Economics A

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The writer of your critique on Economics, which appeared in last Friday's issue, used rather strong language when he stated, with Olympian finality, of Economics A that "undergraduate opinion almost unanimously would condemn the course as dull to the point of stupidity, uninspiring, and relatively uninstructive." The lame loophole provided by the insertion of the word "almost" cannot exempt the article from considerable criticism.

The condemnation of your contributor embraces both subject mater and the quality and method of instruction. To condemn the subject matter is ridienlous. Who can read Robertson, Henderson, Taussig, and Slichter, without being inspired to at least an appreciation of his own ignorance of economics and the greater ignorance of the subject in the outside world? Much more can be claimed for the subject matter, especially when one considers the instruction to be gained, instruction which would grace the doubtful hale of many business men, public administrators, and legislators.

As for the suggestion that lectures be given in the course, it must be opined that, with the exception of a few topics, the principles of economics do not lend themselves to mass instruction. Section discussions, on the testimony of several sophomore, Juniors, and Seniors, have been satisfactory in the past. The suggestion that individual conferences be included in the conduct is a good one, but one which provides great problems of expense and teaching personnel.

In brief, too many students would testify in favor of the course to warrant the use of the term "almost unanimously." If is unfortunate that the Freshman reader should receive an impression of the course the accuracy of which is to be strongly questioned. It is to correct the possible "unanimity" of the impression that this letter is written. Donal M. Sullivan '88