----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
In fact, if we think this through, the repercussions are potentially much greater than
those pointed out by Barkley, Warren and others.  For example, younger HET scholars coming
up for tenure need to find people in good graduate programs who can serve as external
evaluators for their work.  This is already a problem, but it could get even worse as more
and more scholars who came up under the kind of atmosphere described by Craufurd Goodwin
retire.
 
Also, if we applied the same logic to economic methodologists and those working in
economics and philosophy, they too would be sent to other departments, and the important
conversations and collaborations that go on between historians of economic thought and
these scholars would be greatly reduced.  Often, individuals do work in one or more of
these areas, so what do we do with them?  I'm not sure that the relationship between
economic history and the history of economic thought hasn't been in some ways harmed by
the developments in the former praised by Roy and put forward as a possible model for HE
(although I also am not sure I buy the argument, if I understood it correctly, that
scholarship in economic history is being judged by the standards of history departments--
are we talking about 'cliometrics' here?).
 
Mat  
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]