----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I sympathize with Perry's comment about using fewer authors as the focus 
for upper division HET courses. Ideally, lower level HET would be two 
courses, organized chronologically. My upper level ('Advanced') HET courses 
have used the works of two authors as points of departure for studying 
other seminal articles and contributions. As I mentioned, in one course I 
use The Essential Adam Smith (which familiarizes students not only with 
WON, but TMS, History of Astronomy, and the Lectures, as well) and The 
General Theory (along with the 1937 article "The General Theory of 
Employment" and a few other pieces).  Other readings are introduced 
topically rather than chronologically. So we read Allyn 
Young's "Increasing Returns and Economic Progress," Sraffa's 1925 and 1926 
articles, and other related material when we are reading Smith's chs. on 
acccumulation and technical change, e.g.  We read plenty of 20th c. 
stuff--from Joan Robinson to Brian Arthur.  I have another similar course 
organized around Marx and Hayek instead of Smith and Keynes.  (at UMKC, 
students get plenty of Veblen, Commons, etc. in their required courses on 
Institutional Economics).  I may revise these further, though, because 
students here also get plenty of Keynes in their macro courses, e.g.  Then 
there are other questions--methodology as part of the HET courses, or 
separate is a big one.  I would prefer a separate course, but if that's not 
possible, then what?  Ditto Economic History. Also, the relation between 
HET and alternative paradigms.  At Gettysburg, the course was already 
called "Advanced History of Thought and Competing Paradigms in Economics" 
(I changed "Competing" to "Alternative"). 
 
Mat Forstater 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]