[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

A friend was in a class recently and the professor went on and on at length about a rather controversial topic (I'm being intentionally vague, sorry), but not in a way meant to facilitate discussion.  It was merely a soapbox rant, the professor telling the students (undergrads) how things should be, and from the sounds of it was saying some borderline prejudiced things in the process.  The topic of the rant wasn't even remotely relevant to the course.

I don't shy away from controversial discussion, and I firmly believe that a good debate about an uncomfortable topic can help people grow.  I've even been in classes like that, where the professor goes on a tangent, but I've typically just adopted a "grin and b.ear it" attitude and focused on getting the A.  However, I have a problem with a professor merely forcing his or her opinion onto impressionable young minds without allowing them the proper opportunity to think about it for themselves, especially when it's a hot button issue.

I know I've seen some educators and administrators on here so I thought I would get some feedback.  What does the CARDboard think?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

A friend was in a class recently and the professor went on and on at length about a rather controversial topic (I'm being intentionally vague, sorry), but not in a way meant to facilitate discussion.  It was merely a soapbox rant, the professor telling the students (undergrads) how things should be, and from the sounds of it was saying some borderline prejudiced things in the process.  The topic of the rant wasn't even remotely relevant to the course.

I don't shy away from controversial discussion, and I firmly believe that a good debate about an uncomfortable topic can help people grow.  I've even been in classes like that, where the professor goes on a tangent, but I've typically just adopted a "grin and b.ear it" attitude and focused on getting the A.  However, I have a problem with a professor merely forcing his or her opinion onto impressionable young minds without allowing them the proper opportunity to think about it for themselves, especially when it's a hot button issue.

I know I've seen some educators and administrators on here so I thought I would get some feedback.  What does the CARDboard think?

[Stymie]

I'm neither an educator nor an administrator, but I do remember enrolling in Bruce Franklin's English 2xx class on "Melville" in my senior year (67-68) and dropping out after two irrelevant lectures on Marxism and Direct Action.  I knew of Melville well and had a personal interest in the topic, as one of my ancestors was a whaling captain sailing out of New Bedford in the 1850's, and even sympathized then with some of Bruce's views (being a supporter of and canvasser for Eugene McCarthy), but Prof. Franklin was over the top.  I switched to Eng. 2xx on "Modern Poetry" and loved it.  I still read Melville  and modern poetry, but am very glad that I had enough nous to drop a class which was more about the Prof. than the subject involved.  That is where the line between academic freedom and the prupose of academia is crossed.  IMHO.

[Stymie]

I'm neither an educator nor an administrator, but I do remember enrolling in Bruce Franklin's English 2xx class on "Melville" in my senior year (67-68) and dropping out after two irrelevant lectures on Marxism and Direct Action.  I knew of Melville well and had a personal interest in the topic, as one of my ancestors was a whaling captain sailing out of New Bedford in the 1850's, and even sympathized then with some of Bruce's views (being a supporter of and canvasser for Eugene McCarthy), but Prof. Franklin was over the top.  I switched to Eng. 2xx on "Modern Poetry" and loved it.  I still read Melville  and modern poetry, but am very glad that I had enough nous to drop a class which was more about the Prof. than the subject involved.  That is where the line between academic freedom and the prupose of academia is crossed.  IMHO.

[81alum]

I'm neither an educator nor an administrator, but I do remember enrolling in Bruce Franklin's English 2xx class on "Melville" in my senior year (67-68) and dropping out after two irrelevant lectures on Marxism and Direct Action.  I knew of Melville well and had a personal interest in the topic, as one of my ancestors was a whaling captain sailing out of New Bedford in the 1850's, and even sympathized then with some of Bruce's views (being a supporter of and canvasser for Eugene McCarthy), but Prof. Franklin was over the top.  I switched to Eng. 2xx on "Modern Poetry" and loved it.  I still read Melville  and modern poetry, but am very glad that I had enough nous to drop a class which was more about the Prof. than the subject involved.  That is where the line between academic freedom and the prupose of academia is crossed.  IMHO.

