Since you have taught marketing, the field has been overrun by econometricians and experimental psychologists, whose only contribution to marketing is marketing themselves into an easy, well-paid gig!
On Sun, 10 May 1998, John M. Legge wrote:
> One of my best mentors in practical business had the habit, if anyone at a
> meeting used the word "assumption" or "I assume" of exploding "who gave you
> the right to drag your wild-assed assumptions in here?"
>
> If you can imagine an economist forbidden to use the words "assumption" and
> "assume" you will understand why business schools are separated from
> economics departments. When I was teaching marketing the first two lectures
> had to be devoted to rubbishing everything they had been taught in Economics
> 101. The academic marketing literature now has an active strand discussing
> the complete separation of marketing theory and education from
> new/Neoclassical economics. (Try to start with the assumptions of a perfect
> market etc etc and talking about advertising!)
>
> BTW profs of finance get mega salaries because they teach yuppies how to
> help multimillionaires become billionaires: very practical in late finance
> capitalism, even if utterly parasitic from any other viewpoint.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rakesh Bhandari (part)
>
> >
> >Jason, what deficiences in economic departments led to the establishment
> >of business departments? At Berekeley, I sat in on an international trade
> >course in the business dept taught by a terribly lucid economist Robert
> >Feenstra.More inerested in how to use anti-dumping laws or induce the
> >govt to negotiate VERs, those students who were returning from the
> >business world looked on in amusement at the different arguments about
> >producer and consumer surplus which are created and lost through free
> >trade or the problems posed by the Leontiev paradox to H-O
> >theorems or the factor-price theorem. Then Feenstra, who was a great
> >teacher, would pose the problem of greater income inequality (though he
> >tended not to dwell on the fact that skill premium is based on steeper
> >wage falls for the so-called unskilled--what a premium); Feenstra, a
> >rather honest guy, would suggest that economists didn't really know what
> >the causes were and that skill-biased technological change, which seemed
> >to be synomous with computers but was so ill-defined that I began to feel
> >sorry for economists, was really a cop out to explain what the economists
> >didn't understand.It seemed to me that such human capital explanations
> >take hold only because skilled (ha, ha) professionals understand their
> >greater income as a sign of moral superiority (especially vis a vis
> >blacks, one suspects), as their reward for having had the foresight to
> >have deferred present consumption to enjoy their standing in the worlds.
> >Senior adapted to the world of the petty bourgeoisie.
> >
> > Of all this nitty gritty about income inequality and its causes, the
> >business students seemed not to care one whit. But then when Feenstra said
> >that businesses must outsource as much as possible to protect whatever
> >domestic employment base they had, interest perked up. Now he had their
> >attention. There were also nods of assent that unemployment insurance was
> >a waste as workers didn't use it to relocate to booming regions. I must
> >say that I left with the impression that economics and business schools
> >are something of a sick joke. I hadn't been so creeped out since I had
> >been a Ph.D. student in Government at Harvard.
> > Best,
> >Rakesh
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>