Read on Twitter
In an earlier thread, I explored why introductory economics courses appear to leave little lasting imprint on the millions of students who take them each year: https://twitter.com/econnaturalist/status/1091461433487953924
Students learn more effectively when they pose interesting questions based on personal experience, and then use basic economic principles to help answer them. This exercise became what I call my “economic naturalist” writing assignment.
One reason that introductory economics courses have been ineffective is that many professors cloak the economic ideas they present in excessive mathematical formalism. But if that approach inhibits learning, many alert students have asked, why has it been so persistent?
A hint to a possible answer lies in the following assertion, which few professional economists would challenge: If two economists are competing for the same academic opening, it is decisively advantageous to be perceived at the more rigorous of the pair.
One way to demonstrate the capacity for rigorous thought is to construct and solve complex mathematical models. Because such models are inherently difficult to manipulate, those who demonstrate facility with them send a credible signal of high intellectual ability.
The upshot is that an economist can improve his or her competitive position in the academic labor market by investing in additional mathematical training. But that opportunity is of course also available to others with the requisite abilities.
And so it’s no surprise that mathematical formalism, which was relatively rare in economics journal articles published prior to World War II, increased steadily in the decades since. Has it proceeded too far?
It's difficult to judge, because formalism entails benefits as well as costs. For example, it can make it easier to spot logical inconsistencies that might escape notice in purely verbal arguments. Still, the possibility that formalism became excessive was hard to dismiss.
And there are in fact indications that some journal editors have lately been taking steps to discourage excessive formalism. But it may require steady effort to contain the pressures that caused formalism to escalate in the first place.
