May 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

« The Poor are Not Getting Poorer | Main | Behavioral Public Choice and Institutional Political Economy »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Really, Steve? No Man, Economy, and State? Not even the first 66 pages?

I'm also a bit disappointed, to be honest. No MES? It's a clear exposition on a few relevant topics, which don't seem all that controversial. (First 4 chapters, for example.) I take it you were expecting this question? :)

I also notice that you always give one reading, while some issues are a bit 'controversial' (as in: relevant discussions are still going on). E.g. 'the entrepreneur' and 'the meaning of competition'. :)

I just wish you had offered it sometime '06-'08.

Also, in the grading breakdown table it looks like the book review's oral presentation is worth 15% of the overall class grade, rather than participation in general being 15% of the overall class grade.

The absence of MES was not intended to be a slap at Rothbard. I thought very carefully about what to include and exclude and I simply could not justify adding it in. The first 66 pages is great, but in reading all of Menger, I can get to the same material. I wish I could have included more of Human Action. Same with something from Vaughn's book. Or Rizzo and O'Driscoll. I could go on.

You'll note that each one of them is doing a book review. Suffice it to say that Rothbard books, and Mises too, will be at the top of that list precisely because I didn't give them the space in the syllabus I would have liked to.

As I said, there's many ways to skin this cat.

I didn't view the syllabus as a slap, I was just genuinely puzzled (echoing Lode Cossaer's comments) that you wouldn't see fit to provide *undergraduates* with an extraordinarilly clear rendition of the critical issues (the nature human action, direct and indirect exchange as they manifest in supply and demand, time preference, to name but a few). I would think undergraduates, esp those with some exposure to mathematized neoclassicism, would benefit from this kind of presentation.

However, seeing that you deem this material to already be in Menger (sorry, that is just laughable in light of the stated objective to educate undergrads), and that you consider Lachmann suitable reading material for these students, I do in fact start to wonder if the motivation for this course is at least in part to influence young minds towards a particular brand of AE. I mean, really, you consider it a tough competition between choosing to present Vaughn's book and MES?

Sadly, Prof. Horwitz fed the troll.

Lode is no troll.

My question was, indeed, genuine and I thank prof. Horwitz for his defense of my intentions. I take his defense of excluding Rothbard as understandable, al though my personal preference still goes to the Rothbard's exposition. But that's just value subjectivism.

Not that I care in any way, shape, or form who regards me as a troll or not (and since Steve hasn't deleted my main posts here I have to assume he doesn't view my posts as intending to harass), but I am only trying to comment on the suitability of Steve's means to attain his admirable goal of educating undergrads in AE. I don't regard puzzling over omission of MES as partisan in any way. Another example: why even consider including ETI in an undergrad course, that's an advanced book. I'm just pointing out that the means don't really seem compatible with the ends.

I am more interested in the strictness of your approach ("contract"???!!!). You are one scary professor.

On a side note, When I took the Austrian undergrad class at GMU with Leeson a few years ago the only book we used was Human Action.

This is some heavy stuff... Go easy on your students Dr. Horwitz!

I'm curious about the content of the "What are the Social Sciences?" class and how you relate it to AE?

I'm surprised there isn't a session dedicated to interest rates.

In most likelihood, I would have used Fatal Conceit and/or Road to Serfdom. But that probably reflects my preference for pol econ over macro. Also, as an undergrad I was extremely impressed with "the econ of time and ignorance". was caldwell's hayek biography on there? I really liked that one - but there is conflict with the stuff that i would talk about in class anyway and reading the book.

Couple of additional comments:

1. It's worth pointing out that both times I've taught my senior seminar on the Great Depression, I've assigned pretty much all of *America's Great Depression.* So much for the theory that I'm trying to discourage undergraduates from reading Rothbard. (I even had the bookstore order the Mises Institute edition! Horrors!!)

2. @Petrik: I use *Fatal Conceit* in Comparative. I think it works better there than in an Austrian course. And I didn't use anything from Caldwell's bio, although Bruce's intro to the *Contra Keynes and Cambridge* volume of the Collected Works is on there.

3. @RPLong: We'll talk about interest rates in the sections on cycles and macro.

4. @Mathieu: those are two classic Hayek essays - "Individualism: True and False" and "Facts of the Social Sciences." I would think that would suffice to make the connection to AE. :)

5. As for being a scary prof... First, all that scary stuff succeeded, as the course was full at 20 with a couple of really good students who wanted in, and I managed to scare out about 4 kids on the first day. It's all about raising costs so that resources get allocated in a more beneficial way. (Plus, with a scary sounding syllabus but a more gentle teaching style, you can single-handedly Bad Cop-Good Cop them.)

I have been under immense pressure off late due to the project given in college for completion. But luckily I came across your article today and realized you came across to me as a savior. Thanks!!!

Would it be possible to offer this as an online course (at Mises Academy, or through FEE, etc)? It is much more rigorous than any other austrian syllabus I've seen (most of the Mises courses are more intro level) and I'd love to take a challenging course that would force a lot of thinking and leave me with a solid introduction to AE.

steve -
Out of curiosity, how many of your students generally come in sympathetic to AE, how many disposed against it, and how many without a real opinion. I imagine at a place like GMU or Auburn it's a largely sympathetic crowd - at NYU it's a mixed bag. What is it like at St. Lawrence?

@Evan: that's an interesting possibility. I don't know if FEE would want to get into that sort of stuff. You could write to them and ask.

@Daniel: complex question. About half of this class has had me before for another course, so those folks are coming in with varying degrees of interest/sympathy. Several of them are VERY sympathetic. I'd say the rest of the class isn't hostile, more curious. I also think a good number of them are seniors who are trying to sneak in a Horwitz course before they graduate.

In the last 2 or 3 years I have developed something of a group of students who are really interested in Austrian and classical liberal ideas, several of whom also participate in a non-credit reading group I lead. It also helps to have two visiting colleagues this year and one last year who have Austrian and/or related interests.

re: "a non-credit reading group I lead"

Mario may or may not be right about your inner-authoritarian, but if they're coming to a non-credity reading group you know the interest is genuine!

My education in economics (both undergrad and grad) was severely lacking. After finishing my phd and starting my first real teaching job, I was horrified to realize just how little I actually knew about economics, in particular about its history. I've spent the past 3.5 years desperately trying to learn on my own. To that end I am "taking" your Austrian course this semester. Thank you so much for posting this syllabus!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books