On the question of economics instruction, Akaison weighs in:
Not all schools are like that. At UVa my professors discussed concepts like externalities, game theory, and the like early on (or maybe I just remember it that?). Also, the problem with econ in general is that it requires one to suspend disbelief- ie, that humans are rational- all we need to do is read a post by Fred or Toke to realize that ain't true. On a more serious note, there is this field, I think its called pscyho economics, where they have shown in the last few years that people are often not rational actors. If you are going to teach a basic course in economics, I think that would be the first step toward reforming the subject- to admit that rationality is only a theorectical ideal, not a factual one. That rational behavior also works at one level, and fails at another. That it maybe like the prisoners dilemma.
I think he means behavioral economics, with is a fascinating and strangely new discipline. That the economics profession has allowed the assumption of rationality to so long transcend the proof of it is, folks will agree, a bit weird. That's happily changing though, and a significant number of Nobel prizes have accrued out to skeptics of rational behavior. For a good introduction to behavior econ, see this John Cassidy piece from The New Yorker. Alternately, you could check out The Winner's Curse or, if you're really awesome, help me check it out by grabbing it off my wishlist.
