I think you might be onto something here. Sometimes it seems like a lot of the classroom and classwork is administered/assigned in such a way as to turn people off of a subject. Not that this is the intent but this is the effect. The intent might be to make the course more challenging, but the effect is to make it miserable. It is also possible the intent is to get through the curriculum as efficiently as possible which may leave it a dry whirlwind of textbooks and tests.
I think there are other factors, many of which I may not have thought about. I know many people would talk about certain professors who they really liked. I remember there were some professors who even though their class was really hard people would still talk about it positively. Perhaps without realizing it I think what they were attesting to was that a challenge or adversity can instill growth. I know there were also professors who had such a rapport that students would take their classes even if they weren't especially interested in the subject. I think some professors were good at making a subject come to life and some have the privilege of teaching something they love and the latitude to do that how they see fit.
In my university we don't have introductory economics class, rather we have economic history in our first quarter and then we're taught how supply and demand work in our world's history. Primarily we begin for the importance of institutions and markets to answer the question of what our country, Colombia, lacks in that aspect.
Additionally, the emphasis is totally put in antiquity and modern age.
I'm very biased here, since most of my economics courses ended up being economic history. But I think this would make a lot more sense as an organizing principle for econ 1 than what I was taught (back in the stone age).
The development of Argentina and Mexico might offer some interesting comparisons. Argentina's wonderful river system meant that pretty much all of Argentina was in touch with the rest of the world as it developed. Prices in Argentina were related to world prices. But prices in rural Mexico were not, at least for agricultural goods, until the railroads came. The arrival of the railroads was a massive disruption because it subjected rural areas to world prices, quite suddenly. All of this is from decades old memory, so you should take it with a salt shaker.
I'm not familiar with the Argentina case, but you're right about Mexico. Railroads had a huge effect on the economy because it was relatively unintegrated without natural waterways. Great example to help people see how economies evolve.
I think you might be onto something here. Sometimes it seems like a lot of the classroom and classwork is administered/assigned in such a way as to turn people off of a subject. Not that this is the intent but this is the effect. The intent might be to make the course more challenging, but the effect is to make it miserable. It is also possible the intent is to get through the curriculum as efficiently as possible which may leave it a dry whirlwind of textbooks and tests.
I think there are other factors, many of which I may not have thought about. I know many people would talk about certain professors who they really liked. I remember there were some professors who even though their class was really hard people would still talk about it positively. Perhaps without realizing it I think what they were attesting to was that a challenge or adversity can instill growth. I know there were also professors who had such a rapport that students would take their classes even if they weren't especially interested in the subject. I think some professors were good at making a subject come to life and some have the privilege of teaching something they love and the latitude to do that how they see fit.
In my university we don't have introductory economics class, rather we have economic history in our first quarter and then we're taught how supply and demand work in our world's history. Primarily we begin for the importance of institutions and markets to answer the question of what our country, Colombia, lacks in that aspect.
Additionally, the emphasis is totally put in antiquity and modern age.
I'm very biased here, since most of my economics courses ended up being economic history. But I think this would make a lot more sense as an organizing principle for econ 1 than what I was taught (back in the stone age).
The development of Argentina and Mexico might offer some interesting comparisons. Argentina's wonderful river system meant that pretty much all of Argentina was in touch with the rest of the world as it developed. Prices in Argentina were related to world prices. But prices in rural Mexico were not, at least for agricultural goods, until the railroads came. The arrival of the railroads was a massive disruption because it subjected rural areas to world prices, quite suddenly. All of this is from decades old memory, so you should take it with a salt shaker.
I'm not familiar with the Argentina case, but you're right about Mexico. Railroads had a huge effect on the economy because it was relatively unintegrated without natural waterways. Great example to help people see how economies evolve.