===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
> Michael Williams wrote the following: 
>  
> "I have met so many bright and motivated students who felt that they 
> were repeatedly required to 'pay their dues' again and again by not  only 
> mastering, but actually doing original work at the  ever-expanding 
> technical frontier of orthodox economic modelling,  before being allowed 
> to 'play the blues' and get down to serious  theoretical criticism of 
> orthodoxy. Too often the result is that they  either quit economics in 
> favour of another social science, or perhaps  philosophy, or they put 
> aside the critical enthusiams of their  'youth' and immerse themselves in 
> orthodoxy's 'normal' science.  Neither of these consequences can be 
> good for the health of the  discipline, I would suggest." 
 
As a fairly new "motivated" graduate student interested in economics, I 
am interested in the issues raised by Mr. (Prof?) Williams.  In my 
exposure thus far to "Neoclassical economics" I have found certain 
issues and assumptions which I question.  I also question numerous 
issues and assumptions within "heterox" alternatives, with the possible 
exception of Austrian.  Unlike the "many bright and motivated students" 
cited by Williams, I do not find it at all unreasonable that I am 
expected to "master" (that is, demonstrate understanding of) orthodox 
economic modeling before I have standing to criticize it.  Toward that 
end (the ultimate mastery) I am pursuing a Ph.D. in economics, as well 
as the additional learning provided by subscribing to this and other 
mailing lists, among other things.  I am not overly concerned about 
being forced into some hypothetical mold which (in an ongoing thread) 
seems to escape specification. 
 
Mike Robison 
Michigan State University 
Statistics/Economics 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]