Thanks a lot to Robert and Joan for this very interesting conversation. It made me remember, with nostalgia when in in 1969-1971 I taught a three semesters course of Introduction to Economics to undergraduates in Mexico City.
As I had recently gone through a master's degree in Economics at El Colegio de México (as a student) I had the feeling of the uselessness of economics (especially of microeconomics) so aptly now called autistic economics. As I had full freedom to design the programme for three semesters, I decided to do it in a radically different way. So I designed the course as a combination of economic history and history of economic thought, so that by understanding the economic period in which the great thinkers lived, a more profound comprehension of their ideas would be generated. The materials for economic thought were mainly a selection of extracts from the great authors (Adam Smith, Marx, etc.). This was not possible in economic history, so I had to use contemporary books (relying on contemporary authors like Robert Heilbroner and Leo Huberman). Only in the third semester would neoclassical and keynesian economics be introduced.
This was part of a radical educational reform. Students had, in paralell two other courses, (based completely on extracts from great thinkers), one called History of the Political and Social Ideas, and the other called Contemporary Problems of Science and Technology.
Another way of teaching economics is indeed possible!
Julio Boltvinik
Profesor-Investigador de El Colegio de México
http://www.julioboltvinik.org/
As I had recently gone through a master's degree in Economics at El Colegio de México (as a student) I had the feeling of the uselessness of economics (especially of microeconomics) so aptly now called autistic economics. As I had full freedom to design the programme for three semesters, I decided to do it in a radically different way. So I designed the course as a combination of economic history and history of economic thought, so that by understanding the economic period in which the great thinkers lived, a more profound comprehension of their ideas would be generated. The materials for economic thought were mainly a selection of extracts from the great authors (Adam Smith, Marx, etc.). This was not possible in economic history, so I had to use contemporary books (relying on contemporary authors like Robert Heilbroner and Leo Huberman). Only in the third semester would neoclassical and keynesian economics be introduced.
This was part of a radical educational reform. Students had, in paralell two other courses, (based completely on extracts from great thinkers), one called History of the Political and Social Ideas, and the other called Contemporary Problems of Science and Technology.
Another way of teaching economics is indeed possible!
Julio Boltvinik
Profesor-Investigador de El Colegio de México
http://www.julioboltvinik.org/
