[PCES]

When we say 'political', we generally mean 'pushing for particular policies'. We don't think we, economics education or anything can be inherently unbiased.Also, you have a point about induction. Obviously just observing statistics and not talking about where they come from or what they 'mean' is fruitless, and probably somewhat conservative. However, what we mean is that the facts should be taught (eg the history of financial crises), followed by the theories which plasubiyl interpret this reality. Right now a particular theory is drummed into students, which then might be shown to be consistent with a few stylised facts at the end of the module. The result is that the student thinks first in terms of theory and then in terms of the real world when it should surely be the other way around.But obviously all of this requries a grounding in ethics, philosophy and so forth. In fact, we believe economcis should start with the study of value.

[PCES]

Hey guys,Good to see you talking about us! Just dropped by to make a couple of points:- Sorry for the delay in replying to emails and the slightly tinned responses. We have been indundated since the Guardian article and are all full time, mostly third year stuydents, so we haven't had much chance to get on top of things like that. However, one member is taking a year out starting January so hopefully we'll be more responsive from then on. Please don't hesitate to email us again.- We agree economics isn't a separate field and one of the key things we want is context (political, historical, ethical). Having said that, sometimes you have to compromise and go for the catchiest name.- We will soon formally respond to the idea that economics just needs tweaking, or to resemble research more. Obviously this is simply not good enough, but it's an expected response. In the mean time, here's our response to critics:http://www.post-crasheconomics.com/a-response-to-commentary-on-the-post-crash-economics-society/Thanks! -PCES 

[Author]

Posts