Not a meme this year but let's go.

You only have set difference? No unions, intersections, or complements? Because if it's just the one set operation used consistently, A - B may be rationalizable (but those who sacrifice rigor for popularity deserve neither and shall lose both) but if you use the others, then for sure not.

The first Roman calendar started counting from March. Before Caesar and Augustus they even had Quintilis and Sextilis.

Which means if it wasn't for Augustus we'd have a whole month of Sex in the summer.

Imagine if all that effort could go into bringing students quality education on the nature and cost of inequality? Or on effective policies to deal with the cost of living crisis? Or environmentally sustainable growth? Nothing would please us, students and teachers, more.

...allow professors to condense the theory without having to make too many comprises on quality. In fact, a lot of existing innovation effort is already directed to make economics education easier and lighter on math, something that a lot of professors are uncomfortable with.

To unpack (2), I note that economics, even the modern, much more empirically-minded science, is a highly mathematical field. Students who struggle in our classrooms tend to be the ones who hated math in high school. Focusing more on math background at the admission level would...

To speed up innovation, I'd call for two things. (1) start teaching economics in high schools. This would add slack to the tight university curriculum (incidentally, it might also solve many problems flowing from economic illiteracy, such as low-quality cricism). (2) changing admission requirements.

Anyone who feels economic education needs reform, especially along the lines mentioned are invited to look deeper. Also keep in mind that a personal dislike of results or rehashed arguments from the 80s on the limits of neoclassical economics is not a valuable contribution at this point.

This presents a difficulty. For the outside observer (good-faith or not) it's probably unclear whether and where the curriculum is evolving. But it is! And even 17 years ago I have been thought externalities, public goods, and the environmentally responsible management of (non-)renewable resources.

Both types of solutions have advantages and disadvantages. Which is great because we are producing more diverse economists and we can leverage the advantages of both while keeping each other honest. But innovate or not, the core subjects are (and should remain) still Micro, Macro, and Metrix.

Some departments simplify the material and condense the theory to make room for more content (especially for critical reviews of neoclassical results). Some departments stick to rigorous theory due to a combination of inertia, professional conservativism, or just a lack of resources to innovate.

The picture the op-ed is painting is difficult to reconcile with reality for people who study and teach economics. The field has changed a LOT in the last two decades. Economics professors have devoted a LOT of time to rethink how much theory students need and have come up with various solutions.

...or, if you just want more electives and add to the optional "softer" classes, you'll need to make arguments for economic departments to invest into these fields and employ professors focused on them. You can best do this by producing quality research on those topics (again, not attempted).

(b) is annoying because it leaves little wiggle room for curricula. If you want to add stuff, you'll have to remove stuff. You'd have to make a compelling argument why Micro, Macro, or Metrix shouldn't be taught to economics students... (most people don't attempt this)

Annoyingly, all three core subjects are (a) theory-heavy, (b) absolutely necessary for economists. (a) is annoying because there is a series of building blocks students have to go through in order to understand the material. You can't start most 18-year-olds on partial differential equations.

There will be other, "softer" classes. In Hungary, I've taken stuff like general philosophy, history of economic thought, economic history, economic law, EU integration (yawn), and accounting (pain). Based on what I've seen in Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Spain, this is run of the mill.

When you enter an economics program, these three will be the core subjects you'll take. There will be thematic classes with different names but they'll clearly belong on one of the three groups (e.g., international trade-> Macro, stochastic processes-> 'Metrix, environmental economics(!!!)-> Micro).

The majority of economics is three core subjects organized around two topics: (1) Micro, how economic decisions are made (by individuals, groups, or firms) and (2) Macro, how country-level economic phenomena evolve under various policies. The third thing is (3) Econometrics, the statistical toolkit.