Socialist bias in VCE Economics

[brendan]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/economic-rumblings-to-be-felt-in-classrooms-20081003-4tkm.html

And not a single academic economist on the Study Design Review Panel: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/economics/membership.html

[humph]

? It didn't come across as that socialist, just merely suggesting a swing back towards the centre (i.e. slightly less free market, but free enough nevertheless).

And to be honest a slightly socialist high school economics curriculum doesn't really concern me, considering how conservative most economics departments at Australian universities are (with good reason).

[AppleXY]

It's VCE so they have to keep it as basic as they can. The VCE Economics Study design always had govt intervention/redistribution of income and it made sense to keep it as it creates some substance for the subject. Although it does contain many socialist material.

[Collin Li]

It's VCE so they have to keep it as basic as they can. The VCE Economics Study design always had govt intervention/redistribution of income and it made sense to keep it as it creates some substance for the subject. Although it does contain many socialist material.

The University of Melbourne offers a far more simple and politically neutral course on economics in first year, than VCE.

[Collin Li]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/economic-rumblings-to-be-felt-in-classrooms-20081003-4tkm.html

What a shallow view of the credit crisis:

"The United States is traditionally known as a capitalist nation, and look: A failure in the financial markets! This must be the fault of capitalism!"

But they're wrong. You wouldn't find a free market capitalism in the United States in that many industries without looking before the 20th century. Socialists are begging to see what capitalists saw happen to communism in 1990, but what they're really watching is the downfall of a "market" filled with entangling laws and overbearing regulations.

[Eriny]

Oh please. When I was doing economics assessors gave some advice about answering questions. At the time WorkChoices was a key economic issue. They said that you can be pro, con or neither in answering how it'll achieve the Australian governments economic goals, it doesn't matter as long as you demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. Economics teachers aren't socialists, you just have to get used to the idea that it's possible to provide a good response that does have a leftist slant.

Don't judge the curriculum when you haven't actually done the course. Furthermore, there was nothing in the article to suggest that the teaching would be 'socialist', just that things like the credit crisis highlights that the free market isn't perfect (OMFG, how could they?!?!?). These debates have been going on for ages and frankly, it's a good thing that younger students are able to engage with them.

[costargh]

I just hope that people aren't led to believe that the credit crisis was as a result of a failure in the free market. To me, that would be wrong and irresponsible of teachers to explain it in this way.

[Collin Li]

Yeah, read the article. I'm attacking the article. I don't believe the free market is perfect. It doesn't need to be for economists to conclude that government intervention is worse.

Also, where is the monopoly or the externality in this failure? (VCE Economics limits market failures to these two)

If you are a Keynesian, you may say that this is a business cycle market failure. However, that argument should not be made without the complex groundwork of that model. In a sense, the Keynesian model shows that the business cycle is a rational outcome of shocks (using neo-Keynesian models). Business cycle analyses have not been done in second year macroeconomics, so they shouldn't be done in VCE Economics either.

[brendan]

how conservative most economics departments at Australian universities are (with good reason).

They are not "conservative" by any sensible measure.

just merely suggesting a swing back towards the centre (i.e. slightly less free market, but free enough nevertheless).

If you actually look at it, it is quite biased. It was never "free market" in the first place. It's full of policy questions asking you how government can control this and plan that. It doesn't make the important distinction between positive economics "what is" and normative economics "what ought to be".

These debates have been going on for ages and frankly, it's a good thing that younger students are able to engage with them.

The only problem is they aren't taught the fundamental tools that actually allow you to analyze whether one arrangement is more "efficient" than another. I think it is way to suspicious that they ask you many questions about "market failure" but hardly any on government failure and of how government intervention can reduce total welfare.

[humph]

how conservative most economics departments at Australian universities are (with good reason).

They are not "conservative" by any sensible measure.

I mean ostensibly right-wing economically; that is, heavily biased towards a libertarian view (well, this is the case at ANU). I suppose conservative was a bad choice of words (suggests socially conservative really).

[costargh]

I study the curriculum in question and I can honestly say that I don't think there is much bias in it at all.You are basically told the free market is the best operation, however there are market failures. Governments try to correct these market failures but sometimes these result in government failures.

It doesn't really focus on what economics "ought to be". It quite explicitly focuses on "what is". For VCE level, I think this is perfectly fine. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than it already is.

[Collin Li]

The reason why I think it does have a slant is because VCE Economics focuses on macroeconomic models, rather than spending time on welfare analysis (microeconomics).

Welfare analysis is particularly important. It is the proof that markets are indeed the best operation, and it is value-neutral. It is based on each consumer's and producer's preferences (the demand curve and supply curve). Instead, VCE Economics focuses on "Australian economic objectives," things that are not necessarily welfare maximising, and things that first-year economic students didn't need to care about. It basically trains you to be a central planner - "how can I tweak the economy to maximise the well-being of Australians?" - it requires you to make value-based decisions on behalf of every other Australian.

[Eriny]

These debates have been going on for ages and frankly, it's a good thing that younger students are able to engage with them.

The only problem is they aren't taught the fundamental tools that actually allow you to analyze whether one arrangement is more "efficient" than another. I think it is way to suspicious that they ask you many questions about "market failure" but hardly any on government failure and of how government intervention can reduce total welfare.
[/quote]

Oh, but they do. I remember having to memorise a list of all the times government policy has failed. It didn't come up on the '07 exam, but it has in earlier years. Questions like 'how successful...?' come up. Further, there is a big emphasis on the greatness wonder that is micro reform.

There are questions about the market mechanism and so on, but its almost always applied to a real situation, hence its macro tendencies (micro is more unit 1/2).  I have a friend who did micro at uni after doing high school economics and found it all really easy with only little bits of new material here and there and more maths.

3/4 VCE economics is really just 'Australian Economics'. It identifies the 6 economic goals the government has named and then gets students to analyse how these goals are affected by different things happening in the world. If there is a fault in the subject, start with that, don't waste your time by shouting "bias".