================= HES POSTING ================= The question of whether historians of economics should break away from economics and embrace history of science seems, at least to me, a personal one. One would have to subjectively assess the costs and benefits of such a move and act accordingly. However, Roy's entreaty for historians of economics to maintain appropriate standards for "proper" historical analysis is a separate issue. I am in complete agreement with Roy. The discipline of history, as with all disciplines and traditions, is also riven with differences and dissension, but it does place a greater emphasis on standards of historiography. But my question is how are economics students, like myself, expected to learn such standards? There are absolutely no incentives to pursue the history of economics, let alone approach its study with the type of rigor and standards found in the discipline of history. I attended the New School for my MA not only because of its strong HES tradition, but also because I could pursue an interdisciplinary approach to economics that included history and philosophy. There were no incentives to pursue my degree in this fashion (even at the New School!), and it has certainly not enhanced my chances for acceptance to a doctoral program in economics (and heaven forbid I should mention the history of economic thought in my personal essay!). For good or for bad, the positive incentives that exist within the discipline of economics guide students into adopting formal, mathematical methods of study to the exclusion of all else. This is certainly not a new or profound revelation by any means. But the issue of raising the standards of historical scholarship in the history of economics is a moot one until the messages and incentives that are conveyed to students are changed. Jonathon E. Mote ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]