Let me second Ric Holt's comments.  You can see the difference in 
the generation that learned economics when history of economic 
thought was generally required and those who went through graduate 
school after the HET requirement was replaced by the econometrics 
requirement (and I think you will find an almost one-to-one  
curriculum replacement there).   
     The goal of using economic theory to explain phenomenon has 
been replaced by that of "proving" or "disproving" a permanent 
truth -- all other constructs are "wrong", "easily disproved", 
or just plain "dumb".  I also think there's much less self-awareness, 
a component I think is indispensable to good research.  That is, 
it seems to me that may economists do not know how to analyze 
THEMSELVES, how to be on the lookout for where their own personal 
preferences might influence why they "like" this explanation and 
"don't like" that one.  Without any experience in how unconscious 
social assumptions can impact scholarship, they really do believe 
that they are totally objective.  Which ain't necessarily so. 
If you don't see in yourself how you might want very badly for 
a certain conclusion to be right, then you can't guard against 
it by taking extra steps to at least refer to countervailing 
interpretations, even if you personally don't like them much. 
Or the statistical rule of assuming against your hypothesis in 
constructing your model.  That goes for non-mathematical analysis, 
too. 
     The absence of HET from requirements, indeed from the 
curriculum, has also exacerbated the increasing tendency of 
econ programs to pump out graduates who do not know how to explain 
what they mean in clear language.  Admittedly, it's not easy -- 
but it is a good exercise to try to do it, and practically speaking, 
economists NEED to be able to do it. 
     Some of this I personally have blamed on the popularity of Varian, 
which "proves" but is totally unhelpful in learning to explain, 
to apply, to question, to develop an intuitive feel for economic 
analysis.   
     You see the results when graduate students are dumped out into 
the classroom to perform as teaching assistants and sometimes even 
as instructors (which I think should be prohibited for grad stuidents 
who have not yet completed their coursework).  They can do the Dual 
-- but they have NO IDEA how to explain to students the subtleties 
of public goods.  I am hearing students coming out of undergraduate 
econ classes convinced that it has been "proved" that the Fed 
singlehanded caused the Great Depression in its entirety; that it 
has been "proved" that minimum wage legislation is the cause of 
unempoloyment (and they will always say "THE" cause); that all 
economic regulation is perverse.   
     It seems to me that economists themselves are uncomfortable with 
the implications of this.  I will know that Economist A uses the 
economics of information in his research, and has for some time. 
Then I will get a student of Economist B who will tell me that 
it's been "proved" that the economics of information is totally 
"wrong".  (And consultation with Economist B will confirm the 
student's impression.)  Or the student will have been told that 
"markets are ALWAYS efficient" and that "the marginal product of 
labor ALWAYS equals the wage".   
     It's not just that Economists A and B differ in their assessment 
of what is good economic theory -- Economist B will openly tell 
his students that what Economist A does isn't economics at all! 
No one wants to make internal social waves, though, so Economist A 
will ignore it.  The result is that students who only take a couple 
of econ courswes get a REAL WEIRD impression of what economics is 
-- and students who major in economics get even more confused 
(I thought that B said that this was not economics, but here is 
A saying that it is, and that everybody knows that.  I must be 
wrong.)   
     The language of econometrics and Varian -- right/wrong 
proof/disproof -- goes WAY beyond Kuhn.   
     In the end, I think it is damaging economic research itself 
because what I see happening (as a bit of an outside observer) is 
an increasing inability for economists not only to be unable to 
talk to outsiers -- but also unable to talk to each other. 
     My husband (in finance) also points out that most economists 
believe that new published research supplants old -- that is, each 
article replaces the earlier ones; there is no reason to even THINK 
about stuff that's, say, a decade old.  So there is no way to trace 
the intellectual journeys that make us think we're still relying on 
the same theory, but somehow we have gotten far off the topic. 
     Unlike many of us, economists don't seem to have the sense of 
scholarship as a conversation with the past and the future.  Anyone 
who does research in 1995 will have a body of constructs that everyone 
assumes to be in place.  What "everyone knows".  Since everyond knows 
it, you don't have to bring it up.  There is no SENSE that that 
collection of what "everyone knows" shifts dramatically over time. 
One of the few times I ever saw it brought up overtly (and I'm sure 
there have been others) was the wordplay of Keynesianism vs. 
Keynsianists.  More common is the Chicago stance -- the Truth has 
been with us all along for those capable of seeing it. 
     Sorry -- first intended this to be brief, turned out long. 
One other factor, BTW, that pushed HET out of the curriculum -- I 
really don't want this to sound nativist, I think it's simply a 
fact -- is the shift to increasing numbers of students coming to 
the U.S. from abroad, particularly in the '70s and '80s.  Many of 
these students did not have the institutional or language backgrounds 
to understand (or give two hoots about) the debates of the past. 
And I'm sure the extreme Eurocentrism of both HET and the discipline 
of economic history must have put many off.  Anecdotally, I am 
also convinced that even graduate students today are not comfortable 
with texts. 
     Enjoy your trip to the Dome, guys. 
     -- Mary Schweitzer