When Baker Professor of Economics Martin S. Feldstein ’61 took the helm of Ec 10 in 1984, he immediately eliminated the so-called “radical sections” that taught students Marxism alongside traditional economics.

Since then, the structure of the course has largely stayed the same.

In Feldstein’s first year, 1,072 undergraduates took the course, known officially as Social Analysis 10, “Principles of Economics.” Ec 10 enrollment has fallen to 620 this spring, but the course still ranks as one of the College’s largest.

After 21 years, Feldstein—who has probably taught more undergraduates than any other professor in Harvard’s history—is handing the reins of the storied and controversial course to the man who wrote Ec 10’s textbook, Freed Professor of Economics N. Gregory Mankiw.

The new course head gives little indication that he wants to deviate from the model that Feldstein maintained over two decades, one that has firmly established Ec 10 as a Harvard institution.

“My first job is not to break a very well-functioning machine,” Mankiw says. The primary change he says he is planning is a radical cut in the number of supplementary articles in the workbook.

But teaching fellows (TFs) say they have had conversations with Mankiw about more fundamental changes to the course—ones that many believe are long overdue.

In particular, some of the characteristics that have made Ec 10 unique have also drawn the most criticism. No other introductory economics course at Harvard’s peer institutions is indivisible and full-year, and none has been subject to as many complaints of conservative bias as has Ec 10.

Ec 10 is also the only course, among Harvard’s entire undergraduate curriculum and the introductory economics courses at other top schools, that is taught almost completely in section but features tangential lectures from stars in the field.

Of all of Ec 10’s characteristics, the latter is the least likely to be altered. But TFs say that Mankiw appears very open to allowing students to drop the course, with credit, after the first semester. And to a lesser extent, TFs say, Mankiw has discussed with them the allegations of a conservative bias.

With a new steward, Ec 10 is at a crossroads, as Mankiw has the opportunity to shift away from the well-worn path that Feldstein has set and move toward the drastically different approach that other colleges are taking to teach the principles of economics.

BIAS OR BALANCE?

“Bias” is a favorite buzzword of many critics of Ec 10.

Two years ago, Students for Humane and Responsible Economics (SHARE) gathered over 700 signatures on a petition for an introductory course proposed by Barker Professor of Economics Stephen A. Marglin ’59 that would offer, Marglin said, a “more balanced perspective of views.” The petition was only partially successful, with the economics department overwhelmingly rejecting the proposal but the Core Curriculum Committee approving the course to fulfill the Social Analysis requirement.

Whether or not Ec 10 is actually biased, however, depends on one’s definition of the word.

Some of Ec 10’s chief proponents, including Mankiw and Head TF Silvia Ardagna, argue that the course already presents a sufficient diversity of views through guest lecturers and supplementary readings.

But some of the TFs interviewed for this article say the course could do a better job of offering different opinions.

Feldstein could not be reached for comment.

Two key characteristics combine to make Ec 10 particularly susceptible to accusations of bias.

Ec 10 is unlike its counterparts at most other colleges in its emphasis on readings and lectures about real-world issues and policymaking—going “beyond straight teaching of economics,” says Keith D. Gamble ’03, an outgoing TF.

While sections are devoted to the rudiments of theory, the dozen or so lectures per semester feature Feldstein or one of his colleagues expounding upon a field of economics of interest to them. In addition, the syllabus assigns scores of articles from newspapers, magazines, and journals that both analyze economic issues and recommend policy.

This focus on policy makes the political credentials of the course head more relevant. Both Feldstein and Mankiw can be placed on the conservative side of the economic political spectrum, according to most economists interviewed for this article. Both professors chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under Republican presidents.

While economics concentrator Jason E. Beren ’05 says that the course presents the economic concepts well, he says the problem lies in the fact that conservative viewpoints on issues like taxation sometimes go virtually unchallenged.

“With a simple counterpoint you can introduce at least the idea that things aren’t exactly according to the numbers,” Beren says. “I think Ec 10 does a bad, bad job at it.”

The second-semester unit on fiscal policy includes seven workbook readings analyzing whether the benefits of tax cuts as a stimulus to the economy outweigh the drawbacks of the budget deficits that tax cuts cause. Of the seven articles, three are by Feldstein and only one argues directly against tax cuts.

Ec 10, it turns out, is unique among introductory economics courses in how much criticism it attracts for being conservatively biased.

When professors at MIT, Yale, Princeton, Brown, and Stanford were asked if they had heard such complaints about introductory economics courses at their schools, all of them said there had been virtually none.

“I think that most students at Harvard are probably more liberal than conservative, so it’s possible that at other schools there is a closer match between the person who teaches the principles of economics and the students,” says Professor of Economics Caroline M. Hoxby ’88, who took Ec 10 in Feldstein’s first year teaching the course.

But she says that students may have had preconceived notions about the course because of Feldstein’s association with the Reagan White House.

“I think that [students] think the course is more conservative than it is,” Hoxby says. “They think well, Marty Feldstein is conservative, so he must be teaching us a conservative view of things.”

Nitesh Banta ’08, a social studies concentrator, agrees that the perception of the course is unfair.

“At this school there’s such a conservative bias associated with that course that people expect it,” he says. “But it’s not that big a deal.”

Some TFs do worry, however, that the broad leeway Feldstein had in lecturing and assigning articles allowed some of his political views to seep into the course.

To Gamble, the problem was one of an inadequate balance to the opinions Feldstein gave in lecture.

