Letter on economics at UNC was off-base

TO THE EDITOR:

Monday’s letter to the editor, “Economics at Carolina does need a change” was incomplete.

The letter claimed that university economic departments, including UNC’s, are conservatively biased and espouse theories advocating government’s limited economic intervention.

As UNC economics majors, we’ve been impressed with our professors’ neutrality and course curricula that encourage students to understand multiple perspectives.

For instance, Michael Aguilar’s ECON 420 class (intermediate macroeconomics) teaches analytical tools to critically assess each macroeconomic model.

He prompts students to take the role of a consultant and learn the philosophy of each “client,” or economic school of thought, before formalizing a working model.

Using the triumvirate of intuition, mathematics and graphics, Aguilar encourages students to determine for themselves which model aligns with their values and how they view the world, stressing that no single model is correct. His own view is never revealed.

Take Jeremy Petranka, professor of ECON 410 (intermediate microeconomics).

During lecture, he challenges students’ preconceived notions regarding taxation’s tendency to discourage economic growth with the following question:

“Assume I am going to make the midterm 5 percent harder. Would you study more or less?”

Most students say they’d study more or the same, but hardly any say they’d study less.

Petranka’s exercise reveals the interesting implication that decreasing rewards (i.e. raising taxes) does not necessarily discourage effort (i.e. individuals’ economic productivity).

While it’s true that university economics departments tend toward a conservative bias, we appreciate that the UNC economics department encourages students’ advanced critical thinking to consider an array of approaches.

Glenn Lippig ’15
Economics
Mathematics

Sagar Shukla ’15
Economics
Mathematics