With the end of semester, it seems like a good time to reflect upon the state of "teaching" economics. The New York Times recently collected several different views on reforming the introductory course (and Blinder expands a bit more on the Macro component here. In a more dated piece, The Economist put together a forum with a more general focus on economic education, while a very different alternative view is espoused by "Econ4: Changing The Way We Look At Economics". On a more focused note, a group sponsored by INET has recently set-up a curriculum committee to develop an alternative undergraduate curriculum for an Economics degree.
While some of the advocates for curriculum reform seem to be mathphobes and/or socialists, others raise more reasoned concerns about both the coverage of material and the skill set that economic students should be exposed to. Is there scope for us to tweak our programs so as to improve them? Is there a risk of some institutions adopting flawed reforms of their curriculum?
PS: As a quick follow-up to an earlier FUBar, I have attached an update on the evolution of Honduras and Romer’s city (see "Who Wants to Buy Honduras").
