Historians Do It Better
Has anyone else noticed that faculty from the University of Pennsylvania have been more outspoken in their support of Drew Faust than have Harvard professors?
Case in point: Steven Hahn, U-Penn professor of history, writing in the The New Republic about why historians (Drew Faust) make better presidents than economists (one guess).
...as most academics will tell you, economists tend to think that they're smarter than everybody else, can find the answer to any important question, and don't need to listen carefully to other opinions. Pity the poor fellow who must present research to an economics department seminar: He can hardly get a word in edgewise.
Historians, now—that's a different matter.
Historians can be as arrogant and tone-deaf as any people who claim intellectual authority, but the nature of their work disposes them to be otherwise. Although historians pose large questions, they are skeptical of easy answers. Although they like to bring order out of apparent chaos, they quickly recognize the complexity of human undertakings. Although they seek to recover something of the past, they soon discover how much digging that requires. They come to learn that historical writing and historical experience involve conflicting perspectives and that they need to confront viewpoints different than their own. Historians have to be prepared to follow unexpected leads and uncharted paths. And they must develop skills (and patience) to hear and understand what their subjects are trying to tell them. It is all a very humbling process.
It's all a good omen for Harvard, Hahn concludes. And so Larry Summers takes another spear to the chest.
Any economists want to rise to the defense of your profession?
