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]