----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
This is in response to Fred Lee's informative post: 
 
My comments about UK and continental students (that they were technically well trained but
had not gotten the economic intuition that comes from having principles) was admittedly
based on a small sample, mostly drawn from the
elite universities, though it also included some exchange students here at UNCG, who came
from Hull and who voiced similar complaints. Given Fred's post, my reasoning should be
taken as yet another example of the dangers of relying on inductive methods.
 
When I talked about the political component, I had in mind the situation as it developed
in France. If I understand things correctly, the movement started with students, then some
professors joined the fray, and the focus of the
professors was rather more pointedly political. In the end the discussion apparently got
side-tracked into a debate (one that to my mind is rather banal) as to whether
neoclassical economics equals free market economics, globalization, etc.  If this is too
simplistic a reading ofthe history others will I am sure correct me, but it is the sense
of the situation that I took away from my visit there last year.
 
Much more interesting to my mind are the very points Fred raised at the end of his post -
open-mindedness and theory choice, and more pluralism in the curriculum. These are the
issues that a number of commentators have raised, among them perhaps most eloquently Tony
Lawson.  I fully endorse exploring these issues, and attempted to have a session set up at
the next AEA meetings for a roundtable discussion of the PAE movement. But we missed the
deadline.
 
I found the information about Bernard Corry's brilliant intervention to require inclusion
of heterodox teaching at the polytechnics fascinating. Where is our next Bernard Corry?
 
Bruce J. Caldwell 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]