Good for them. It requires both critical thinking and courage to take such stand. Harvard should be proud of these students.

iugihu

I am taking Principles of Macroeconomics at UGA this semester. We are using Mankiw’s textbook. Introductory textbooks are, by nature, simplified. They are such, of course, to facilitate an understanding of basic vocabulary before qualifications are considered in further studies.

If an introductory textbook author wishes to represent phenomena as beautifully simple graphs brought about by rational Econs, let them. Most of my classmates are too focused on sports to care about the differences between Econs and Humans. Unfortunately, Mankiw presents this overly-simplistic view of the world AND gets involved in political arguments–but presenting only those arguments he likes.

For example, in his chapter, “International Trade”, Mankiw states that one argument of opponents of free trade is the “unfair-competition argument”. If you are going to write two paragraphs on this subject, you should at least mention these three concerns: 1) the environment, 2) human/labor rights (the heinous fatality rate of Chinese miners comes to mind), and 3) governmental subsidizing in attempts to monopolize.

(As an aside, I do not believe that China devalued its currency in an attempt to reduce American manufacturing infrastructure, only to take advantage and raise prices later, as Mitt Romney is saying.)

Unfortunately, Mankiw is more than happy to present only a straw-man argument: governmental subsidization. Of course, Mankiw fails to mention that an aim of this can be monopolization, which does happen with smaller countries/economies. 

This is one of only many straw-man arguments that Mankiw presents. Unfortunately, this letter is a poor argument against Mankiw’s textbook. Hmm…must have been written by a future politician…

Eh… It’s a strong gesture but a little naive.

If they already “knew” which perspectives need to be presented in a course that is short on time and resources, why do they even need to take the course in the first place?

The expectation here is that the student is intelligent enough to realize that introductory economics likely cannot cover all dimensions of the subject. So why not just learn, listen, and critique rather than staging these weakly justified and mercurial protests?

What impudence to question the wisdom of our classical economists who have guided this nation to the heights of prosperity.  Don’t they realize that college is not a democracy?  The point is to learn what you’re told.  And no backtalk!

Apologies to those blessed with more eloquence.

As an academic I do sympathise with the colleague who is now
perhaps thinking “ if only I told them this and left out that…”  etc. 
The joys of making one’s subject accessible giving “a broad and introductory foundation
of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits
and diverse disciplines, which range from…” all in only one module compressed
into the academic timetable.

One is frequently reminded how dangerous a little knowledge
can be.  In the West education has been on
the slippery slope to a situation where soft skills are “developed” at the
expense of knowledge and where people have been “feeling” instead of “thinking”
for decades.  Nations of generalists
instead of specialists and abundant drivel on the internet has enabled many
with a little knowledge to form an “informed” opinion allowing them to believe
what they wanted to believe in the first place. 
In the UK it seems some of the intellectual classes would now have us
all in workers’ collectives. As one of those semi informed I have long believed
that Economics should pay greater attention to Psychology, Sociology and now
also Education.  (UK coalition note the economic
effect of making every civil servant fear for their job with cuts only to come sometime
down the line) Try fitting that into an academic semester! While this letter
might just be proof of why student power is not always a good thing (David Willets
take note please), we are really witnessing (experiencing) and emotional
response to the weaknesses of capitalism. 

A distant (European) relative once said if you are not a
socialist at 18 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 30/40 you
have no brain. It is understandable that many would want to “throw their
toys” in the current economic climate, but it is also clear that the
consequences of the alternatives to capitalism need greater explanation to
those young minds growing up in a post cold war era. (I must add that taking
economics 1 in a “3rd world” country we did look much more than Adam
Smith – those that grew up in the cradle of Communist Russia found that the
only hard thing about choosing Capitalism was explaining it to the uneducated
and naive). We should also not forget that teacher’s and other’s jobs, working
conditions, remuneration, pensions etc are under review in many western countries.
It would be a bit naive to think that the message about capitalism received by impressionable
minds would not be influenced by an emotional response to that and the mistakes
and excesses of the boom years, bankers etc. With populist politicians on the
bandwagon in many countries there seems to be a bit of a mountain to climb.