I too am sorry to hear that NYU has dropped the HET grad  
requirement.  At SU the requirement is in place, but it is constantly at  
risk for the reasons cited at NYU. 
  I agree with Richard Holt's notion about competing paradigms or  
maybe alternaive visions would capture my idea better.  When I start  
my grad HET course I tell the students that one of my objectives is to  
make them think skeptically (NOT cynically) about the vision they are  
mastering in their PhD program.  Seems like skeptically, not  
cynically or religiously (a la Leijonhufvud's "Life Among the Econ"), is  
the way we should always think about a received doctrine.   
  Anywy, I want to make the case that the current mainstream is wrong  
or right.  I want to challenge them to consider that there are  
alternative visions based on different frames of thinking (usually  
distinguished by different assumtions (explicit, implicit, and tacit) and  
language) - and that the current mainstream should be considered in  
light of its assumptions/language; and how that assumptive/language  
base tends to lead to a theoretical "enlightement" that casts light AND  
shadows (a la Dobb).  The real question is not the polar cases: Is it a  
good or bad; right or wrong theory?  It is rather:  How distorting or  
insightful is the vision it offers us, and how can its distortions be  
diminished and its insights be extended by expanding, changing,  
adapting its assumptions and/or language?  HET offers  
alternative visions (assumptions/languages) to consider.   
  I tell them what I think about this, but obviously these are adults who  
can decide for themselves.  But who can make such a choice  
(other assumptions/languages) where it is never offered? Offering that  
choice is the importance of the PhD HET course in my opinion.   
Jerry Evensky 
Syracuse University 
[log in to unmask]