======================= HES POSTING ================== 
 
[NOTE: This message is related to the "Defining Neoclassical" discussion,  
but begins a new thread which is sufficiently different to justify a  
separate subject.--RBE] 
 
I wanted to respond to Greg Ransom's question about Michael Williams' 
posting on the response of graduate students to orthodox economics 
(although please know I don't presume to consider myself a bright and 
motivated student). 
 
I received both my undergrad and masters degree in economics (with a 
double major in history for both degrees).  I have always had problems 
with orthodox theory, as have many of my fellow students.  The message 
was clear: play along or don't expect to get far in the discipline.  Some 
have played along and forgotten their critical enthusiasms.  Some didn't 
play along and are now teaching at smaller schools and colleges (not a bad 
thing in my estimation, but many would consider that not "on the fast 
track.").  In my case, I chose to quit the discipline of economics and 
pursue sociology (where I can actually look at real economies, as opposed 
to modeled ones). 
 
This makes me think about Klamer and Colander's book.  It would be 
interesting to see a followup which tracks the career paths of those 
surveyed for the book.  I bet we would see patterns similar to my 
anectdotal observations. 
 
Jonathon E. Mote 
[log in to unmask] 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]