Meanwhile, this is the ‘deliverable‘ (boldface mine, emphasis original):
In line with previous research, what we found supported the Grinch stereotype. About 5 percent of economics majors donated to WashPIRG in a given quarter, compared with 8 percent for other arts and sciences majors. A similar divide — 10 percent versus almost 15 percent — occurred with respect to donations to ATN.
We also found evidence that the giving behavior of students who became economics majors was driven by nature, not nurture: taking economics classes did not have a significant negative effect on later giving by economics majors.
But taking economics classes did have a significant negative effect on later giving by students who did not become economics majors. One interpretation of these results is that students who were not economics majors suffered a “loss of innocence” after taking an economics class, presumably because of exposure to certain ideas (like the invisible hand) or certain people (like economics teachers).
I read a lot of articles talking about how administrative salaries that have increased 30 – 40% are driving up tuition costs. Well, what about those disciplines that are teaching students–and many don’t go on to become economics majors–how to be selfish and whose salaries are skyrocketing? Given that much of the economics profession missed the greatest economic collapse in nearly a century, is the expense worth it?
Might want to consider cuts there too.
Granted economics, as presently taught, has a lot to account for in the mismanagement of the world, and US, economies.
But IMHO the biggest driver of the ongoing economic fiasco wasn’t the misapprehension and oversimplification of economics pushed by most economics professors. To see the footprints of the biggest driver one need only cast your eyes one line below Economics and notice the ascendency of Business administration and Management. Economics theory was a club swung by the MBAs that beat this economy out of shape but it was the MBAs doing the swinging.