THE CASE FOR REQUIRING ECONOMICS.

The Pope Center enlists two economists from Ball State.  Cecil Bohanon for the affirmative.

Economists in an academic setting have the unique ability and obligation to offer good economic analysis. Heaven knows there are many non-economists quite willing to offer bad economic analysis. Indeed, most issues discussed on a college campus cry out for economic insights. Providing these insights is part of our job, even if we are not likely to persuade everyone of the wisdom of our thinking. All we can do is offer educational opportunities—we cannot assure they will be appreciated. But we know they will not be appreciated if they are not aired.

He suggests the effort is for nought, to the extent that the students are unprepared.

Economic lessons do not come easy to most; mastering economic concepts requires discipline and effort far beyond that usually exerted in other principles-level courses. To mix some metaphors, economists may be called to cast our bread on the waters but we should not be casting our pearls to the swine. Well, maybe not swine—but at least not to the unprepared. Nevertheless, I do not see economists primarily as technicians for policy wonks, but rather as critics and educators ever mindful of Fredrich Hayek’s words that “the curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

That task can be made simpler if the professor treats an introduction to economics as an introduction to economics, rather than an opportunity to present dozens of figures and thousands of concepts (yes, somebody did once count all the concepts in one of those macro-micro hardbacks to come up with those numbers).

Marilyn Flowers, for the negative, appears to be struggling with the nature of that opportunity.

Every graduate would have to pass a course in economics. Many of today’s students would find that very hard to do given the level of rigor currently present in most economics courses.

There are two possible responses.  One is to let the economics course weed out 20 percent or more of matriculates.  The other is to lower the level of rigor so that more students can pass.  Given that tuition and fees account for ever-increasing proportions of college revenues, the pressure to keep students in college and collect their money as long as possible is irresistible.  The resulting pressure on economics faculty to “dumb down” their courses will also be irresistible. Most students don’t want tough courses, and we in higher education tend to give them what they want.  We already have too many “easy” courses in the curriculum.  A requirement that all students pass an economics course will only add to the problem.

There's nothing wrong with state universities using introductory courses (calculus or organic chemistry or economics or logic) as weeders. At the same time, it doesn't follow that stripping out some of those figures and most of those concepts is dumbing down the course.  Opportunity cost is fundamental, and Robert Frank's 2005 column on whether teaching faculty gets it is still current.  Scarcity, trading for mutual gain, and specializing by comparative advantage are also fundamental, and there are ways to make sure that beginners get these ideas, none of which are in any way trivial.

I'm hopeful that the New York Times forum on teaching economics didn't air on April Fool's Day for that reason.