“When Marty gives his plan, you want to know the assumptions that are there,” says Gamble. “I’ve heard that complaint from students—‘We’ve seen the plan, but I don’t have the economics to critique it. So I’m left with the unsettling feeling of, I disagree but I’m not sure why.’”

But first-year TF Joseph M. Mazor says that Feldstein’s lectures drew a sharp distinction between fact and opinion. Mazor says the real problem, “if there is one,” lies in the readings.

“I think there’s room for improvement,” he says, in balancing conservative and liberal viewpoints in the selection of articles. “Mankiw’s aware of this,” Mazor adds.

A draft of the reading list for next fall does, indeed, show a vast overhaul of the articles assigned. The greatest change is in the numbers: the total of articles assigned will fall from 93 to 41. Of the original 93, only seven stayed on the reading list, and of the nine articles written by Feldstein, two remain.

Mazor proposes that Mankiw invite Marglin as a guest lecturer to provide ideological balance. Marglin did not respond to requests for comment, but Mankiw says he is “definitely someone we would consider.”

Nevertheless, TFs do not expect Mankiw to try consciously to make the course more liberal.

“He does realize he has a particular standing in the economic community as an economic conservative, and he’s comfortable with that, and students have to realize that,” says Jodi Beggs, who will start her second year as a TF in the fall. “At one point he basically said, ‘If they don’t like Marty, they’re not going to like me.’”

ONE COURSE, INDIVISIBLE

With Expository Writing and a language requirement freshman year, Gamble almost didn’t take Ec 10. It took a great interest in economics to convince him to commit to the full-year course.

“The problem that can’t be underestimated,” Gamble says, is the number of students who don’t take Ec 10 because it requires a full-year commitment—microeconomics in the fall semester followed by macroeconomics in the spring.

“You don’t want students to take macro because they have to, but because they want to come back,” Gamble adds.

Economics concentrator Ashley L.N. Banfield ’05 also says that the indivisible nature of the course can be a turn-off for undecided freshmen.

“I think the fact that it’s a one-year course makes it really hard for people who are unsure, who don’t know what they want to concentrate in,” she says.

Mankiw readily admits that Ec 10’s indivisible structure is up in the air, saying he is considering allowing students to drop Ec 10 with credit after the first semester. And Ardagna says she would support giving students the choice of only taking micro.

But Mankiw says, “As the new course head I wanted the changes to be gradual,” and doubts such a change will happen next year.

One of Mankiw’s colleagues, Professor of Economics David I. Laibson, says he supports making the course divisible.

“If I were making the decision I think I would lean towards giving students the choice, because I think that the economic principle of consumer sovereignty should generally be followed unless there’s a very compelling case against it,” Laibson says.

But support for allowing students to take only one semester of Ec 10 is not unanimous. Two of the seven TFs interviewed for this article say that Ec 10 should be kept in its current, indivisible form.

“I have been struck by how much the second semester builds on the first,” Bruce D. Watson, who is leaving Ec 10 after six years as a TF, writes in an e-mail. “Students who only take one would be really short-changed; they simply wouldn’t be in a position to understand fully what they’ve covered.”

But virtually all of Harvard’s competitors allow students to take only one semester of economics for credit. At Brown and Stanford, the introductory economics course lasts one semester, covering both micro and macro. At Yale, Princeton, and MIT, both micro and macro are offered in both semesters, although students are encouraged to start with micro.

“I don’t see any real problem, personally, with that, for students who are just a little bit interested in economics and want to pick up something,” says Professor Ray Fair, who has taught introductory macroeconomics at Yale for almost 20 years.

SECTION BY SECTION

TFs agree that Feldstein’s departure and Mankiw’s arrival provide an opportunity to rethink the long-established structure of the course.

“If it’s going to change, it’s going to be now,” Mazor says of Ec 10.

Laibson, who has given a guest lecture at Ec 10 for the past three years, suggests that Mankiw consider giving more lectures himself—perhaps moving some of the teaching of the principles of economics out of the section classroom and into Sanders Theatre.

Feldstein’s Ec 10 lectures have been a common cause of frustration among students. Last spring, Feldstein’s overall CUE Guide rating was 2.7 out of 5, putting him in the bottom 1 percent of the 499 professors who were rated.

But Laibson says that Mankiw’s enthusiasm and affability could keep students coming to Sanders even if the number of lectures were increased.

“In many ways, I could see Greg managing to carry off many lectures, maybe two lectures a week, with a thousand people in the audience,” Laibson says. “Greg could do that and it would be inspirational.”

The twice-weekly lecture model would mirror the approach that most other colleges take to introducing economics to undergraduates.

It could also address the common complaint that the quality of a student’s Ec 10 experience hinges on the TF.

“I had two different TFs,” Banta says, referring to the fall and spring semesters. “It was like taking a completely different course. In a lot of ways it seems to me your experience in the entire course is based on your TF.”

Bringing up another familiar grievance, TF Jesse G. Barnes says that lectures and sections seem disconnected under the current structure.

“There is no kind of systemic incorporation of, ‘Here’s what section material talks about, here’s what lecture material talks about, here’s how they go together,’” says Barnes, who is leaving Ec 10 after two years as a TF.

But while they express these reservations, the TFs and most students interviewed for this article still stop short of suggesting a far-reaching overhaul of the Harvard institution that Mankiw is now inheriting from Feldstein.

As Barnes puts it, Ec 10 “is unique in, certainly, not only negative ways.”

—Staff writer Anton S. Troianovski can be reached at atroian@fas.harvard.edu.