand, Mankiw is a leftish statist.
If Mankiw is so far ‘right’ that it’s appropriate to walk out on his class, then you and I really have no common perspective on politics or how the world works.
You may think there are nuances and differences between your views and those of Mao, but I see only the delusions of useful idiots.
November 16, 2011, 2:25 pmClark says:
Your moderation in omitting Stalin, Hitler, Satan, and Obama (but I repeat myself) is worthy of much praise and admiration.
November 16, 2011, 2:27 pmq says:
The Great Recession is a symptom of conservative averseness against inflation (a view Mankiw does not share), not tax cuts or deregulation. Standing up to Mankiw, who mostly agrees with the likes of Krugman and DeLong regarding the solution to our economic woes, is counterproductive.
November 16, 2011, 2:32 pmq says:
The Great Recession is a symptom of conservative averseness against inflation (a view Mankiw does not share), not tax cuts or deregulation. Refusing instruction from Mankiw, who mostly agrees with the likes of Krugman and DeLong regarding the solution to our economic woes, is counterproductive.
November 16, 2011, 2:32 pmAsher says:
I’m not aware that there is any such thing as a Keynesian, in practice. Did Paul Krugman call for sort term surpluses during boom times? Did anyone propose that? Krugman’s blog is titled “The conscience of a liberal” not “the wonkish policy analysis of an academic economist”.
Even so-called Keynesians agree that marginal curves (i.e. micro) have some behaviorally predictive value. But does anyone actually advocate countercyclical policy (i.e. macro), in a thoroughgoing manner? If not, why teach Keynes, since no one actually has any use for what he actually said?
November 16, 2011, 2:33 pmKoan says:
I took Ec-10 about twelve years ago when Martin Feldstein was teaching it (albeit with Mankiw’s textbook). I found it a fairly good introduction to economics, with a bit of a supply-side bent, and suffering from all the problems that 900-student introductory survey courses typically have.
I do remember being surprised at how vehement many of the students were that they already understood economics, and how rigidly they held their respective ideological positions. Things got pretty heated in the sections between rival factions. I remember thinking, “we’re 18 year old freshmen, we don’t actually know a goddamn thing about economics, which is why we’re taking this course in the first place.”
But that’s the thing about most Harvard students. They got some good grades in high school (or attended the right prep school or had the right ancestors), which they interpret as a license for an immense self-regard that never, ever dies. I’m largely out of touch with my college classmates, but now and again I encounter people who place a huge emphasis on the mere fact that they went to Harvard (or Yale or where have you) in their early twenties. I always want to say, dude, that achievement signifies that you were good at high school, nothing more. It says nothing about the kind of person you are or your fitness for any particular job or life endeavor.
November 16, 2011, 3:40 pmJohn Regan says:
Maybe generally, but not always. When axioms are being challenged, something more than “lively discussion” is sometimes required, especially when dealing with those, like professors, who are very wedded to the axioms. A one time walkout with a letter explaining the reason(s), however imperfectly, is a restrained and moderate exclamation point. And in that respect it is more mature and thoughtful than the disparaging and dismissive responses that some have offered.
Just sayin’.
November 16, 2011, 4:10 pmPrometheeFeu says:
Even more amusing: Mankiw is a prominent Neo-Keynesian. He founded the Pigou Club which advocates a carbon tax as a way to reduce emissions. Sure, he’s not a classical Keynesian like Krugman, but I seriously doubt that the students in question even know the difference. I most definitely didn’t know the difference halfway through my first micro-economics semester, or even by the end of my intro to economics class.
November 16, 2011, 4:23 pmClark says:
I think the walkout is more sensibly seen as a protest against Mankiw’s public apologetics for right wing talking points now while enabling Bush’s runaway spending earlier in the century. I don’t know whether Mankiw’s teaching is as unmoored from principals as his role as a blogger and republican hack, but would hope that it hews more to the scholarship for which he was respected.
November 16, 2011, 5:55 pmMnZ says:
Your contention that tax cuts and deregulation have never provided benefit to our economy? Seriously? Really? You do realize that this statement is empirically false (e.g., airline and trucking deregulation, Kennedy tax cuts)?
