----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- This is in response to Fred Lee's informative post: My comments about UK and continental students (that they were technically well trained but had not gotten the economic intuition that comes from having principles) was admittedly based on a small sample, mostly drawn from the elite universities, though it also included some exchange students here at UNCG, who came from Hull and who voiced similar complaints. Given Fred's post, my reasoning should be taken as yet another example of the dangers of relying on inductive methods. When I talked about the political component, I had in mind the situation as it developed in France. If I understand things correctly, the movement started with students, then some professors joined the fray, and the focus of the professors was rather more pointedly political. In the end the discussion apparently got side-tracked into a debate (one that to my mind is rather banal) as to whether neoclassical economics equals free market economics, globalization, etc. If this is too simplistic a reading ofthe history others will I am sure correct me, but it is the sense of the situation that I took away from my visit there last year. Much more interesting to my mind are the very points Fred raised at the end of his post - open-mindedness and theory choice, and more pluralism in the curriculum. These are the issues that a number of commentators have raised, among them perhaps most eloquently Tony Lawson. I fully endorse exploring these issues, and attempted to have a session set up at the next AEA meetings for a roundtable discussion of the PAE movement. But we missed the deadline. I found the information about Bernard Corry's brilliant intervention to require inclusion of heterodox teaching at the polytechnics fascinating. Where is our next Bernard Corry? Bruce J. Caldwell ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]