Andrew Revkin‘s post reminds me of my time at Notre Dame. He quotes Michael Sandmel, who is graduating this year from NYU:
We had around 140 attendees from universities around the country. Many of us study in mainstream neoclassical economics departments where interdisciplinary ecological-economics, and the questioning of G.D.P. growth as a primary (or, depending on who you ask, desirable) objective, is still very much fringe thinking. I don’t attempt to speak for all of my peers, but I know that many of us share an enormous frustration with the way in which our supposedly leading institutions teach us about the economy in a way that is myopic, ahistorical, and devoid of nearly any critical conversation about sustainability or human well being.
This is particularly troubling as we regularly see our schools accredit future leaders in business, finance, and government, sending them into a world of 21st century problems with a 20th century toolkit.
Well said!
There are very few good economics departments. I can think of one good one: UMKC. There may be a handful of others.
The “big names” like Harvard and the U. of Chicago are useless — worse than useless, harmful. They should be banned from teaching.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
I am all for variety of approaches taught in a curriculum. What surprises me however is that I think I read more critical voices about the over-abundence of neo-classical economics than I see students actually attending classes in which really new ideas are discussed? I see more people calling upon others to be sustainable then I see people willing to do the hard work to make things sustainable.