So I came across this interesting article recently reporting how a new economics curriculum will be taught at universities in London, Paris, New York, Boston, Budapest, Sydney and Bangalore. Apparently its a 'dismal science' that leaves students feeling 'disenchanted'. I hope you don't feel like that reading my blog!
This article by the FT outlines how economic events have changed economics curricula over the years, from neoclassical to Keynesian to new Keynesian. Of course curricula must keep changing to adapt to events that make models obsolete, but a message to take away from this is that students are spending years learning models that are continuously changing, which makes it less enjoyable to study at degree level. Perhaps changing from abstract, mundane, incomprehensible maths will indeed make economics more accessible for young people. That's actually the whole reason why I started this blog!
I'll end this post with the ending sentence of the article to provide my readers with some food for thought: 'The new thought is a return to the past: less maths and more history of economic thought might make for more enthusiastic and useful graduates.'
