Back to school
King Banaian of SCSU Scholars will probably have something to say about this.
"Pop quiz. Which has been most important in reducing poverty over time: a) taxes, b) economic growth, c) international trade, or d) government regulation?
We know what our readers would say. But lest you think American young people are slouching toward serfdom, you'll be pleased to know that 53% of U.S. high school seniors also answered "b." The latest version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) asked this question, among others on economics, and the results will not please members of the Socialist International, or for that matter the Senate Finance Committee.
Since its founding in 1969, the NAEP has become something of an annual exercise in American educational masochism. Last year, only 54% of students met NAEP's "basic" standard--the equivalent of a passing grade--on the science test. The previous year tested history; a mere 47% passed. But when knowledge of economics was tested this year, well, let's just say the supply curve shifted. NAEP reported this week that 79% of twelfth graders passed this first-ever national economics test. Holy Hayek.
The exam, taken by a representative sample of twelfth graders at public and private high schools, tested students on micro- and macroeconomic principles and international trade. What, for example, is the effect of breaking down trade barriers between countries? A majority correctly said that goods would become less expensive. They chose this over "the quality of goods available would decrease." Maybe John Edwards should hire more teenagers for his Presidential campaign.
The test also included more technical questions on price floors, opportunity cost, and the supply curve. One question asked what would happen if government mandated a high price floor for chocolate. A plurality deftly analyzed a graph to choose the correct answer: There would be a surplus of chocolate. Presumably the test could have asked about a minimum wage, too, and students would have arrived at a similar conclusion. Maybe Congress should make this test, or one like it, mandatory for all Members."
I can think of more than a few legislators on the State AND Federal level that could stand to go back to school - at least for a refresher econ class. Maybe King could teach it? If he did, I might even go myself. After all it has been more years than I care to admit since I have seen the inside of an Economics book. What do you say King?
"Pop quiz. Which has been most important in reducing poverty over time: a) taxes, b) economic growth, c) international trade, or d) government regulation?
We know what our readers would say. But lest you think American young people are slouching toward serfdom, you'll be pleased to know that 53% of U.S. high school seniors also answered "b." The latest version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) asked this question, among others on economics, and the results will not please members of the Socialist International, or for that matter the Senate Finance Committee.
Since its founding in 1969, the NAEP has become something of an annual exercise in American educational masochism. Last year, only 54% of students met NAEP's "basic" standard--the equivalent of a passing grade--on the science test. The previous year tested history; a mere 47% passed. But when knowledge of economics was tested this year, well, let's just say the supply curve shifted. NAEP reported this week that 79% of twelfth graders passed this first-ever national economics test. Holy Hayek.
The exam, taken by a representative sample of twelfth graders at public and private high schools, tested students on micro- and macroeconomic principles and international trade. What, for example, is the effect of breaking down trade barriers between countries? A majority correctly said that goods would become less expensive. They chose this over "the quality of goods available would decrease." Maybe John Edwards should hire more teenagers for his Presidential campaign.
The test also included more technical questions on price floors, opportunity cost, and the supply curve. One question asked what would happen if government mandated a high price floor for chocolate. A plurality deftly analyzed a graph to choose the correct answer: There would be a surplus of chocolate. Presumably the test could have asked about a minimum wage, too, and students would have arrived at a similar conclusion. Maybe Congress should make this test, or one like it, mandatory for all Members."
I can think of more than a few legislators on the State AND Federal level that could stand to go back to school - at least for a refresher econ class. Maybe King could teach it? If he did, I might even go myself. After all it has been more years than I care to admit since I have seen the inside of an Economics book. What do you say King?
Labels: Econ 101
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home