================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
Robert Whaples is correct that one must distinguish between 
"persuasive to historians" and the state of affairs in current 
academic history departments.  I actually meant in my statement 
something very simple -- the standards of intellectual history as 
evidenced in the work of leading intellectual historians. 
 
But both Robert and Fred raised important pragmatic questions.  At 
NYU, we still offer, but don't require, history of thought, but we 
don't even offer courses in economic history.  In the debate over 
history of thought at NYU two years ago, these two areas of research 
were conflated by most. 
 
To address Fred's question about how the current situation changes my 
position one would have to have exact knowledge of the situation in 
PhD granting programs.  I believe NYU was one of the last that had a 
history of thought requirement (up to 1994).  A few years ago (in the 
wake of the Klamer/Colander study) I started a project on graduate 
education -- I received the course catalogues, cv of faculty, etc. 
from all the schools offering PhD's and what amazed me was that with 
very few exceptions there was hardly any product differentiation. 
All the schools (from MIT to Oregon State) tended to have the same 
curiculum and even assign the same books in the core courses. 
 
History of thought is not part of that curriculum.  Economic history 
was more so, and I think this situation has even improved recently 
with the changes at UC-Berkeley and also I hear at Rutgers.  But to 
get back to Fred's point about "what is to be done?" ... I guess the 
first thing is to get a more updated and accurate position.  Second, 
leading scholars in departments need to "dare to be different" (a 
phrase Buchanan often used to describe his curriculum efforts on 
behalf of public choice theory).  I mean it makes no sense for a 
school ranked 90 to try to imitate MIT in the hope of rising in the 
rankings to 65.  Why adopt MIT's attitudes?  Why not offer a 
different product? 
 
A few years ago several decision makers from liberal arts colleges 
ran a pettion in the AER complaining about graduate school education 
and the product it was producing in terms of potential teachers at 
good liberal arts schools.  But as far as I know, the threat of a 
boycott (unless graduate students knew something of the intellectual 
development of the discipline, or the evolution and history of 
economic institutions) was not considered credible and thus nothing 
happened.  Also, nothing as far as I can tell has happened due to the 
Commission on Graduate Education Report that was published in the 
JEL.  Nothing. 
 
So as far as I can tell, scholars who value history of thought, and 
economic history, have to make their case to their colleagues, fight 
for their ideas, and take bold steps when in position to do so to 
change the curriculum and offer a different product (or hire a 
different product on the other end).  This doesn't imply anything 
about the Weintraub statement about standards -- except that we 
should all be for high scholarly standards.  But I would resist the 
idea that historians of thought ought to leave economics departments 
for departments of intellectual history.  I don't think this is a 
general strategy issue, but rather a particular strategy for 
individuals to contemplate.  Some may find that environment better, 
others might find political science departments (as a political 
economists), or history, or sociology (economic sociology), or 
philosophy, or whatever.  It depends on the aptitude and interest of 
the scholar in question.  But many will want to remain within 
economics and it seems to me that it would be useful to have some 
individuals fighting to make the case that history of thought and 
economic history _should_ be essential components of any PhD course 
of study in economics; that economists in general should have a sense 
of the questions which have occupied the discipline, and the 
institutions and experience which constitutes its subject matter. 
Economics is both a "worldly philosophy" and a "dismal science" and I 
don't see why we must concede that the engineering component of our 
discipline should not only dominate, but eliminate the philosophical 
from the training of graduate students.  If, however, individuals don't make 
moves to "dare to be different" and instead graduate education 
continues in a cookie cutter mold made at MIT (or the top 5 schools 
in general as I have nothing against MIT, nor do I think it should 
change, but lower tier schools can and provide an alternative 
product) then we will not see any change in the landscape and the 
plea for historians of economics to be in history of science 
departments will win by default as that will be the only place that 
this type of work will be done and a philosophical economics will no 
longer even exist as a remnant within the economics profession proper 
and will have to move on to alternative disciplines. 
 
Pete 
 
P.S.: Has anyone done a recent study on the state of history of 
thought in graduate curriculum? 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]