"...stand long enough...."  
That reminds of the observation of an old friend of mine, a molecular   
biologist, who noted (a propos of a recent HU flap) that men now seemed   
more successful than women at science because so many of them, on fat   
grants, took little, often superficial problems, abstracted them, claimed   
they were significant, solved them in narrow, nearly worthless terms,   
claimed yet another success, received praise from others of their ilk in   
the profession, and won yet another grant or prize or award, whereas women,   
usually without such grants, and often otherwise preoccupied, tended   
perforce to stick at problems, spend much longer on them, go down deep into   
them, and consequently came closer to doing really significant work,   
although they did not get the glory or the grants for it.  
In short, much academic success in science may now be merely the current   
appearance of success, perpetuated by a kind of conspiracy for same.  
There would then be reasons of careerism and lucre in teaching only the   
history of such "successes."  
Could this be one explanation for economists believing only in "the history   
of success"? Not the production and diffusion of knowledge, but promotions,   
grants, appointments, contracts, awards?  
  
John Womack