Based on what I listened to in the posted video, it seems like the professor is a good teacher. I'd have to see later lectures to know for sure whether that's so, but it seems so from her first lecture. Economics -- principles of macro and principles of micro -- classes are, at many four year colleges that have top ranked (top 30 and higher) undergraduate business programs, used as "weeder" classes for admittance to the business program. (That's at schools where the undergrad business program is a limited enrollment program.)
One consequence of that is that many econ professors make a point of not teaching the course in ways that make it easy to learn the material if one doesn't inherently "get it" or one is unwilling to put in the requisite 8 hours a week of studying outside of the lecture/lab sessions. One very simple illustration of that is seen in the way the term demand is presented. I don't know if the lady teaching the Berkeley class stated it or not, but I never had an econ professor simply state that in econ "demand" simply means "buy," "bought," or some other term that expresses actual "whatever" purchased. I taught as an econ GA in grad school and I wish I had a dollar for all the kids who went halfway through the course thinking of demand as "wanting to buy" not "actually buying."
That's just one very simple illustration. There are lots of things/ideas in econ that are really quite simple but aren't obvious to students when they take the class. In my own econ teaching experience, it seemed to me that was the result of poor reading comprehension skills or their being too lazy to confirm the terminology by looking in their textbook glossary, often because the words are fairly common, but have a specific meaning for econ that isn't necessarily the one used in the vernacular. You heard an illustration of this in the lecture/video when the professor spoke of "positive" economics and explained that the term "positive economics" is used in the sense of "posit," of or relating to an idea/conclusion posited, not quantitative or qualitative sense of positive or negative, good or bad.
Another thing econ professors do, especially those teaching "weeder" sections of the course, is deliver lectures that aggregate the ideas of the assigned reading for that day, but they don't directly explain the concepts in terms of the equations and graphs in the textbook. They do that largely because they know precalculus (or for higher level classes, calculus or differential equations) is a prerequisite for their class, so they see making sense of the graphs as child's play (exception being the quantitative econ classes) so they shouldn't have to explain them. That's what students are expected to figure out on their own, ask their GA, or show up for the prof's office hours to solicit additional input.
To get a sense of what I mean, imagine
this is what your textbook has as part of its content for tomorrow's lecture. Then imagine going to the lecture and
this is what your professor delivers as his/her lecture. FWIW, the essays on this site are roughly what was expected of us as exam answers "back in the day" when I took econ in college. We, of course, had to supplement our responses with graphs/equations, but that wasn't the hard part of it.
When I was an undergrad (and in high school too), professors wanted it that way because it allowed them and their GAs to know which students were serious about mastering the material. That came into play at when final grades were given. Having a relationship with the prof or a GA that allowed them to gauge your commitment to the subject matter and learning could get your grade increased.
Derisively call that "brown nosing" if you want, but the fact of the matter is that nobody wants to hold back a student who is highly motivated to learn, interested in/enthusiastic about the subject and is doing everything possible to make sure they "get it." Of course, back then, we also didn't really have multiple choice questions, so when you answered a question, if the prof or GA knew you, they ("we" when I was a GA) also knew what you meant by "such and such" or whether you made a mistake they knew was a more likely a "typo" than one's just not knowing the material. They'd still dock you a few points, but not nearly as much as they would if they didn't actually know you well and have a pretty good sense of where you struggling and where you weren't prior to the exam. (The same thing happens in the professional world, but in schools these days, there's a lot of push back against doing it, presumably in the interest of ensuring fairness. That's not altogether a bad reason. Just ask woman who majored in physics, accounting, econ, medicine, law, or a host of other so-called "male" disciplines prior to about the 1980s or so.)
Econ texts, like math and science texts, tend to follow very standard grammar rules to the letter. I think a lot of people simply aren't strong enough with basic English grammar to apply those rules when they read the content of the course. Kids who are very strong with English grammar tended, at least when I was a GA, to be the kids who didn't struggle with the material. Sadly, a lot of kids don't do well, or struggle to do well, in a variety of college classes because they have mediocre (or worse) reading comprehension skills.
