----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
The following points come to mind in response to the interesting comments 
made by Jorgen Elkjaer and Chas.Anderson. 
 
Both Elkjaer and Chas. Anderson argue that texts such as Smith's _Wealth of 
Nations_ are best left until students have had more exposure to modern 
Economics and related social science disciplines. 
 
I would argue that there is a now or never aspect to teaching classic texts 
to college Freshmen. For many students, perhaps the only opportunity they 
will ever have to read classic social science texts first hand is in 
general education courses and freshman seminars. 
 
Both Elkjaer and Anderson argue that specialist knowledge is required on 
the student's part to understand these texts and on the instructor's part 
to teach them.  I suppose honest people can disagree on this. Looking it 
from the standpoint of students, I would argue that texts like Smith's 
_Wealth of Nations_ and Plato's _Republic_ speak to us as human beings and 
that a reasonably intelligent person should be able to get a great deal out 
of reading these texts without any commitment to specialize in say 
economics or political philosophy. From an instructor's viewpoint, might 
not  opportunities to teach freshman seminars and similar general education 
courses help provide some breaths of fresh air in what  at least a few of 
us might think is a stifling intellectual atmosphere associated with 
academic hyper-specialization? 
 
Given the high intellectual opportunity costs involved in undergrad 
freshmen's attention span, it could argued that their time is better spent 
reading Smith and Plato first hand than in such secondary treatments such 
as say Heilbroner's _Worldly Philosophers_. 
 
In fact, I wonder whether it is the case that there is more reluctance to 
assign classic texts first hand in lower level courses in the social 
sciences than in the Humanities. I am not sure on this. But if 
Shakespeare's plays can be routinely assigned in high school (as they were 
at my public high school) and presumably in lower level undergrad college 
literature courses, why not Adam Smith and Plato in lower level social 
science courses? 
 
Let me reiterate that I think there is ground for legitimate disagreement 
on these points. I just couldn't resist explaining why I apparently see 
things differently than Jorgen Elkjaer and Chas Anderson. 
 
David Mitch 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]