Grand Finale

I haven’t taken too many Econ classes, but I have gotten more applicable knowledge in this one compared to my others. In one way or another, most days we discussed self-interest, whether it was through moral hazard, contracting, opportunistic behavior, teamwork, or insurance. I have a habit of assigning goodness and badness to behaviors that I respectably agree with or disagree with. When I was younger, my friends and I would idealistically debate about what we would do if we were president, professing how we would save the world, but it isn’t that easy. This course encouraged me to reflect on my past experiences in leadership, and how much “ugly” was there. The world is uglier than I grew up perceiving it. I valued the truth being told and a blind, tenacious commitment to teamwork more than I do now.

People do what they thing is best for them/their families.  I think it was good that we did not use the word “lie,” and instead had to substitute it with “strategically misrepresent preferences.” Lying implies intent and an evil connotation, but misrepresentation can be accidental and honest. Many adults do not tell the truth about Santa Claus, but to say that they are lying about this character’s existence is strong and out of place.

Horseshoe seating made the class more informal, but it seemed to benefit the discussion. I found the in-class discussions to be insightful, though they were often dull. Questions were posed in unclear or tricky ways and I found myself trying to avoid a trap that was or was not there. Also, there were only about 6-9 people that contributed to the conversations, which I found disappointing for a small class with 20+ students enrolled. I am sure the vagueness of some questions kept others from participating, but I think some of it also came from the fear of being wrong. Often teachers/professors do not directly say that a student is wrong, but instead say “Does anyone want to help them out?” I find that behavior to be destructive because it isn’t clear, but it is normalcy. I think students are used to being coddled in that way, so when they are afraid of being wrong in front of people, they don’t take chances. I do not know how to remedy this, because forced participation, from my experience, creates an environment for undeveloped, well-thought out responses, hence lowering the quality of discussion. Also, having a greater audience, or mandatory attendance, could make this stage fright worse.

As far as blogging, I didn’t mind taking chances because no one wants to read the same thing said in different ways. Also, I am unmotivated to write about things that do not directly affect my life. Normally blog posts take me between 90-120 minutes. I spend about 30 of them brainstorming my topic and outlining the structure, then I spend the rest of the time filling in the blanks and tying my points together at the sentence level. The blog posts tied well to the in-class discussions, but did not connect with Excel homework, apart from the Prisoner’s Dilemma matrix that I made about teamwork.  I think it is okay for those two not to be related, but it would have certainly helped to go over some of the math in class. Having videos at our disposal helps, but it does not beat in-class instruction. Students may be bored, but if the math was covered more in class, I think people would be more willing to go to class. Otherwise, I found the math to be relatively intuitive, though I was challenged. The books, though supplementary, were not necessary to class discussions, blog posts, or the Excel homeworks, but they were expensive. I feel like I wasted a huge chunk of money since they were described as necessary, but weren’t for 13 weeks. All in all, I am glad that I took this course, and I feel like I got my money’s worth.