[lbo-talk] More ideological backlash

[Alan Rudy]

should... should... should... should...
sounds like a number of quiescent colleagues I had in the past who've argued
that their university shouldn't make new professors meet tenure standards
previous generations couldn't have met (and a whole raft of other things,
like emphasizing grantsmanship over teaching and overhead cost recovery over
service, or university-industry relations over liberal education)... they're
philosophers, in Marx's terms, not engaged, public, active, critical or
transformative sociologists/scholars...

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>wrote:


> (Robert Skidelsky, "How to rebuild a shamed subject")
>
> "Keynes opened the way to political economy; but economists opted for a
> regressive research programme, disguised by sophisticated mathematics, that
> set it apart. The present crisis gives us an opportunity to try again.
>
> The reconstruction of economics needs to start with the universities.
> First,
> degrees in the subject should be broadly based. They should take as their
> motto Keynes’s dictum that 'economics is a moral and not a natural
> science'.
> They should contain not just the standard courses in elementary
> microeconomics and macroeconomics but economic and political history, the
> history of economic thought, moral and political philosophy, and sociology.
> Though some specialisation would be allowed in the final year, the
> mathematical component in the weighting of the degree should be sharply
> reduced. This is a return to the tradition of the Oxford Politics,
> Philosophy and Economics (PPE) degree and Cambridge Moral Sciences."
>
>
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dfc9294a-81ef-11de-9c5e-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>