----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- The following points come to mind in response to the interesting comments made by Jorgen Elkjaer and Chas.Anderson. Both Elkjaer and Chas. Anderson argue that texts such as Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ are best left until students have had more exposure to modern Economics and related social science disciplines. I would argue that there is a now or never aspect to teaching classic texts to college Freshmen. For many students, perhaps the only opportunity they will ever have to read classic social science texts first hand is in general education courses and freshman seminars. Both Elkjaer and Anderson argue that specialist knowledge is required on the student's part to understand these texts and on the instructor's part to teach them. I suppose honest people can disagree on this. Looking it from the standpoint of students, I would argue that texts like Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ and Plato's _Republic_ speak to us as human beings and that a reasonably intelligent person should be able to get a great deal out of reading these texts without any commitment to specialize in say economics or political philosophy. From an instructor's viewpoint, might not opportunities to teach freshman seminars and similar general education courses help provide some breaths of fresh air in what at least a few of us might think is a stifling intellectual atmosphere associated with academic hyper-specialization? Given the high intellectual opportunity costs involved in undergrad freshmen's attention span, it could argued that their time is better spent reading Smith and Plato first hand than in such secondary treatments such as say Heilbroner's _Worldly Philosophers_. In fact, I wonder whether it is the case that there is more reluctance to assign classic texts first hand in lower level courses in the social sciences than in the Humanities. I am not sure on this. But if Shakespeare's plays can be routinely assigned in high school (as they were at my public high school) and presumably in lower level undergrad college literature courses, why not Adam Smith and Plato in lower level social science courses? Let me reiterate that I think there is ground for legitimate disagreement on these points. I just couldn't resist explaining why I apparently see things differently than Jorgen Elkjaer and Chas Anderson. David Mitch ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]