I definitely saw that on his blog this morning and laughed. I find it delightful that the sharpest and most promising Harvard students will be studying the likes of Friedman, Roberts, and Caplan.
On second thought, maybe Mankiw has learned something from the current mess and will incorporate more Austrian theory in his new edition.
At least there is hope right?
RLSeptember 1, 2009 at 3:15 am
That’s definitely impressive, Don; it would be more so if Mankiw’s list had more than 10 items on it.
I loved Mankiw’s struggle with the arbritrariness of the methods used to select students for the course. That’s a good example of I call “I can do that” syndrome. That’s when something seems easy when you haven’t given it much thought, leading to the “I can do that” mentality, but it gets tougher when you actually have to do it.
I often get that when I ask someone if they can evaluate the effectiveness of a government program. “Ah, I could do that.” Oh yeah? How? “Well, you just look at it and see if it has accomplished its objectives.” As I keep pressing for details and specific examples on how that works, their frustration grows.
I hope the methods Mankiw used to select the course materials weren’t as arbritrary.
The unstated explanatory core of modern economic science is “informal” Hayekian economics and “informal” Buchanan “public choice” theory (e.g. Friedman’s _Free to Choose_ and _The Tyranny of the Status Quo_).
And GMU economists are the undisputed masters of “informal” Hayekian economics & Buchanan public choice.
No wonder Mankiw turns to the masters.
AnonymousSeptember 1, 2009 at 8:33 am
“I am teaching a Harvard freshman seminar this semester (in addition to ec 10), and one of my first tasks is to choose the 15 students. About 200 applied. That means that getting into my seminar is about as hard as getting into Harvard–except that you first have to get into Harvard before you can even apply!”
haleluja! rationing is good ! because we know what is best for you.
And it gets worse, since he’s gonna discriminate positively for well-connected dumb suckers – you know, there’s more in life than test scores, merit is bad- , such that the “balance” is there and there’s a “lively discussion” between the students.
Yeah right, a random picking could certainly never deliver that …
Interesting to know that Prof. Boudreaux claims to like liberty, but apparently he is proud to be associated with a rationing agency.
And on topic: perhaps Prof. Mankiw assigned the two books to criticise them, as an example of how NOT to understand economics….
AnonymousSeptember 1, 2009 at 10:51 am
What in the world does rationing have to do with liberty?? Scarcity is a fact of life, not a restriction on freedom.
AnonymousSeptember 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Euh, why would it be impossible to educate 200 pupils instead of 15?
think in 2009 that ought to be technically possible.
And when somebody else decides for me what to study and where- even when I meet all requirements, that I find that a highly uncomfortable restriction.
Glad I never experienced that.
AnonymousSeptember 1, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Haha. For one thing, it’s a seminar. Delivering a seminar education to 200 people instead of 15 is impossible because at 200 it ceases to be a seminar. But this is a freshman seminar – they’ll all get one, they just won’t all get Mankiw.
Nobody decides what you study if you choose to apply to Harvard. You choose to study what Harvard offers.
Share
{ 19 comments }
Well that fact is indeed alarming!
what means GMU?
George Mason University – the birth cradle of Austrian Economics and the papal embassy for Free Markets Undisturbed by Humanity.
The birth cradle of Austrian economics? I would have suggested Vienna for that honor.
Carl Menger never taught at GMU.
I definitely saw that on his blog this morning and laughed. I find it delightful that the sharpest and most promising Harvard students will be studying the likes of Friedman, Roberts, and Caplan.
You think that’s impressive? Every single one of the novels Mankiw assigned was written by Russ.
I just wish my Macro prof would have had us read Russ and Friedman instead of Mankiw’s Keynesian claptrap.
On second thought, maybe Mankiw has learned something from the current mess and will incorporate more Austrian theory in his new edition.
At least there is hope right?
That’s definitely impressive, Don; it would be more so if Mankiw’s list had more than 10 items on it.
I loved Mankiw’s struggle with the arbritrariness of the methods used to select students for the course. That’s a good example of I call “I can do that” syndrome. That’s when something seems easy when you haven’t given it much thought, leading to the “I can do that” mentality, but it gets tougher when you actually have to do it.
I often get that when I ask someone if they can evaluate the effectiveness of a government program. “Ah, I could do that.” Oh yeah? How? “Well, you just look at it and see if it has accomplished its objectives.” As I keep pressing for details and specific examples on how that works, their frustration grows.
I hope the methods Mankiw used to select the course materials weren’t as arbritrary.
The unstated explanatory core of modern economic science is “informal” Hayekian economics and “informal” Buchanan “public choice” theory (e.g. Friedman’s _Free to Choose_ and _The Tyranny of the Status Quo_).
And GMU economists are the undisputed masters of “informal” Hayekian economics & Buchanan public choice.
No wonder Mankiw turns to the masters.
“I am teaching a Harvard freshman seminar this semester (in addition to ec 10), and one of my first tasks is to choose the 15 students. About 200 applied. That means that getting into my seminar is about as hard as getting into Harvard–except that you first have to get into Harvard before you can even apply!”
haleluja! rationing is good ! because we know what is best for you.
And it gets worse, since he’s gonna discriminate positively for well-connected dumb suckers – you know, there’s more in life than test scores, merit is bad- , such that the “balance” is there and there’s a “lively discussion” between the students.
Yeah right, a random picking could certainly never deliver that …
Interesting to know that Prof. Boudreaux claims to like liberty, but apparently he is proud to be associated with a rationing agency.
And on topic: perhaps Prof. Mankiw assigned the two books to criticise them, as an example of how NOT to understand economics….
What in the world does rationing have to do with liberty?? Scarcity is a fact of life, not a restriction on freedom.
Euh, why would it be impossible to educate 200 pupils instead of 15?
think in 2009 that ought to be technically possible.
And when somebody else decides for me what to study and where- even when I meet all requirements, that I find that a highly uncomfortable restriction.
Glad I never experienced that.
Haha. For one thing, it’s a seminar. Delivering a seminar education to 200 people instead of 15 is impossible because at 200 it ceases to be a seminar. But this is a freshman seminar – they’ll all get one, they just won’t all get Mankiw.
Nobody decides what you study if you choose to apply to Harvard. You choose to study what Harvard offers.
Harvard isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be though. They are basically running off of a reputation that should have died years ago.
Just take a look at Larry Summers, he did such a wonderful job managing Harvard’s endowment didn’t he?
bummer we’re not ranked anymore.
bummer we’re not ranked anymore.