The Great Debate

In Econ 101, Tuesday April 3, a debate arose, due to Mr Bob Stephen's statement in the previous lecture that parts of economics, as he currently teaches it, are based on a fallacious argument about the relationship of price and returns on capital. But, he said, it would be unrealistic for Economics 101 to study alternative methods of economics.

In the morning debate, Stephens launched into a laborious defence of the course for 20 minutes, then called for debate from the floor. Several students vociferously attacked his points. Stephens, flailing, called on Prof. Bertram (perched on the top of the stairs), who lept to his feet, expounded, then raced down the stairs to where he and Stephens planted themselves firmly behind the desk, and proceded to glare at the class, draw diagrams, and attempt to prove their innocence. In closing, Bertram liberally commended the debate, and condemned those few who moaned "boring!"

That afternoon Stephens was more prepared for the other class, and expounded for 30 minutes, Bertram once again aided in the defence, and there was a vote — 60% (approx) for an introduction of alternative theories, and 20% (approx) against. Bertram immediately took offence with "but it is impossible" (so much for his previous liberal sympathies). However, it was 4.00pm so everyone left, confident that Stephens would act true to his word, and attempt to implement the decision.

Thursday morning - a gentleman expounded for a couple of minutes, Stephens expounded for 10 minutes, then there was a vote — 65% (approx) for ; 20% against. The proposal - that there be tutorials and lectures on alternative theories (Institutionalise Marxists, Political Economists), and that the neoclassical model be more intensively questioned.

Bob Stephens implied that, after consultation with other Econ 101 lectures, he would adhere to the majority decision.