No serious economist — right or left — would make such a blanket assertion about taxes or regulation. Clearly, taxes and regulation can provide benefits but potentially introduce costs. Balancing the countervailing effects is issues one of the keys to good public policy. Denying that the trade offs exists is for the naive and the partisan hacks.
November 16, 2011, 7:03 pmRicardo says:
Yup.
Paul Krugman, August 26, 2001
November 16, 2011, 10:04 pmGOOCH says:
The first point is debatable. The second is laughable. D.GOOCH
November 17, 2011, 10:26 amPrometheeFeu says:
Can you tell us the “right wing talking points” he is pushing? He founded the Pigou Club, advocates easy money and supports fiscal stimulus to boost aggregate demand. Somehow, I think the likes of Perry and Caine will be surprised to learn they want a carbon tax, the fed to print more money and the federal government to boost aggregate demand.
November 17, 2011, 3:04 pmRicardo says:
Two recent examples:
A blog post implying that PPACA has increased business uncertainty and that this may be the reason for the slow/non-existent recovery.
A blog post arguing that the increase in the top 1%‘s share of income can be explained by increasing returns to education.
These are both talking points that are popular among those on the right side of the ideological spectrum. If Mankiw were to back either of these posts with data or citations to the relevant economics literature, that would be a welcome addition to the discussion. Instead, though, he relies on unproven assumptions [what actual evidence is there that uncertainty is actually behind slow job growth? if the top 1% are mostly well-educated people, why is this not evidence of education interacting with lots of other factors rather than evidence of increasing returns to education?] to make these arguments sound much more convincing than they actually are.
November 17, 2011, 11:52 pmProfNickD says:
It’s typical today that 18-year-old muttonheads would even presume to understand what would constitute bias in an economics course.
Would they know what constitutes bias in an 18th century French literature course? A molecular biology course? A phys ed course?
November 18, 2011, 2:44 amPrometheeFeu says:
You might want to re-read the two posts. The claims he makes are much tamer than what you appear to be reading in them.
On the issue of income inequality, the claim he makes is that education shifts you to a different income distribution with a much longer tail and that the tail has been growing longer and longer. He links to another post where he explains his reasoning a little more thoroughly. All he does here is explain how Krugman’s data does not actually contradict the claim that education is an important factor in inequality.
He does not actually say that the PPACA increases uncertainty and destroys jobs. He says that Keynes may have said so. But he obviously meant to make a point with that quote. So let us grant that he agrees with what the quote implies. But then, we must now see that Mankiw believes the PPACA to be “wise and necessary Reform” which just came at the wrong time. Hardly a right-wing talking point.
“what actual evidence is there that uncertainty is actually behind slow job growth?”
Well, there is the work of Robert Higgs on uncertainty which is pretty compelling.
“if the top 1% are mostly well-educated people, why is this not evidence of education interacting with lots of other factors rather than evidence of increasing returns to education?”
Because that is what “increasing returns to education” is. Or to be more accurate, it is one of the things that “increasing returns to education” can mean. And it is exactly what Mankiw is saying.
Finally, economists all rely upon unproven assumptions. If their assumptions were proven, they would not be assumptions.
November 18, 2011, 7:28 pmSk says:
Why do we even know about this? I don’t know how large introductory economics classes at Harvard are (30? 100?) but it has made in effect national news when 10 kids in one class walked out? Why do we know, why do we care, why are you creating a blog post about it, why are there so many comments?
If the MSM can create a story out of this, its no wonder they can throw elections the way they do.
Sk
December 5, 2011, 10:22 amChrisIowa says:
IIRC, 700 for the lecture.
December 5, 2011, 11:17 amChrisIowa says:
From the letter of complaint: “As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics.”
Every collegiate textbook I’ve seen has a section called “references” where the primary sources can be found. They can actually be followed up on the student’s own initiative. The above quote comes across as from a bunch of lazy supposed students that want to be spoon-fed everything.
What I found as a student when I did that follow-up that the textbook had differences from the references, sometimes subtle and sometimes not, and professors were very willing to discuss those differences. It was way back in the olden days, but I doubt much has changed.
December 5, 2011, 11:32 am