As a political scientist this is a familiar topic.  If you discuss politics in an entirely value-neutral way you drain the life out of it--the controversies are what make it interesting to students.  I think it is useful to be able to play devil's advocate on a regular basis.  "What would you say to the argument that......."  I think most people can accept that challenging students in that way is a good thing--provided you are willing to challenge all views and seek to get students from all perspectives to defend their positions.  That is just the Socratic method.  Now, if you only challenged conservative students and gave brownie points to liberals, or vice versa, then there is a problem.  But I think we all (political scientists) do worry that someone will react negatively or ignorantly to this method.  It didn't end well for Socrates, after all.

A somewhat different problem is what to do about the boundary line between political opinion and empirical social science.  We live in an age when popular culture teaches people to ignore facts that do not comport with their preexisting world-views.  Such facts, however, are a key to learning--Max Weber called them "inconvenient facts."  Despite common belief, there is a considerable and growing body of high-quality social science using scientific methods to understand human political and social behavior.  I've had students whose beliefs were threatened by an article or a book respond that it was just someone's political opinion and so they did not have to accept it.  The response of course, is to ask that they examine the evidence and the argument and point out where in their view the article or book went wrong.  Sometimes students will refuse to do so--and in those cases the students are simply using their own politics as an excuse for laziness--to not engage in an evaluation of evidence that may seem to contradict their views. 

Then there is the problem of the ideological rant.  I had a Bruce Franklin experience of my own, taking Allan Bloom's course on Rousseau at the University of Chicago.  This was just after Reagan's election, and Allan Bloom had become the intellectual star of the right.  Nearly every lecture, Bloom departed from his analysis of the text--a close reading of the Emile--to wander into American politics and discuss his conservative ideology.  I learned later that he was writing his conservative magnum opus "The Closing of the American Mind" while teaching that course, and clearly his mind was on his new book and not on what he was teaching.  At the time I was deeply bothered that I was not learning much about Rousseau, and also bothered that Bloom was irritating me on a daily basis with an ideology I disagreed with.  However, in retrospect I am happy I stuck with his course.  I'm still not persuaded by most of his arguments, but I count it as blessing that I witnessed one of the greatest conservative minds of the 20th century writing one of the greatest conservative tracts of the 20th century.  I'd probably feel the same way if I had a chance to take a course from Machiavelli.

[81alum]

I'm neither an educator nor an administrator, but I do remember enrolling in Bruce Franklin's English 2xx class on "Melville" in my senior year (67-68) and dropping out after two irrelevant lectures on Marxism and Direct Action.  I knew of Melville well and had a personal interest in the topic, as one of my ancestors was a whaling captain sailing out of New Bedford in the 1850's, and even sympathized then with some of Bruce's views (being a supporter of and canvasser for Eugene McCarthy), but Prof. Franklin was over the top.  I switched to Eng. 2xx on "Modern Poetry" and loved it.  I still read Melville  and modern poetry, but am very glad that I had enough nous to drop a class which was more about the Prof. than the subject involved.  That is where the line between academic freedom and the prupose of academia is crossed.  IMHO.

As a political scientist this is a familiar topic.  If you discuss politics in an entirely value-neutral way you drain the life out of it--the controversies are what make it interesting to students.  I think it is useful to be able to play devil's advocate on a regular basis.  "What would you say to the argument that......."  I think most people can accept that challenging students in that way is a good thing--provided you are willing to challenge all views and seek to get students from all perspectives to defend their positions.  That is just the Socratic method.  Now, if you only challenged conservative students and gave brownie points to liberals, or vice versa, then there is a problem.  But I think we all (political scientists) do worry that someone will react negatively or ignorantly to this method.  It didn't end well for Socrates, after all.

A somewhat different problem is what to do about the boundary line between political opinion and empirical social science.  We live in an age when popular culture teaches people to ignore facts that do not comport with their preexisting world-views.  Such facts, however, are a key to learning--Max Weber called them "inconvenient facts."  Despite common belief, there is a considerable and growing body of high-quality social science using scientific methods to understand human political and social behavior.  I've had students whose beliefs were threatened by an article or a book respond that it was just someone's political opinion and so they did not have to accept it.  The response of course, is to ask that they examine the evidence and the argument and point out where in their view the article or book went wrong.  Sometimes students will refuse to do so--and in those cases the students are simply using their own politics as an excuse for laziness--to not engage in an evaluation of evidence that may seem to contradict their views. 

