Which brings to mind a good question — why not require the entire country to take an introductory economics course? If everyone had to learn a little basic, non-calculus economics it seems to me that that would be a very worthwhile investment.
I agree- it would be great. Except the NEA would probably never allow it.
1.) No one will be able to agree what to teach in the course. Economics is just as politicized as everything else these days. I am sure Matt remembers the Truman quip:
“GIVE me a one-handed economist. All my economists say, ‘on the one hand…on the other.'”
2.) If there is going to be a national requirement for an introductory economics course, there will be the need to test the results of that course. This alone is enough to make the NEA oppose it, let alone the other issues that will arise. In between the wails that ‘We aren’t teaching the children to learn, but we are teaching to the test,’ claims that the test was racist or Euro-centric would arise, etc.
3.) What would you do if people failed the test?
4.) Can basic economic principles be taught to people in schools dominated with students who can not perform fundamental math or read at a 3rd grade level?
I think one of the problems with people like Matt is that he has had too good of an education- the Dalton School, Harvard. I am certain that if he is not already applying, in a few years he will be applying to and will be accepted to a prestigious graduate school to further his studies. And because he is that intelligent and will be that fortunate, he will never truly fathom what goes on in education departments around the country. He will never truly grasp the institutional inertia i public schools, never truly understand the NEA, never understand the built-in obstacles that impede ANY change in schools.
Having said all that, it still is a worthy goal.
willyb
Your quote about the one-handed economist reminded me of another truism that I have heard: “Economists and weather forecasters are the only two professions where you can be wrong most of the time and still keep your job.” Maybe we should extend that truism to include media editors/writers?
Rick
John,
Such a curriculum would be great, as it would give kids even at the bottom of the current social ladder a blueprint for escape: learnong the value of saving and investing.
Which, of course, is another reason the DNC-nthralled…excuse me, “empassioned”…NEA would oppose it.
Cordially…
Francis W. Porretto
Time was (1967), there was an Introductory Economics Survey offered to seniors in New York high schools. It wasn’t mandatory, but nearly everyone in my senior class took it. I’d have thought something like it would be common, if not then, then by now.
poormedicalstudent
to rick above, there is no value in saving, there is only value in investing (inflation can destroy savings, but not necessarily affect prudent investing).
i don’t agree that we should make economics mandatory. economics is a social science, and lends itself to being perverted by the individual teaching it. how about we teach finance instead. if kids knew about REITs, 401ks, ROIs, balance sheets, etc. they would be much better off in the real world. as it is though, most people buying homes and ‘investing’ in their 401ks have no fukking clue.
Rick
Poormed,
Fine by me. But still, the so-called progressives would be against it.
Cordially…
Terry
I haven’t read all of Mattt’s post, but I’m inclined to agree with the view expressed by “poormedicalstudent.” God knows, the kind of economics that Matt would likely want implanted in all our kids heads would probably resemble the philosophy of so-called economist, Paul Krugman.
Gregory Litchfield
You mean public schools DON’T offer introductory econ courses anymore? I graduated high school in 1996, and every student was required to take a econ course. It was fairly difficult for most people, if I recall correctly. My ECON 101 course (Intro. to Marcoeconomics) at Hamilton College one year later was actually mildly easier. Of course, I really didn’t learn much of anything new, so it was purely rudimentary.
Wow. I had no idea the NY State Board of Regents had suck high standards.
Gregory Litchfield
Damnit! I meant “had such high standards.” Preview is your friend, etc.
The sentence as it currently standards does, however, express a certain truth.
RW
Matt talked about school?
Go figure….
Toren
Personally, I’d like to see Law as a mandatory course starting in high school. The rest of your life will see you signing contracts, legal documents, insurance policies, etc etc etc that only a lawyer could hope to really comprehend.
I mean, they spend years teaching kids algebra that 99.9% will never use again after they graduate. The Law is in my face damn near every day just as part of life.
One would almost think there is a conspiracy to keep the proles legally ignorant so they can be quietly screwed.
Ken Hahn
I’d prefer to start more simply. A basic math course would be nice.
Kathy K
I’ve taken economics. On the one hand, basic economics is a good thing to be familiar with. On the other hand there are so many theories that some people might end up more confused than they are already.
On the third hand, I think Ken Hahn has a better idea. Let’s teach them basic math first.