Revolution in Academic Affairs?

I'd say it's somewhat more resistant to change than your average private-sector industry, mainly because academia is often a receptacle for people who don't like competition and want more security than they'd get working in industry.

My long experience outside of academics, in a business setting, makes me a lot less eager to teach economics using calculus and a lot more interested in conveying the guesswork and trial-and-error aspect of economic activity.

Well, even in the field of mathematics, many (if not most) mathematicians work by trial-and-error but the subject cannot be taught in that fashion. I think the same thing applies to the field of economics. The way academic economists and economists in the private sector work is just not a feasible way of teaching the subject.

You are probably right about the AP courses, but I think there is an inevitable conflict in introductory courses in many subjects. On the one hand, you want to give students who will be taking more classes a good foundation for advanced work. On the other you want to provide an intelligent but fairly broad overview for those who will not be going on, but want basic knowledge of the field. These goals are often incompatible.

It is my impression that the sciences often deal with this by offering two different first-year courses, a rigorous introduction and another sometimes characterized as "physics for poets," or the like.

The best example of an introductory physics course I know of is Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces". Certainly not physics for poets.

It acknowledges that 'what i'm about to teach you is outdated, but, bear with me'. And, simultaneously it piqued my interest to know what the actual professionals were wrestling with in their inevitable trial-and-error way.

I think you are totally on the mark regarding distance learning. With the high and rising costs of higher education, there's enormous potential in distance learning, done right. One of the reasons I think efforts to date haven't busted the lights out is that they were launched during the "bubble," and way overinvested and generally wasted a lot of money, souring investors.

I think the reason films haven't filled the bill is that they're not interactive. Or to put it in economic terms, transactions costs (mailing vs. the instant communication available today) are much higher than is the case with e-learning.

Another advantage of distance learning is the pressure will be on providing instructors that are good at teaching, rather than research, it seems to me. Pretty soon someone's going to get it right.

I also think you are so right about the misplaced emphasis in traditional economics courses. I was puzzled by why my two college kids haven't found their economcis courses more enlightening, in the "Aha!" sense, but I think you put your finger on it.

The Baumol microeconomics textbook has certain concepts it highlights as "Ideas for Beyond the Final Exam," such as opportunity cost and comparative advantage. I think it's great that they get special attention, because they will remain important long after the marginal cost curves are forgotten.

This thing about too much graphical analysis in the AP curricula may be something of a self fulfilling prophesy as the emphasis on mathematics in the discipline is pushed further. Somebody commented on the idea of academics preferring not to be subject to competition, I’d say this is more like “…those who can’t teach.”
Regarding distance education: more than just losing the benefits of a campus there is a massive potential for academic dishonesty.

Regarding the question of whether academia is particularly resistant to change, I would agree. Part and parcel of the academic mission is to communicate the core values of a field to the new generation. Academia is thus naturally averse to emerging models that possibly undermine the tenets of the field. Religion is similarly resistant to change, whereas opportunistic endeavors such as government and business are not.

The reason business changes more is simple, competition forces them to . They do not change because they are better or smarter, they change because they are forced to. But academics are subject to much less competition so they are not forced to change.

The academic community does seem resistant to change. They don't face the same level of competition that typical private-sector industries do. Eliminating tenure might help. If you're good at what you do, you don't need it.

Arnold,

Message boards, e-mail, conference calls, etc. are good substitutes for traditional peer teaching. I took a macro course online about a year ago. The message boards worked well for peer teaching and weekly quizzes kept the students from falling behind. I was working full time and I loved the experience.

I like the math aspects of economics, but I have a master's in physics. Econ for poets is a good idea for the non-numerate.

By the way, when are more economists going to run for polital office? I'd vote for you, Arnold. Why are there so many lawyers? What makes anyone think that a lawyer knows how to manage anything better than anyone else?

Are you recommending that economics go the way of finance and accounting? Finance has the Certified Financial Analyst (CFA), which is hugely popular as a credential. In fact, I'd recommend getting a CFA over an MBA from a weak business school. I presume the CPA is just as important in getting ahead in accounting.

So, what organization would develop a CE, Certified Economist? I just don't see the demand in it right now. Master's Degrees and PhDs are sufficient in the marketplace right now.

I would like to see an alternative education path based on the idea of certifying students instead of going to college. Then a CE might work, which would be equivalent to a Bachelor's degree. Perhaps the designations would go: Economic Analyst (=BA), Certified Economist (=MA), Master Economist (=PhD).