Well, I’m not sure that is actually the case. My university might not be the best in the US (I would say it is a lot better than “average”, though), but I doubt Ivy League schools’ faculty have a better view of science. Rather, it seems to me that they are clearly the worst in terms of narrow mindedness and mainstream mindset. And more or less all of them are do-good liberals who think they can can provide well thought out arguments for state expansion.

Really like your essays. Perhaps you could also take into account the fact that the US university that you study at is average at best. I would suggest that you try to get into a more presitigious program, which would pleasantly surprise you.

This seems to be the case with the classical economists, who almost were (and are) discredited with the rise of marginalism. Although their theories are generally less complicated and in some aspects of course outdated, they seem to seek explanations to the “bigger picture”, while the neo-classicals often focus on micro-economc details, just as you mentioned that also professors do. This bigger picture is often forgotten when only focusing on the details; and while the details of course are important, as you say it is also important that the “parts match the car”. I would, as a total novice in economics, like to see a renaissance of the classical theories and a modernization of these, and see more attention being aimed at the bigger picture. This would probably also bring more interest to economics among “ordinary people” – which maybe is what they’re trying to avoid?

I am inclined to agree with you in a lot of what you say. I do not, however, agree with you that I’m in the middle of a Keynesian cesspool. I believe part of the reason you say so is that you are mixing things up: firstly, I’m in agricultural economics, which is a different department than economics and even in a different college; and secondly, the MU Kansas City economics department is very Keynesian and [obviously] proudly so, whereas I’m on the flagship campus in Columbia. Whether the econ department here in Columbia is as Keynesian as the one in KC, I do not know. At least, they are not advertising it the way they do at UMKC.

As for the people I have met here and in other universities (in two countries), I cannot say people are stupid. Rather, they are fundamentally uninterested in ideas (which you seem to say too) and much more interested in 9-5 jobs teaching and running regressions (for economists). This lack of interest for the “greater issues” and the ideas permeating all theories and research may make them look “stupid” or narrow-minded, at least to a true scholar.

In a sense, I would say that scholars are as scarce in academia as they are elsewhere; and scholars among students won’t have an easy time getting through the educational programs. I have encountered scholars in different fields, there seem to be a number of them in academia, but they seem to be more numerous (=not so few) in the “fluffier” and softer sciences than in the technician-supportive disciplines.

My only question to you, which is more important, your education, or your accreditation?

I got a good laugh when I saw that you came to the Keynesian cesspool that is the MU Economics Dept. to study under Prof. Klein. Of all of the places to try and better oneself, that one is full of fail (Prof. Klein notwithstanding).

I gave up with the accreditation route long ago, realizing that I did not want to pay insane sums to be indoctrinated into such stupidity, and instead started investing in myself, purchasing books on my own on whatever captured my interest.

As for the intelligence of educators, I’ll point out that not only is there is no longer any reason to have intelligent teaching staff, it is actually detrimental to their purpose of indoctrination. The last thing the facade of intellect wants is a mere student questioning its validity. Either you believe in the goodness of the system, or it will cast you out. Heretics need not apply!

Thanks to the idea that “everyone needs to go to college” (which is now just another extension of childhood, much like high school), coupled with 3rd party fedgov loans, “education” has been turned into just another process of debt enslavement in order to turn out automatons of the status quo.

The most important thing I learned at MU was this, college is a place where stupid people go in order to get a piece of paper that says it doesn’t matter.

This of course, isn’t saying that only stupid people go there, but that they have overwhelmed and thus destroyed the value of a diploma for the intelligent.

My case in point is to note that DC is filled with highly credentialed folks. Not only cannot they fix the world, they cannot even understand how they destroy it (with a few scary exceptions). Most importantly, they don’t want to know. Like all evil-do(good)ers, they measure their actions solely by intention, and never by their effects. Because that, of course, would require introspection, opening up the possibility of not only being wrong, but worse, of actually contributing to the damage. Apathetic beliefs are a far safer path to tread, keeping cognitive dissonance at bay.

They aren’t interested in ideas, nearly as much as they are playing with all the levers of power. Ideas are dangerous. So dangerous in fact, that institutions known as universities are created to protect us from them.

Support them at your own risk.

(8?»