I guess the point I'm trying to illustrate is that the lecture series you referenced in your OP seems to make econ accessible to folks who don't have strong reading and math skills, or folks who do but who don't "think like economists," I think it's a good one for people to use. I'm glad you took the time to share it so that others hand can benefit from your discovery of it and hopefully avail themselves of it and your generosity/thoughtfulness.
Re: the video:
- Over half her class didn't have any notable background in economics. I was quite surprised to see that. That would not have surprised me back in the '70s when I was a student, mainly because very few schools offered economics.
- By the prof's survey of her students, 21% indicated an interest in majoring in econ. That sounds about right for the class she's teaching. IIRC from a survey I conducted about 10 years ago, that percentage will translate into about 15% of undergrads graduating with econ degrees. Just an interesting factoid; it's not as though one needs to graduate with an econ degree to have a strong enough foundation in the discipline to apply positive economics concepts to public policy proposals.
I wrote the following for a different thread, and I've not edited it to make it "fit" this one, but think reading it, you'll understand what I think about the nature and extent of econ education people should get, how it applies to daily life and what I see as the limits of a "modest" academic foundation in econ.
What's your idea of "basic" economics? Mine idea of basic economics is the subject matter covered in AP
Principles of Macroeconomics (there is a micro version from these authors) and
AP Principles of Microeconomics courses. I say that because having taken many economics classes beyond those two, I know those two are just the beginning, yet, for sharp thinkers, those two provide enough information for one to at least know whether the economic public policy claims politicians make hold water or don't.
That's not to say those two courses will make one an economist or give one "all" one needs to adequately analyze any or every proposal policy makers broach, but they are enough (assuming one fully masters the material) for one to know when, how and where to look for more detailed information that will provide a sound basis for having a definitive and sound position on those proposals. Those two courses are also enough to allow one to read technical economics studies and assess their sufficiency in a general sense, that is, to tell whether the writer(s) are making sense.
Some other excellent reference sources for economics:
- Economics and finance | Khan Academy
- Economics Online Home
- Economics Study Guides - SparkNotes
- College Economics Topics | Library of Economics and Liberty
The level of comprehension found here is what's demonstrated by high performing econ majors who're taking their first econ courses: principles of macro and micro. This site is outstanding for its conceptual depth and inclusion of nuance and detail in its explanations. The vast majority of the essays one'll read from this site apply the laws and principles of positive economics that one finds on the other sites noted, and it provides the framework that facilitates one's engaging in normative discussions of economics and economic policy. Thus before reading much of the content on this site, one must have a solid foundation in the nuts and bolts of positive economics.
This site doesn't tell you want to think, it tells you what one must consider and how to think about those things/concepts so as to form a legitimate -- i.e., well reasoned and comprehensive -- introductory level normative analysis of economic matters. Put another way, the essays here are all about compartmentalizing, aggregating and thinking about how the principles one learns in the positive economics aspect of an econ course apply to the real world. One also might think of it as an introduction to interpretative (cause and effect analysis) economics. One can see that quite clearly in this essay about public goods and externalities.
- Economics Help
- AmosWEB is Economics: Economics with a touch of Whimsy! -- This site is good in its "nutshell" way of presenting the fully body of introductory concepts, but that approach also requires one to take the time to read and think about what one reads. A nice thing about this site is that it explicitly points out things that a lot of others -- and many professors -- don't directly mention. One example is the site's explicit mention of the fact that the demand curve for a given good has both relatively elastic and relatively inelastic components. That's not a terribly important thing in a static situation, but it is essential when the supply curve shifts, at which point whether supply shifts the equilibrium point into the a more or less elastic/inelastic part of the demand curve becomes relevant, particularly with regard to public policy.
