Today, similar to most days that I have intermediate macroeconomic theory class, I walk out frustrated. The lecture is intriguing because it involves the whole economy and it provides ways of thinking about and describing the way the world works. It is exciting to think that I am learning something everyday that directly corresponds to real current events like the Fed’s actions [to cut interest rates] and efforts [to slow declining economic growth rates]. Though the topic is interesting and I love the challenge of trying to figure out what can be done, I dislike the way we are taught to think about the issues.
I feel like I am not being taught to think, but rather I’m being taught one theory’s approach to the problem. This one approach can theoretically guide the economy back to equilibrium and to a state of continuous economic growth. It is frustrating because to make the theory work, we have to make outrageous assumptions. Today, we had to make the assumption that prices are fixed.
At one point in class, we were trying to see what would happen in the economy if output was “too low”. We started by supposing changes in money supply and how that would affect interest rates and ultimately consumption and investment – but through all of this we had to assume that prices remained constant. So, I raised my hand and asked a question trying to point to the unrealistic nature of the assumption. I cited the current increases in raw materials and food prices across the economy and therefore voiced my discontent with the assumption that in our current economy obviously didn’t hold. The professor answered my question by saying, “Well, today we are just learning the Simple Keynesian Model…We’ll get to that later.” This is a response that I have often gotten repeatedly. While I understand that we need to first learn the basics, I feel like it is important to be able to critically engage unrealistic assumptions as they are made and to discuss potential alternative assumptions. I have never seen this done in one of my required economics courses at Notre Dame.
At the intermediate theory level—the highest level required (and offered) in the Notre Dame undergraduate economics curriculum—one would assume that a student could critically think about the theory and try to really engage in a discourse with it. Unfortunately, my experience makes me think this isn’t possible at Notre Dame. My efforts in trying to critically engage the lecture material presented in class feel futile.
As a result, I’m trying to start a discussion/learning group with others in my macro class to try to prepare in such a way that we can critically engage the theory. If my efforts continue to be futile, I think one of the purposes of QUEST ND will be further affirmed: students taking courses in the undergraduate economics curriculum at Notre Dame aren’t actually learning to think critically about the field of economics. Instead, they are being taught to absorb and regurgitate the neoclassical theory, and in the process being discouraged from engaging in meaningful discourse with other schools of economic thought.
As a result, I think students of economics at Notre Dame are being stripped of the opportunity to engage in the pursuit and sharing of truth. Furthermore, economics students are being marginalized as their professors discourage them from taking part in a forum where, through free inquiry and open discussion, students can pursue a genuine education.
“What the University asks of all its scholars and students, is not a particular creedal affiliation, but a respect for the objectives of Notre Dame and a willingness to enter into the conversation that gives it life and character. Therefore, the University insists upon academic freedom that makes open discussion and inquiry possible.”
- ND Mission Statement http://nd.edu/aboutnd/mission-statement/
If you are interested in helping me hold the University accountable to its mission, especially in the economics department, which has undergone (and continues to undergo) substantial changes, please email me and I can add your name to our QUEST ND listserv.
Felipe
QUESTnd@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think the problem, Felipe, is the way the curriculum is set up. Principles and Intermediate classes are intentionally structured as having 40-60 students, primarily lectures, with only occasional feedback. To be honest, I am not even sure how productive real critical dialogue would be in this setting. I think profs owe it to the students to address concerns raised (and in this case, I found Waller's response satisfying, because we will get to see what happens when prices are more flexible). However, I think for real discussion to occur, it needs to be in a setting that is built for that. Obviously, that is why I support making a curricular class that addresses these concerns directly and, being a smaller size ideally, allows for full engagement.
I don't think this is a justification for the way the curriculem is currently set up, but I think my feeling bears mentioning.
When I was learning intermediate macro, I was having enough trouble just grasping the material as it was taught to me with the simplifying assumptions. I feel like if I had tried to engage the material tearing these assumptions down, it would have been counterproductive b/c I would have been in over my head.
I don't know if a curriculem can be created in which a more realistic analysis of the material can be combined with going at a pace students can keep up with, but I think it's important to realize that both are instrumental to the education of aspiring economists.
Post a Comment