----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I think David Colander is absolutely correct when he points out that publishers are "just"
trying to sell books. The roles of reviewers are of course important, and probably 15% is
the max. differentiation tolerable. But there may be some other things going on as well.
 
Could it be significant that a large share of the total US enrollment in introductory econ
courses is due to the school of business requirements (as set by the American Association
of Schools of Business)?  The operational question: to what extent are the
educational/ideological needs of business schools influencing introductory economics
education?
 
I developed a course last year for my university's "first year experience" program titled
Power/Profit/Pleasure which had a unit on education. We read, among other things, excerpts
from Jean Anyon's classic early 1980s text The Hidden Curriculum of Work. (I'll put a very
brief summary of this at the end of my post)
 
There is a new volume that looks at _The Hidden Curriculum of Higher Education_ (ed. Eric
Margolis). The lead essay "Peekaboo: Hiding and Outing the Curriculum" by Margolis,
Soldatenko, Acker and Gair provides an excellent review of the literature. Then a bit
later on in the volume there is this essay: "Training Capitalism's Footsoldiers: The
Hidden Curriculum of Undergraduate Business Education" by Kenneth N. Ehrensal (110 - 133).
 
While I was not terribly impressed by Ehrensal's analysis, he does provide a telling
description of undergraduate business education. His major point is that undergrads
getting business degrees are not likely to end up in the top tiers of corporate (or
government) decision making.  They are likely to be in jobs where creativity, and
strategic thinking are not too terribly valued, and certainly questioning established ways
of doing things is not a good trait. Ehrensal's point is that the Bschool curriculum
socializes students to modes of thinking that are suited to their likely future places in
bureaucracies. He also shows how standardized the bschool curriculum is: the texts all
look pretty much alike, use the same sorts of presentation styles, have same teacher
supplements and so on. When you (as an informed reader) go to topic areas in these texts
where there is controversy or disagreement in the field (economics, accounting,
management, etc) you find that this is all hush hush...no mention of possible disagreement
among "experts."
 
This makes a great deal of sense if you put it into a critical thinking perspective ala'
the Perry schema (students start college as dualists, and then if they are lucky and get a
few godd teachers they can move beyond this to relativism and commitment - the world is
not black and white, it is mostly gray, until and unless you make a commitment to a point
of view).
 
Hiding the disagreement among experts shields students from ever having to encounter the
possibility of multiple interpretation, which is, as I read it, a major theme of our
recent discussion about AD/AS. Students who don't have to deal with multiple
interpretation, can continue to see the world as right and wrong, true and false. When
right and truth reside in the hands of experts who have authority .... well, you draw the
implication.
 
Which brings me back to David's point about textbook publishing in economics:  in so far
as undergraduate economics enrollment in introductory courses are driven by Bschool
requirements, then we are in part experiencing the "Texas" effect: the lionness' of share
jr high and high school "science" texts in the US now have chapters on "intelligent
design" and/or "creation science" because the books have to sell in the nation's largest
textbook market.
 
Susan Feiner 
 
Note on Anyon's _The Hidden Curriculum of Work_. Anyon and her graduate students observed
fourth and fifth grade classrooms at a number of schools in the metro NY area. She
classified the schools by SES: working class (mostly blue collar jobs among male parents),
middle class (various sorts of office workers), professional class (doctors, lawyers,)
elite (corporate leaders, attorneys "of counsel,"), and compared what went on during the
day in these schools. The differences are shocking, and these schools were following the
same state level criteria for the curriculum. The kids in the lowest SES schools never had
anything explained to them, bells rang at arbitrary times, they needed permission to do
anything, and the important point in every "lesson" was to follow the rules, following the
rules was more important than getting the "right" answer. The next most important things
were being neat and punctual. At middle class schools, students had a bit more context for
their learning, sometimes there was discussion, but following rules still very important.
At professional schools, students were trusted with lots of classroom materials (scissors,
construction paper etc. - the other schools students had to sign these things out, were
very closely monitored), "why" things happened is important, and figuring out new ways to
solve problems is valued. In english classes, lots of emphasis on self expression. In
elite schools everything was very analytical, self expression was not terribly important.
Emphasis is on abstract rules and regularities. There was almost no teacher control of the
classroom, students could have free and wide ranging
discussions, and they determined by discussion the pattern of the daily activities. This
is a very bald sketch of Anyon's findings. I found it fascinating, not least because of
some of my issues with what my children's schooling is like. And certainly relevant to
teaching economics at a state university.
 
Susan Feiner 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]