,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There's a lot to like about @dylanmatt fanboying over Raj Chetty's big data and social problems class. But positioning systematic data analysis as a substitute for Econ 101 misses the point. They're complements not substitutes.
But the deeper message is surely right: Econ 101 should show how economics speaks to big issues; it should showcase the breadth of economic inquiry; we should link theory to data; we should prize evidence; and we need to make the class more inclusive.
My advice to young econ students is "all of the above": Learn the fundamental insights and principles of economic reasoning, AND learn how to interpret empirical claims, AND learn how to transform data into insight.
(I would be surprised if Raj disagrees.)
(I would be surprised if Raj disagrees.)
One way for Econ departments to deliver the full gamut of empirical and theoretical econ is to eliminate the pointless repetition that comes from studying foundational ideas in Econ 101, only to repeat the same ideas (+complications+math) in second-year classes.
There's a lot of room to improve Econ 101. Equally, a lot of public criticism is based on an outdated caricature of 1970s theorists preaching a narrow religion. In reality, many excellent instructors bring the full glory of modern economics and it's debates into their classrooms.
The claim that modern Econ 101 classes are totally detached from empirical reality is, ironically enough, totally detached from empirical reality.
Over recent years I've talked with hundreds of Econ 101 instructors, and they're doing some really interesting things. #teachecon
Over recent years I've talked with hundreds of Econ 101 instructors, and they're doing some really interesting things. #teachecon
