22 Nov 2003 | kev said...

Did you not take economics in high school? I did, although the book (and the teacher) were so dumbed down to the lowest common denominator that I got a D because I very rarely attended class.

22 Nov 2003 | Matt said...

It's required in Texas. The Dallas Federal Reserve here actually has a very nice education program and they offer a lot of free materials to the schools.

22 Nov 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

It was required for us. Oh yeah, team teaching from Ken and Bill. Not fun, but unfortunately I learned. However, the opportunity cost for taking the class was not being able to hang out in the lounge and do nothing. Gotta love alternative schools.

What I really wish, as another economics requirement, is that high schoolers be taught how to deal with money. Micro and macro are fine, but for most people it's just theory. But most kids will have to deal with money, either in the form of a checking account, credit cards, cash... And I would guess that most of them aren't very good at it.

22 Nov 2003 | Miles said...

I absolutely agree, I purposely took economics as an a-level (high school level in england) because I wanted to understand how things worked, not just what happened, as well as simple things like what happens when you write a cheque...

I eventually majored in economics in university and discovered that there is little that is absolute and my view of a world with underlying principles and structure began to disintegrate with every counter argument and contradiction in economic theory. I switched to modern history in the end.

22 Nov 2003 | ed said...

Oh yes, for sure. a required personal/country/global economics class in highschool would be great on many levels. In fact, I was listening to NPR, this morning, and Bill Clinton's chief economist (the name escapes me) was on, talking about the sensebilities (or lack thereof) of Bush's economics programs and tax cuts. He mentioned that if an economics class was required in highschool, we would all have a better understanding of how economics decisions affect us short and long term. very interesting. On a personal level, very few of my peers know anything about sensible investing, preparing for the future or dealing with money in general.

and just to bring it back to politics, if the current generation of highschool kids start getting a required economics class maybe they'll have enough insight when they're done, to figure out just how badly Bush is screwing them.

22 Nov 2003 | David S said...

Another "I had to take it" here. Went to high school in San Jose, CA.

22 Nov 2003 | Paul said...

I took, uh, Home Ec! That counts, right?

In seriousness, though, I firmly believe everyone should be fully educated about money in high school. Budgeting, debt, debt, debt, and investing. However, given the state of our education system I feel this is a bit of a longshot.

22 Nov 2003 | Benjy said...

I agree 100% that schools need to do a better job of educating students about economics on a larger scale. I remember having to pass some sort of state required personal finance requirement (how to balance a checkbook, make a household budget, etc.) but no requirement for any sort of micro or macro knowledge. However, I took AP Econ in high school, and created an International Economics concentration in college by minoring in Econ while majoring in International Studies. So I have a pretty strong grasp of the macro and micro issues on both a national and global level.

But the lack of even a basic grasp of these issues by the majority of the population worries me because it forces politicans to make promises and pass legislation that are not in our best interests economically.

The population hears about declining manufacturing jobs and politicians promise to do this and that to bring more manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. But that's not the best answer for many reasons. One, the jobs are being lost more because of productivity gains than because of "cheaper wages abroad" (China and Brazil have seen a larger percentage drop in manufacturing jobs even as manufactured exports skyrocket). Gains in productivity are inherently good in the long-run. Secondly, fundamental principles of conparative advantange and free trade ultimately are better in the long-run for everybody involved. But people (and politicians running for election) are too impatient to see these benefits. All they see are the workers who had jobs yesterday and don't today.

What politicians need to be doing is promote proactive shifts in skills training and education to best utilize our economic and labor resources, but because there is no way to state this in a sound bite, they resport to populist protectionist rhetoric. And in the end we all lose ( before we die).

22 Nov 2003 | vlad said...

at both of the high schools i've been to, seniors are required to take 1 semester of either microeconomics or macroeconomics. the latter is an advanced placement class.

23 Nov 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

I think a basic education in personal financial management would be even more useful than a good grounding in macro- or micro-economics. If I had started saving for my retirement in my early 20s instead of my mid 30s, I'd have nothing to worry about, and if I'd had a basic education in personal finances I might have avoided going deep into credit card debt (a hole that I spent only a year digging but which took five years to climb back out out of. I am now 100% debt-free and learned my lesson. But it cost thousands of bucks to learn it).

23 Nov 2003 | Mike said...

I took basic Econ as a highschool senior in NY.

23 Nov 2003 | Andy said...

In my experience, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to teaching anything financial is that teachers don't often have the training or experience to deliver a meaningful program. As a result, courses that are provided are either "dumbed down" or so irrelevant as to be meaningless.