Then there is the problem of the ideological rant.  I had a Bruce Franklin experience of my own, taking Allan Bloom's course on Rousseau at the University of Chicago.  This was just after Reagan's election, and Allan Bloom had become the intellectual star of the right.  Nearly every lecture, Bloom departed from his analysis of the text--a close reading of the Emile--to wander into American politics and discuss his conservative ideology.  I learned later that he was writing his conservative magnum opus "The Closing of the American Mind" while teaching that course, and clearly his mind was on his new book and not on what he was teaching.  At the time I was deeply bothered that I was not learning much about Rousseau, and also bothered that Bloom was irritating me on a daily basis with an ideology I disagreed with.  However, in retrospect I am happy I stuck with his course.  I'm still not persuaded by most of his arguments, but I count it as blessing that I witnessed one of the greatest conservative minds of the 20th century writing one of the greatest conservative tracts of the 20th century.  I'd probably feel the same way if I had a chance to take a course from Machiavelli.

[Roberton3]

I'll post a much more detailed response later, when I have more time.  A very quick response now: professors shouldn't use class as a soapbox, but saying they shouldn't be able to is dangerous.

[Roberton3]

I'll post a much more detailed response later, when I have more time.  A very quick response now: professors shouldn't use class as a soapbox, but saying they shouldn't be able to is dangerous.

[CTcard]

I know I've seen some educators and administrators on here so I thought I would get some feedback.  What does the CARDboard think?

Well, I was writing a fairly lengthy response and when I went to post Roberton came through with the short version.

[CTcard]

I know I've seen some educators and administrators on here so I thought I would get some feedback.  What does the CARDboard think?

Well, I was writing a fairly lengthy response and when I went to post Roberton came through with the short version.

[martyup]

Despite 81alum's anecdotal experience, I highly doubt that many students must endure conservative college professors on the soapbox.

[martyup]

Despite 81alum's anecdotal experience, I highly doubt that many students must endure conservative college professors on the soapbox.

[washingtonismoney]

Despite 81alum's anecdotal experience, I highly doubt that many students must endure conservative college professors on the soapbox.

Why not? Economics is the most dominant major in many schools -- and there are many, many conservatives there.

[washingtonismoney]

Despite 81alum's anecdotal experience, I highly doubt that many students must endure conservative college professors on the soapbox.

Why not? Economics is the most dominant major in many schools -- and there are many, many conservatives there.

[stupac2]

Why not? Economics is the most dominant major in many schools -- and there are many, many conservatives there.

Funny, that was my thought too. Economics also lends itself to political soapboaxing more so than many other disciplines.

[stupac2]

Why not? Economics is the most dominant major in many schools -- and there are many, many conservatives there.

Funny, that was my thought too. Economics also lends itself to political soapboaxing more so than many other disciplines.

[washingtonismoney]

Funny, that was my thought too. Economics also lends itself to political soapboaxing more so than many other disciplines.

The number of Econ 101 maxims that are drilled into students' heads -- that turn out to be significantly more complicated or contested in reality or in intramural debates -- that are quite conservative is really remarkable.

[washingtonismoney]

Funny, that was my thought too. Economics also lends itself to political soapboaxing more so than many other disciplines.

The number of Econ 101 maxims that are drilled into students' heads -- that turn out to be significantly more complicated or contested in reality or in intramural debates -- that are quite conservative is really remarkable.

[Rally]

I think it's reprehensible for teachers, at any level, to do this.  It's not the job.  I have no idea how the ideological scorecard works out, but the one's that make the news are overwhelmingly from the extreme left.

[Rally]

I think it's reprehensible for teachers, at any level, to do this.  It's not the job.  I have no idea how the ideological scorecard works out, but the one's that make the news are overwhelmingly from the extreme left.

[CornFed]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13066.msg133031#msg133031 date=1444153604]
Funny, that was my thought too. Economics also lends itself to political soapboaxing more so than many other disciplines.

The number of Econ 101 maxims that are drilled into students' heads -- that turn out to be significantly more complicated or contested in reality or in intramural debates -- that are quite conservative is really remarkable.
[/quote]

I would be quite interested to hear the specific topics that you feel fall into that category.  Econ 101 would be a class in which grandstanding would definitely be a temptation.  I should know.  I had John Gurley for 101 and have a general recollection that he wielded the Samuelson text as a weapon to highlight weaknesses in the capitalist system.

Plus, I hardly think that Econ is any more prone to political agendas of the professor than many of the other disciplines.  It is equally as likely to receive an indoctrination in English Lit or American History (not that most universities teach it anymore) as it is in an econ class.

