It is a privilege to address the subject of high school economics education, but I must begin with a confession. My relevant experience is not large. I deeply disliked high school, perhaps more deeply than circumstances could justify. I therefore attended American high school for only two years, and did not earn a diploma. I have never taught at a high school. I have taught economics to undergraduates, but again only for two years, and principles of economics, as a teaching assistant, for only one. The University of Texas at Austin has some thirty-seven thousand undergraduates. In the year I have been there, I have so far actually met, I think, four of them-babysitters, all. met, I think, four of them-babysitters, all. I nevertheless claim to know what it is about the teaching of elementary economics that I do not like. In the introductory treatments with which I am familiar, an impulse to simplify and an aversion to controversy go hand in hand. The result is bland and dull. And the seeds are sown of a profound dissonance between the professional self-image economists try to project on one hand and what one quickly learns to be the truth about our discipline on the other. I have seen this, a little, in a cursory review of principles textbooks, which I conducted before teaming up with Robert Heilbroner to produce our own. I see it, alas, in the Framework. In microeconomics, these problems of blandness and dullness are not so serious. Granted, the assumptions are unrealistic and the concepts abstract. That is their charm. Microeconomics trains the student in deductive logic, in how, after a fashion, to think. It has elegance, rigor, even beauty. The ideas of microeconomics may be few-Joan Robinson used to say that Maynard could have learned them in twenty minutes had he tried-but there is a wonderful multiplicity of languages for the student to explore: ever more sophisticated, ever more concise algebraic, geometric, topological ways to make the same point. And there is a definiteness to the proceedings; once the assumptions are given, once the premises are accepted, either the consequences follow or they don't. Macroeconomics lacks these consolations. It is a messy, complex, illdefined subject in which terms do not have definite meanings and in which conclusions do not flow inexorably from premises. Good macroeconomists seek, not neat abstraction, but serviceable approximation of the way the
Read full abstract