A speaker at a conference recently pointed out this personal financial planning site as a potential model not only for financial skills, but also for any type of learning - what he called "courseless learning". The site is designed for students, parents, teachers and consumers (with different tools for each groups). Students can learn by playing games and simulations geared to their age groups, or by taking structured lessons if they prefer. Parents can learn how to help their kids develop these skills. Perhaps most importantly, teachers can download lesson plans developed by experts to make their courses truly engaging and useful.

24 Nov 2003 | ~bc said...

I took macro/micro in high school (and got college credit for it, which was nice). I enjoyed it (had a good teacher) and glad I took it. However, it's nearly useless compared to a class that would have taught me to, say construct a home budget, figure out things like payment plans, loans, personal investing, etc. Why, if this is such a phenomenally important thing in our society is it not taught in high school?

A:) then the man couldn't count on the uneducated legions staying in personal debt, paying large sums in financing charges! Or something. Either way it should be required, along with media literacy which is perhaps the second most important thing they don't teach you in high school. Our society runs on money and information, and they effect each other too. You need to know that no source is unbiased. Along with a lot of other things.

I'd argue that these two subjects are more important than say geometry or studying Chaucer (ie, 'media literacy of the middle ages') or Shakespeare, which most kids can't translate in to today's English anyhow. Time to update and prep the kids a little more for the 'real world' which they'll still be shocked with.

24 Nov 2003 | Chris said...

I had no Econ until college. We are homeschooling our kids and have an econ unit planned for after Christmas for our 9 year old. It's mostly pricing based, supply and demand, etc. Enough to help him think about how and why stuff costs what it does.

24 Nov 2003 | Ryan Mahoney said...

I took it in HS. It was just as boring as everything else!

24 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

Economics was never required. I tried taking it in college, but dropped it. I wish I hadn't.

The solution is to require that everyone go to school through grade 12. Then, require everyone, once they are 30, to go back to school for grade 13. This would be a one-semester program where we now learn the things we want to learn that no teenager in their right mind would have any interest in learning.

I think our education is lacking in economics, civics/history, art and theology.

We teach civics, but the only class I ever had was in 9th grade and we seemed to have glossed over any relevance to current events. Same goes for history. Theology? That was never brought up at all in school. Religion plays such a big part in our adult lives (as a planet, not necessarily individually) that it wouldn't hurt for us to konw a bit about the variety of religions out there. History? That is rarely tought in a interesting/inquisitive manner nor is it ever made relevant to today's students (from my experiences...I'm sure there are better schools out there.)

24 Nov 2003 | jane said...

We had to take a half-year of economics and a half-year of government (generic governmental structures and current world governments' policies as opposed to the specific history classes), per New York State law.

24 Nov 2003 | One of several Steves said...

I'm going to swim upstream here and say it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference if it were required or not. We've seen how well required history, geography, English, math, etc. classes have worked for the general American population. Do you think that having a required economics class is going to help people understand current account deficits, currency fluctuations, etc. amongst people who thought that America fought Russia in World War I, can't find France on a map and think that apostrophe-s is the way to make a word plural?

We had a required economics class in my high school (not sure if it was a state requirement). It was useless. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.

Now, if the argument were making it a required part of a college liberal arts curriculum, that's a different story.

24 Nov 2003 | guns and butter said...

I took one. Actually I took one twice because I failed it the first time around. I was a real idiot.

24 Nov 2003 | Justin said...

I've never taken any Econ, but I run my personal budget like an accountant. In fact, I have a general idea what my budget should look like in a year from now. I actually started my budget spreadsheet when I was teaching Excel, and now I've put it online as budget spreadsheet resource. Without it, I always had trouble keeping track of payments upon payments and digging myself into debt. It gives me power over my budget instead of doing it to be anal.

I'd like to start working on a business degree in the next few years and Econ. will, of course, be part of my education. I can't wait though. I know enough to see what a better understanding of the world a person has with even a little Economics traning. Kudos to your Chris, for teaching your children early. I don't know why people hide this stuff from kids. Children can do amazing things when they're given the opportunity.

24 Nov 2003 | J Bosworth said...

Economics and personal finance were two different classes in my high school. Sad, economics was required while personal finance was not. I wish it was a requirement in every school. Then my job (overdraft collections) wouldn't be so damn hard. Though I do get great enjoyment in telling people they are not respondsible enough to have a bank account...but thats just me...