[CornFed]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13066.msg133031#msg133031 date=1444153604]
Funny, that was my thought too. Economics also lends itself to political soapboaxing more so than many other disciplines.

The number of Econ 101 maxims that are drilled into students' heads -- that turn out to be significantly more complicated or contested in reality or in intramural debates -- that are quite conservative is really remarkable.
[/quote]

I would be quite interested to hear the specific topics that you feel fall into that category.  Econ 101 would be a class in which grandstanding would definitely be a temptation.  I should know.  I had John Gurley for 101 and have a general recollection that he wielded the Samuelson text as a weapon to highlight weaknesses in the capitalist system.

Plus, I hardly think that Econ is any more prone to political agendas of the professor than many of the other disciplines.  It is equally as likely to receive an indoctrination in English Lit or American History (not that most universities teach it anymore) as it is in an econ class.

[stupac2]

I had John Gurley for 101 and have a general recollection that he wielded the Samuelson text as a weapon to highlight weaknesses in the capitalist system.

Unfettered capitalism isn't a good idea so I'm not really sure why this in and of itself would be an issue. I suppose it's possible to overdo, but teaching Econ 101 without highlighting lots of areas of market failure seems like a dereliction of duty to me.

Plus, I hardly think that Econ is any more prone to political agendas of the professor than many of the other disciplines.  It is equally as likely to receive an indoctrination in English Lit or American History (not that most universities teach it anymore) as it is in an econ class.

Yeah, that's why I said "many". Though I think that the number of opportunities for political pontification are higher in Econ than literature, it might be that Econ profs are less likely to do it for whatever reason.

[stupac2]

I had John Gurley for 101 and have a general recollection that he wielded the Samuelson text as a weapon to highlight weaknesses in the capitalist system.

Unfettered capitalism isn't a good idea so I'm not really sure why this in and of itself would be an issue. I suppose it's possible to overdo, but teaching Econ 101 without highlighting lots of areas of market failure seems like a dereliction of duty to me.

Plus, I hardly think that Econ is any more prone to political agendas of the professor than many of the other disciplines.  It is equally as likely to receive an indoctrination in English Lit or American History (not that most universities teach it anymore) as it is in an econ class.

Yeah, that's why I said "many". Though I think that the number of opportunities for political pontification are higher in Econ than literature, it might be that Econ profs are less likely to do it for whatever reason.

[washingtonismoney]

Plus, I hardly think that Econ is any more prone to political agendas of the professor than many of the other disciplines.  It is equally as likely to receive an indoctrination in English Lit or American History (not that most universities teach it anymore) as it is in an econ class.

1) I heard a lot about the naive take on monetarism -- inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon -- which is, of course, contradicted rather strongly by history. Many inflation episodes are driven by increases (or decreases) in the monetary supply, but then again some are driven by supply shocks (e.g. to oil). It's too simple to say inflation is purely monetary, though surely the Fed can suppress inflation any time it pleases.

While I wouldn't call this purely a "conservative" view, the case for protectionism for developing countries is actually rather strong -- basically every East Asian country that has successfully developed uses a combination of industrial policy and protectionism. While these policies have ended up poorly in some cases (like Japan), the fact remains that these countries have stagnated at an elevated level relative to where they started (like...Japan).

Keynesianism was also pretty neglected at the time I was in school, though that was before the recession. Perhaps the recession has stimulated more sustained and honest engagement with the subject, since the purely-monetary-policy view of fighting recessions appears to be only a partial solution.

2) I don't think the point is that Econ is more prone to political agendas than other agendas, more than there are many conservatives using it as a vehicle for their political agendas. And I don't necessarily think that's wrong, by the way.

I think it's reprehensible for teachers, at any level, to do this.  It's not the job.  I have no idea how the ideological scorecard works out, but the one's that make the news are overwhelmingly from the extreme left.

The problem is that this is a question of degrees. At some point a teacher pushing an ideological view in class is being intellectually dishonest, but the other extreme is foolish as well. The distinction of facts versus opinions is not totally useful; everyone perceives the world somewhat subjectively. So aside from pure logic the human mind will perceive the world differently and espouse different views because of that. It's impossible to deny; the solution is to do the best you can with that bias in mind.

People have the same elevated standards of journalists, which I think is incorrect for more-or-less the same reason. It's strange to expect a person to study a subject intensively for years and not develop opinions because of that.

