I showed up for my first day of a Public Choice (Public Finance) class tonight. Sadly, this class is both part of the Econ and Finance curriculum, which means the likelihood of it being dumbed down (in favor of the Finance students) exists. And it was not being taught by one of the Profs I was hoping for, that is, those who teach it in an intellectually rigorous mode using the work of Tullock, Buchanan, Stigler, Arrow, and Becker.

So I show up at the bookstore to get my books. I got seven books for a history of thought class, and 2 for Public Finance: one being a freshman version textbook, and the other being a, yes, softcover by Hardball's Chris Matthews. Immediately, I was both appalled and terrified. What kind of ignoramous class was this going to be?

I went to class, and the instructor, it turns out, was a local Republican politician. He handed out the syllabus. A nice guy, but the class? Lame, lame, lame. I started to shrink in my chair looking at the syllabus. This stuff would not have challenged me as a freshman in high school. Back then, I would go to the local library used book sales, and buy college textbooks (econ, poly sci, philosophy, history) and read them - just because I wanted to.

Then came another insight I wasn't going to fancy. The instructor--not a Prof--started the class by explaining basic concepts such as "Republican" and "Democrat," and he drew the good old political continuum on the board. Of course, he put anarchy on the left, just past "social democrat." Then he began to explain libertarians as just a bunch of people who wanted us to drive on private toll roads everywhere we went, thus complicating matters for all.

Then he went on to say, without understanding his error, that it was (paraphrasing) more enigmatical for free markets to operate withing a realm of heavy regulations. I think he meant to talk about the "regulatory framework" set forth by current US policies. The mistake here is that any market operating within a heavily-regulated framework is not free, it is hampered. The "freeness" of such a market is snuffed out.

Then came disaster number three: there was a group project for the class! That sort of stuff is reserved for low-level Finance classes and the MBA boobs, but not us Econ folk! Or so I thought. I was livid, as I noted that, for the most part, the entire class was barely at the level of understanding the basics. It got worse. The group project was this: write a group paper (uh huh), and do a group powerpoint presentation on one of the selected topics in the chapters of that freshman-level textbook. The topics included, "Should we have a flat tax or a fair tax, and why?" And "Take a side on social security, and explain it." Ummm, yea. I have seen more rigorous work in regards to high school debate teams. Bryan Caplan does far more in his *undergrad* class.

Then we were told that in regards to that paper, he "would not be picky about the grammar." In other words, this is high school, and no need to get it right. Just make the effort to do it, and ye effort shall be rewarded. Since most grad students still cannot write basic sentences, I guess it's a good thing to keep them on the same path instead of expecting perfect grammar and impeccable citations. Gasp! So we were to get up in front of the class, and play "explain it to me," like a bunch of dolts.

The first break occurred at the 50-minute mark. I booked from the room, returned my books at the bookstore, went home, and went online to drop the class. I then started to browse Ludwig Lachman's "The Legacy of Max Weber: Three Essays." I felt cleansed.

Unfortunately, though many of many classes are top-notch, others can be very dumbed down. I hear this from many others, too, and it seems to be the way, even in grad schools. Knowing that I have always learned more and better on my own has kept me from doing the grad degrees sooner. It is for the same reasons that people homeschool their young children instead of condemning them to a life of "lowest common denominator" and dumbing down in the public school system.