25 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

We had a required economics class in my high school (not sure if it was a state requirement). It was useless. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.

So, what made it useless? Was the class useless? Or was it how it was taught/the curriculum?

I agree that teaching these things to highschoolers is a bit more difficult than teaching it to college folks.

That said, I think the bigger problem is that we don't think about relevance in a lot of our high school curriculums.

History teaches a LOT and I am fascinated by it. Yet it was the dryest class in highschool and I didn't care for it at all. Maybe it was because kids don't care about history. Maybe it's because we're not teaching it very well by not making it relevant to students.

Art was fun, but it was never made relevant to me. I didn't know I could have a career in it. I didn't know anything about design. Aesthetics? What's that?

Music class was fun, but, again, it wasn't made too interesting. Here's sheet music. Play it. How about some theory? Some music history? Etc.

25 Nov 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Darrell, I thought I explained why I thought it was useless when I said I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. Whether that was the fault of the teacher or the curriculum or what, I don't know. All I really remember anymore is that it dealt with very basic stuff. And the fact that it was a general ed class everyone had to take, it tried to hit at the broad middle, thereby hitting no one I'm sure.

It's a problem with a lot of high school classes, period. I was lucky to have a school with a lot of honors programs, and I took as many of them as I could. Because they were actually challenging. General classes hit at such a low level (from my perspective) that they were useless. But I'm sure other students found them to be over their heads. There's no way to try to hit a broad cross-section of students in these classes.

The biggest problem with the way history is taught is that it ends up being a rote memorization regieme. In reality, history's really just a really fascinating story. And everyone loves good stories. Storytelling skills should be part of the price of entry to be a history teacher. A lot more students would be engaged.

And, with adjustments, that's the case for all classes. Make them appealing and relatable. Show students why they should care, even if it's not something they'll ever directly use themselves.

25 Nov 2003 | Darrel said...

I agree with everything you said Steve. I'd add that another problem with history is that we tend to teach a static history. Ie, xy and z happened. Reality is that history is anything but static and constantly evolving with debate, different POVs, new facts, new tangents with today's events, etc.

25 Nov 2003 | RR said...

The problem with Econ is half is right, and half is garbage. Problem is figuring out which side is right (guess it depends if you are Democratic on which side is right). I took a test to get out of taking Macro and Micro.

My opinion as a person doing substitute teaching, is the real need is these kids who don't care and have no idea where they are going in life straightened out. It's really sad to see a kid who just hates being in school and does no work. A 9th grader who does not know how to read, and counts on does adding on their fingers. Or the 11th grader who is only at school, because otherwise he parents will need to pay the school for his missed days. The bootcamp idea they are doing in Oakland, CA sounds like a very great idea. Quote from a long time ago comes to mind, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". The worst thing is a lot of teachers just give up trying to help these students, because they have a hard enough time helping those who want to learn. The drop out rate in the US compared to other countries is a disgrace.

Summary, need to fix the system before start talking about Econ and such. Like the basic idea (for most people), that education results in a higher salary.

RR

26 Nov 2003 | Richard Bird said...

It's just too boring.

26 Nov 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Make them appealing and relatable. Show students why they should care, even if it's not something they'll ever directly use themselves.

Hear, hear. What's needed, probably more than anything else, is good teachers who are enthusiastic about their subjects.

My girlfriend's 14-year-old daughter is the classic slacker student: she never does homework or studies for exams, usually listens to tunes on her CD player all through class, and is failing or just barely passing most of her courses. Last year her final grade in math was 35 (out of 100). This year she's almost passing math, all because of her new teacher whose excitement and love for his subject is slowly infecting his students. Not quite "Stand and Deliver," but who knows, she might even pass math this year.

26 Nov 2003 | Justin said...

I've actually been wanting to pickup a book on economics for some time now, but I've had a hard time feeling confident about any particular title. Could anyone suggest a book? Is there something I should look for? I'm not even sure if I should start in micro or macro econ. Many books seem to be either workbooks that are to supplement a class, or are specific to an industry (memoir-type).

I agree that relevance in a classroom setting is extremely important to engaging students. It's the key motivation, where nothing else will do. So should high-schools be run more like trade schools? I'm not certain, but I've heard France divides studies up at a particular grade into 2 learning tracks - one that will lead to trades, and the other to higher-ed.

29 Dec 2003 | handy said...

Oh! macro econ?

16 Jan 2004 | Judith said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.

16 Jan 2004 | Paul said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.