[washingtonismoney]

Plus, I hardly think that Econ is any more prone to political agendas of the professor than many of the other disciplines.  It is equally as likely to receive an indoctrination in English Lit or American History (not that most universities teach it anymore) as it is in an econ class.

1) I heard a lot about the naive take on monetarism -- inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon -- which is, of course, contradicted rather strongly by history. Many inflation episodes are driven by increases (or decreases) in the monetary supply, but then again some are driven by supply shocks (e.g. to oil). It's too simple to say inflation is purely monetary, though surely the Fed can suppress inflation any time it pleases.

While I wouldn't call this purely a "conservative" view, the case for protectionism for developing countries is actually rather strong -- basically every East Asian country that has successfully developed uses a combination of industrial policy and protectionism. While these policies have ended up poorly in some cases (like Japan), the fact remains that these countries have stagnated at an elevated level relative to where they started (like...Japan).

Keynesianism was also pretty neglected at the time I was in school, though that was before the recession. Perhaps the recession has stimulated more sustained and honest engagement with the subject, since the purely-monetary-policy view of fighting recessions appears to be only a partial solution.

2) I don't think the point is that Econ is more prone to political agendas than other agendas, more than there are many conservatives using it as a vehicle for their political agendas. And I don't necessarily think that's wrong, by the way.

I think it's reprehensible for teachers, at any level, to do this.  It's not the job.  I have no idea how the ideological scorecard works out, but the one's that make the news are overwhelmingly from the extreme left.

The problem is that this is a question of degrees. At some point a teacher pushing an ideological view in class is being intellectually dishonest, but the other extreme is foolish as well. The distinction of facts versus opinions is not totally useful; everyone perceives the world somewhat subjectively. So aside from pure logic the human mind will perceive the world differently and espouse different views because of that. It's impossible to deny; the solution is to do the best you can with that bias in mind.

People have the same elevated standards of journalists, which I think is incorrect for more-or-less the same reason. It's strange to expect a person to study a subject intensively for years and not develop opinions because of that.

[Rally]

To clarify:  I have no problem with a teacher having and expressing an opinion.  None.  If think it is out of bounds to browbeat students, which happens, humiliate them when they hold a minority opinion, which happens, and to ignore the subject matter so they can express (in class) opinions totally unrelated to either the subject matter or their professional expertise, which does happen.  If an Econ prof has an opinion on monetary policy, of course he should express it, as long as he allows students holding different opinions to express them in a polite, reasoned way.  As the level of education increases debate becomes more and more essential.  It does not, in my opinion, belong in elementary school, it does, to a degree, in high school.  The topic of this thread is about profs using their classrooms as soapboxes and that, I think, is wrong. 

[Rally]

To clarify:  I have no problem with a teacher having and expressing an opinion.  None.  If think it is out of bounds to browbeat students, which happens, humiliate them when they hold a minority opinion, which happens, and to ignore the subject matter so they can express (in class) opinions totally unrelated to either the subject matter or their professional expertise, which does happen.  If an Econ prof has an opinion on monetary policy, of course he should express it, as long as he allows students holding different opinions to express them in a polite, reasoned way.  As the level of education increases debate becomes more and more essential.  It does not, in my opinion, belong in elementary school, it does, to a degree, in high school.  The topic of this thread is about profs using their classrooms as soapboxes and that, I think, is wrong. 

[jacketree]

Or go into engineering and skip all the bullshit :P

Although, one of the best high school teachers I had was an avowed socialist.  Despite his breath and generally foul body order, he was fantastic. (This was an economics class.)

Frankly, most of my riveting class* discussions went something like this (a flow chart really):

Professor: [on or off topic] "yadda yadda yadda"

At least one disinterested student: "Is this going to be on the test?"

IF "YES":  [At least pretend to write some of it down.]

IF "NO": [Continue sleeping and/or stare like zombie while daydreaming about next football game/next band party/wow the one chick in this class really rocks those white shorts/tacos tonight? yeah tacos!]

Both decision trees inevitably lead to: "I can't believe that MF put that on the test!!"

END


*I did have an actual class in riveting.  Shop ruled!!

[jacketree]

Or go into engineering and skip all the bullshit :P

Although, one of the best high school teachers I had was an avowed socialist.  Despite his breath and generally foul body order, he was fantastic. (This was an economics class.)

