Issue 42, Spring 2012

William A. McEachern, Editor

THE GRAPEVINE

In the previous issue, I discussed sequencing the micro/macro principles courses and argued that allowing the students to choose the order wasted valuable time repeating the same introductory chapters. Donald A. Coffin of Indiana University Northwest wrote to say that while this may be a waste of time at many institutions, such repetition serves a useful purpose at "the kind of school" where he teaches and at community colleges. Because students there are more likely to postpone the second course for two or three years, they need the introductory-chapter review to keep up.

In discussing whether macro or micro should be required first, I offered no preference but pointed to a 1995 study that found students did better with macro first. John Fizel of Penn State has since pointed out to me a 1986 study he published with John L. Fiedler, now with the International Food Policy Research Institute, which found, after controlling for a variety of variables, that a sample of 328 freshmen learned more on average if they took micro before macro. Their study, "A Disaggregated Investigation of Learning Functions in Introductory Economics," appeared in the Economics of Education Review, 5(3): 287-295.

Jerry Evensky of Syracuse University sent a link to his presidential address at the History of Economics Society. In "What's Wrong with Economics," he argues that economics should more explicitly incorporate the role of social norms in human activity. He offers the Great Recession as a case study demonstrating the value of this richer perspective. His presentation is forthcoming in the Journal of the History of Economic Thought. A copy is available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1904409.

Top                                                                                                                                                                                          Next