Humberto Barreto wrote:  
                  
                Finally, we turned to economic literacy. Based on the two previous
examples, I thought someone might get my point, but nope.  Definitions of  economic
literacy were all based on vocabulary (e.g., elasticity), skills (such as computing
percentage changes), or knowing ball park measures of economic performance based on
unemployment, real GDP per person, and inflation.  I kept pushing, but no one went for a
deeper meaning that called for understanding how economists view the world.  You might be
interested in George Stigler's definition:
                  
                "The authoritative definition of economic literacy is knowledge of the
theories which are held by professional economists.  Time will eventually reveal that some
of the theories are wrong and all are incomplete, but at any one time there is a best
scientific view, and this best view must be the basis for any appraisal of literacy." p.
65 in George Stigler, "The Case, If Any, for Economic Literacy," The Journal of Economic
Education, Summer 1983, pp. 60-66.
                  
                It seems to me that history is like literacy.  They both have superficial,
seemingly concrete versions that read like a check list and deeper, more sophisticated
definitions that are what we are really chasing.
                  
  
  
I actually read Stigler's comments differently than Humberto. Stigler seems to say that at
any time there is one best and I assume he means to say 'proven' scientific economic view
and that should be the basis of measuring economic literacy. Humberto's students replied
exactly as you would expect those who are taught neoclassical theory, the current
paradigm. They are taught concepts, analytical tools and a smattering of context, the last
only if the instructor is so inclined. Our intro students can go through the semester
solving 'imaginary' problems without really learning how it affects their real life, leave
alone how others historically thought of the issues or what other perspectives are out
there that can open new ways of thinking. It takes special care, extra time and a lot of
resolve to incorporate these in the teaching of economics. In the name of space saving a
widely used textbook I know has begun relegating important discussions about theoretical
debates to couple of paragraphs at the end of the chapter, when it is done at all. All is
not well in the teaching of economics!
   
Sumitra Shah