Frankly, most of my riveting class* discussions went something like this (a flow chart really):

Professor: [on or off topic] "yadda yadda yadda"

At least one disinterested student: "Is this going to be on the test?"

IF "YES":  [At least pretend to write some of it down.]

IF "NO": [Continue sleeping and/or stare like zombie while daydreaming about next football game/next band party/wow the one chick in this class really rocks those white shorts/tacos tonight? yeah tacos!]

Both decision trees inevitably lead to: "I can't believe that MF put that on the test!!"

END


*I did have an actual class in riveting.  Shop ruled!!

[stupac2]

*I did have an actual class in riveting.  Shop ruled!!

I strongly lament my lack of skill at metalworking and wish I had made time for an intro shop class when I was rich in time. I could do one of those night/weekend classes now, but man is it hard to fit in (and only getting harder). Oh well.

[stupac2]

*I did have an actual class in riveting.  Shop ruled!!

I strongly lament my lack of skill at metalworking and wish I had made time for an intro shop class when I was rich in time. I could do one of those night/weekend classes now, but man is it hard to fit in (and only getting harder). Oh well.

[Papa John]

A friend was in a class recently and the professor went on and on at length about a rather controversial topic (I'm being intentionally vague, sorry), but not in a way meant to facilitate discussion...The topic of the rant wasn't even remotely relevant to the course.

I've been teaching as the instructor of record at the college level (undergraduate and graduate) for over 10 years. My opinion: If one is going to go on a rant--and I've done this on occasion--it ought to be relevant to the course. And it sure as heck better facilitate discussion.

Your friend will get the opportunity to express his or her opinion in the end-of-term evaluations. And if the prof doesn't offer evaluations, your friend can always submit an evaluation to the department and ask that it be placed in the professor's file.

[Papa John]

A friend was in a class recently and the professor went on and on at length about a rather controversial topic (I'm being intentionally vague, sorry), but not in a way meant to facilitate discussion...The topic of the rant wasn't even remotely relevant to the course.

I've been teaching as the instructor of record at the college level (undergraduate and graduate) for over 10 years. My opinion: If one is going to go on a rant--and I've done this on occasion--it ought to be relevant to the course. And it sure as heck better facilitate discussion.

Your friend will get the opportunity to express his or her opinion in the end-of-term evaluations. And if the prof doesn't offer evaluations, your friend can always submit an evaluation to the department and ask that it be placed in the professor's file.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Interesting discussion was started here.  Thanks for the feedback everyone.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Interesting discussion was started here.  Thanks for the feedback everyone.

[martyup]

In my freshman year at The Farm (1979) my Econ 101 prof was a Marxist.  However, you would have never known it from his lectures in that class.  He was very professional and Econ 101 is pretty basic.  As an econ major, I took many classes at Stanford that could have been used by professors as vehicles to express personal political beliefs.  Yet I don't  recall one instance of such behavior.  The closest instance was my prof of "Topics in Eastern Philosophy."  He was upset at being turned down for tenure so he decided to use the five credit coarse to teach us Tai Chi.  As long as we showed up for the final exam on the lawn next to the Quad and completed the Tai Chi routine, we got an A.

[martyup]

In my freshman year at The Farm (1979) my Econ 101 prof was a Marxist.  However, you would have never known it from his lectures in that class.  He was very professional and Econ 101 is pretty basic.  As an econ major, I took many classes at Stanford that could have been used by professors as vehicles to express personal political beliefs.  Yet I don't  recall one instance of such behavior.  The closest instance was my prof of "Topics in Eastern Philosophy."  He was upset at being turned down for tenure so he decided to use the five credit coarse to teach us Tai Chi.  As long as we showed up for the final exam on the lawn next to the Quad and completed the Tai Chi routine, we got an A.

[82lsju]

In my freshman year at The Farm (1979) my Econ 101 prof was a Marxist.  However, you would have never known it from his lectures in that class.  He was very professional and Econ 101 is pretty basic. 

was this John Gurley in Econ 1?  If so I was in the class too.

[82lsju]

In my freshman year at The Farm (1979) my Econ 101 prof was a Marxist.  However, you would have never known it from his lectures in that class.  He was very professional and Econ 101 is pretty basic. 

was this John Gurley in Econ 1?  If so I was in the class too.