What kind of grades do you make?

Post Reply New Topic

Right, well, let me explain a bit. I actually enjoy economics, but this economic "history" class could not be classified as economics, unless one is referring to a "Capitalism=bad/Socialism=good" kind of economic theory. Basically what we did was trace "inequality" back to the stone age and how basically Capitalists have been taking advantage of the poor indigent hunter/gatherer societies since the dawn of time.

I signed up for the class under the erroneous assumption that we would be discussing the history of economic thought in the United States; I kept in the class because the teacher was especially interesting to listen to simply because she loved what she was teaching. And I think she and I both saw similar problems, but our solutions to the problems were diametrically opposed to one another.

I would describe the class as an introduction to Marxism, actually. The "textbook" was actually a horrible bit of writing by Comrade Zinn entitled "A People's History of the United States." It is terrible; read "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson instead.

A little of everything. If I wasn't such a bad math student though I would be on a much quicker path to transfering.

Well, yeah, sounds annoying I mean, at the very least it would be nicer to know what you'd get before hand. At my school there is a class for Austrian economics called "Market-process economics" and it has in its description that it does consist of Austrian critiques of central planning and etc. Having a class specifically with Marxism would also be fine with me as well, so long as the that is addressed in the title or course description.
Let's see, American economic thought pretty much has the following schools right? I am just curious if I remember them. There is the American School, which I think is based off of Henry Clay, and the Whig party ideas(I think), which includes tariffs and things of that nature. There are the apologists, who I think include John Bates Clark and who argue for capitalism and also do so on moral grounds I think. There are the Institutionalists who took in ideas from other studies such as sociology and whose school was left-leaning with the last major Institutionalist likely being J. K. Galbraith. There was Technocracy which was supported by Institutionalist Thorstein Veblen and semi-popular during the depression. Then Neo-classical and Keynesian economics came to America I think, with FDR to some extent and possibly somewhat during the war I can't remember if neo-classical and Keynesian theories came together though, I'd think that they would because Keynes built off of pre-existing thought. Then the Chicago school and monetarism rose to prominence under Friedman, although the Chicago school existed earlier under Frank Knight but he was not the market activist that Friedman was. More recently we had the rise of supply side economics, led by minds such as Arthur Laffer and by conservative economists. I think that is everything.... but I can't remember. It would be pretty awesome to take a class on it all though.
Yeah, that book was certainly biased. There are books specifically on the economic history of the US that could be used. I bought this one book at a library sale at my school, I have yet to read it though, I think it just goes on about economic developments of the US more so than the economic schools of thought and such.

I wish I had Austrian classes at my school, or at least one Austrian professor in the department. I guess it's good that I have at least one pro-relatively-free-market economist...

I would love to take a class specifically on Marxism, so long as it is well-rounded "this is what Marx said, this is what others say about Marx, this is what the world shows about Marx" kind of deal.



Yeah! I had forgotten about Veblen. I would say that there has been a melding of neo-classical and Keynesian thought, athough Keynesian economics came first around FDR. And it WOULD be awesome to take a class on it all--or an entire year or four year degree on it all!



That sounds completely fun to read. You'll have to tell me what the title is--maybe I've read it.

I really don't know if they currently are offering it. I also don't know too much about the Econ department at my school as I have yet to take a class. I know that there is a supply-sider and there used to be another conservative economist who has a book on public policy on the internet, so based upon what I know and what area of the country I live, I would guess that it would be relatively free-market.
That would be sort of interesting to see the theoretical basis and the empirical evidence related to Marxism from a well-rounded viewpoint. Really, I think that a well-rounded viewpoint is good for all classes, especially economics. After all, economists are supposed to be able to see both sides.
Well, Veblen has more influence on sociology than economics. The only thing I remember hearing about economics relating to Veblen was about the Veblen good, but I think most of his ideas are rejected by economists, especially because he was sort of pro-planned economy. It would be awesome to read up on American economic though. I am not sure I would want to specialize in that though. The only specialist economics degrees I have heard of that I have really agreed with though are the BBA in Econ, something at my school, and possibly the degree about mathematical economic modeling that I know exists at Rice. The reason for the former is because it is likely more practical for money-seekers, and the reason for the latter is because graduate level econ is known for being very math heavy. Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw recommends an amount of math that could only be found through getting a math minor or major if one wants to go to grad school in econ.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/ ... urses.html
I think that most other econ specialist degrees might not be necessary given how one can just get an outside major or minor but then again, if more classes are created to accommodate a particular choice it might not be bad, like maybe "socioeconomics", or "economic history" period not just American(although, you might not really be suggesting just America, you didn't state so, so I didn't assume so), or "legal economics" or "psycho-economics" or something of that nature.


It is a text book and I think that it really does not go into enough theoretical depth to be interesting which is why I haven't read it yet. I don't have it with me though so I can't tell you the name.

Yes, I know that math is a huge requirement for econ graduate programs. I have to take three calculus classes and three stats classes to get a BS in economics. Not very excited about that, but whatever.

Well, yeah, I figured that you knew, I was just qualifying my choice for the Rice program and I didn't know if you knew of all of the stuff on the list. Really?? Wow, my school only requires 2 cal classes and 1 stats class for a BS. I am not going to be able to get a BS at my school though. I think that I would be best served by getting an engineering degree and just minoring in math and econ and doing an engineering and econ double major would likely push back my graduation and I would like to avoid that.

Yeah, it is evil. They are REALLY into the maths. But I guess that gets me prepped for grad school, too. [sigh] To be able to afford to read and think all day, and then write a book. Oh well.

Definitely into the math. It is to the point where major economists have argued that things are too mathematical.

Well, I think we have hijacked this thread, but regardless--I think things are too mathematical as it is impossible to quantify human behavior. Economics is more than just stocks and interest rates.

This was me in high school, and my first attempt at college. I did better at my second attempt at college until I had to drop out for a million reasons. 3rd attempt now, and I've got a 3.82 (of 4.0), and should finish by the end of 2007. Only took 18 years since high school to become a decent student.

I cared not for the style of learning in high school resulting in massive streaks of missed days and just barely arriving to take a test, make an A, then just slide by usually with a C- ...
except for in Mathematics and Sciences which I actually tried to attend usually making an A or occasional B.

I remember the faculty having a meeting for me when I was in eigth grade to decide if they should let me pass with some 60+ days skipped. I guess it was time for some luck to rub off on me. Highschool quickly approached after a summer on LSD, soaring through the cosmos.

Yeah, 8th grade! I skipped for something like 23 straight days before it got questioned and I got busted.

Wow, someone else who's obsessed with Economics like I am! I'm planning on getting a PhD in Econ...but first I gotta finish out High School . Next term I have Econ though, and I'm really excited about it. Have you read "Freakonomics" yet?

Yes, I've read Freakonomics, it has been a while though and I think I found it more of a book of observations but still useful for looking at economic thought. What economics are you taking next term? Are you going to take the AP test? Are you taking advanced math courses? The reason I ask is for the following reasons: the econ class you take is important in determining your background to some extent, taking the AP test will further your goals as well and if you are smart and determined enough you might be able to self-study for whatever econ class you cannot take at your school, finally the last question relates back to the need for advanced math for economics as taking every single math class you can in high school and possibly in college will be helpful in your future as an economist.

I'm in Calculus right now, so I'm set in the math department. The Econ class I'm taking though is just called "Economics." It's probably just the basic principles of it..like supply + demand curves, a brief intro to macro/micro economics, and the like.