The Economic Naturalist

Robert Frank writes;

Why aren’t introductory economics courses more effective? One possibility is that professors try to teach their students far too much. The typical course bombards students with hundreds of concepts, many of them embedded in complex equations and graphs. The mathematical formalism that has become the hallmark of economic research has yielded deep insights. But it does not seem to have helped introductory students learn basic economic principles.

In a recent paper, Paul J. Ferraro and Laura O. Taylor, economists at Georgia State University, suggest a more troubling possibility — that introductory economics instructors may not have mastered some of the basic concepts themselves. When the researchers described an activity and asked a sample of 199 professional economists to identify its opportunity cost, only one in five answered correctly.

The good news is that an approach that has revolutionized the teaching of foreign languages promises similar gains in economics and other disciplines. I took four years of Spanish in high school, only to have difficulty making myself understood when traveling in Spain. In those days, most language courses focused on arcane grammatical details, the functional equivalent of the technical material that often bedevils introductory economics students. Today, the best language programs try to mimic the organic process by which children learn their native language.

My first exposure to the new approach came during my Peace Corps training for teaching math and science in rural Nepal. All the things we learned to say were grammatically correct, but we were never taught any formal grammatical rules. Starting from scratch, we had to be able to teach, in Nepali, just 13 weeks later. Our linguistic skills were fairly basic, but virtually all of us made it...

Twice during the semester, I ask students to pose an interesting question based on something they have personally observed or experienced. In no more than 500 words, they must then use basic economic principles to answer it. I call it the “economic naturalist” assignment, in the spirit of field biologists who use Darwinian principles to interpret the traits and behavior of living things.

A high proportion of my students’ papers invoke the cost-benefit principle, which says that a rational person should take only those actions whose benefits exceed their costs. This principle can help explain otherwise mysterious patterns of government regulation. My former student Greg Balet asked, for example, why parents are required to strap toddlers into a safety seat for even a short drive to the grocery store, yet are permitted to fly from New York to Los Angeles with toddlers on their laps.

Related;
Do Economists Recognize an Opportunity Cost When They See One? A Dismal Performance from the Dismal Science