Harvard Economaniac Greg Mankiw responds to those whipper-snappers at the Crimson who have some unkind things to say about Big Red’s econ department. According to the kids, “The economics department is perennially plagued with abysmal satisfaction ratings and high student-to-faculty ratios.”
In the first place, Doctor Greg sez, “I have been told, however, that if you do a regression of a department’s student satisfaction on its student-faculty ratio, the economics department is right on the regression line. This fact suggests that our student satisfaction is low precisely because the student-faculty ratio is high.”*
The good doctor rambles on about what Harvard might do about the problem—making it tougher to be an economics major (but econ likes the fact that kids want to major in their department), re-allocating resources (but the other departments might object)—but somehow never stumbles on the obvious, and the obviously correct solution: charge more for econ majors! I mean, isn’t that how markets are supposed to work? And aren’t economics professors supposed to know about markets?
One possible—possible? Nay, obvious!—problem with charging market prices for majors is that, as the price of an econ major soared through the roof, the price of an English major would drop into the basement. To achieve equilibrium, tuition for an econ major would probably run about $50k a year, versus maybe $4k for an English major. But markets are always right, aren’t they?
AFTERWORDS
I’d link the Crimson opinion piece, but the site isn’t functioning all that well at present. Maybe someone should run a “satisfaction” rating on the Crimson, eh doc?
*I love the “I have been told” shtick. Doc M isn’t saying that he knows that a regression will show that the “abysmal” satisfaction ratings are a function of the high ratio, only that someone told him so. Who told him, his cat? How hard would it be for El Grego to find out for sure if econ is right on the regression line? He doesn’t have a computer? He doesn’t have grad students?
