The third episode of Freakonomics Radio, out in a few days, asks the question: What would the world look like if economists were in charge? In the meantime, a charter school organization in Arizona offers a glimpse at what the educational system would look like if economists were in charge. The BASIS Educational Group, run by two economists, requires every 8th-grade student to take a year’s worth of economics. Many BASIS students, who are all required to take at least six AP exams before graduation, go on to take AP Economics in 9th grade, and average a 4 (out of 5) on their AP exams. “Our students learn to love economics early on, and we hope that passion will continue long into life. Their interest in continuing economics study in high school (when it is no longer required, but rather offered as an elective) proves how fundamentally positive their early experience with the material is,” writes Paul Morrissey, the Upper School Director of BASIS Scottsdale. BASIS also offers incentive-heavy contracts to teachers; and all staff members are on one-year contracts.[%comments]
If Economists Ran the Schools
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The problem with elementary to high school education is it is still stuck on piece meal academics (English, Math, etc.) and fact memorizing. It doesn’t require students (teachers) to apply, put the theories, facts into an academic practice, scenarios.
Schools should offer classes that integrate all or as many elements into their curriculum. Economics is a good example – theory, analytics, logistics, accounting, reading, math. I say simple economic, science, math facts, skills should be taught from day one and built upon and expanded on as the students acquires more math, spelling, writing, theoretical/analytical skills.
But this would require more education and training by the teacher without salary increases and compensation.
Ummmm, sort of like letting economists take over markets and financial deregulation from the 1980s onwards?
Why not do away with core requirements altogether in high school? By high school, most kids have had a taste of every subject and have a good idea of what they are interested in and what they’re not interested in.
If I’d had the chance, I would have taken all economics-type classes, and no history. I didn’t take any art, and I don’t believe art knowledge would be an advantage in my career (and I could have done without the history as well).
If a student loves art, let them take all art classes, if they love history, let them soak it up, if they love science, by all means – learn!! And enjoy it!!
Uyt is right.
A public school needs to teach only three subjects: science, language and economics, since math and all the wishy washy stuff (history, logic, social studies, even geography) can be rolled into economics.
That leaves religion and other superstition out of the curriculum, as it should be.
I’ve been wondering what public education would look like if it could be reinvented from the ground up.
And I’ll bet that if mathematicians ran schools, our kids would be ahead in math.
And if scientists ran the schools, our kids would be much farther along in science
And if English majors ran schools…well, we’d still be sunk.
http://stoppayingcreditcarddebt.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-i-stopped-paying-my-credit-card.html
Good to see NYT readers are just as smart-assey as everyone else on the internets.
Average person + anonymity + broad audience = the kinds of comments above.
On topic, I like to see the educational system taken over by market forces, at least on a small scale, like these charter schools. From what I’ve experienced and read, these schools are better than your average public school in many ways.
I realize there are a lot of factors at play here: parents who care about their kids’ education are more likely to send them to charter/private schools, etc., but it’s worth looking into.
There is just enough in this brief article to suggest a concept. There is nothing substantive to comment upon. The journalistic equivalent of vaporware.