Wait, what's so bad about the labour theory of value? It's a completely logical theory... You sure youre not just highly biased against anything slightly marxian?
PE at usyd basically presents every theory from a Marxist perspective; IMO it doesn't present a balanced view of economics. As I said, the reason it was kicked out of the faculty of E&B was that it wasn't seen as being 'real' economics. The department are more than happy to point out the problems with capitalism, but are unwilling to put any reasonable solutions for the issues they raise, which makes it hard to take anything they say seriously.
Start rant.
This 'reds under the beds' line from you is kinda getting old, I feel the need to intervene (no pun intended), to alleviate any fears others may have from your posts. And having done a double major in ECOP (meaning I've done more units than most) I'd say I'm perfectly qualified. I am also not a socialist alternative, and would say that I have become more moderate through my studies in P.E.
For the unitiated (and others have already indicated), P.E/ECOP is designed to be a more holistic, more philosophical/sociological/historical/political approach to the study of economic issues. Put another way, whereas 'economics' is the physics of the study of economics (atomistic, mathematical, sum-of-all-parts), ECOP is more like biology (earthy, evolutionary, etc). Whereas Economics asserts itself as an objective 'science', P.E questions whether there can really be a value-free study of economic issues, when economic phenomena are actually social phenomena (and social beings are erratic, not rational, individuals). This is a source of intellectual disagreement between the two disciplines.
As for the Marxian content in ECOP, this is not the be all end all of ECOP. One way to look at it is that the P.E curriculum is like a public school's enrolments- it has to include everybody. But at the end of the day, particular schools deal with particular matters. Just as Neoclassical economics is one of the few (if not the only) schools of thought with a comprehensive theory on price formation in the short term (and P.E recognises this), so too is Marxian/post Marxian theory one of the only schools that are concerned with the notion of 'exploitation' (whatever that may be). There's no choice really, if holism in education is one of the objectives of the discipline.
Your opinions on 'biased' tutoring are perfectly valid, but complaints about the Marxian content in P.E and leftist tutors seem to be a recurring theme from you. Just because Marxist views are discussed doesn't mean the course is pure indoctrination as you portray it to be (and learning about Marxian or post Marxian theory doesn't make one a communist). And just because one may disagree with a subject or theory doesn't mean he or she shouldn't study it. An intimate knowledge of a subject better helps one to critique it. I'd go further and argue that ECOP students should study some micro and macro so they truly know what they're talking about if and when they critique the orthodoxy, and ECON studies do some P.E so they understand the philosophies behind the textbook formulae and multiple graphs they apply. Ironically, ECON and ECOP might actually complement each other.
As for ECOP tutors in general, sure, they're not perfect, no one is, but on a whole, they're highly professional (I've been taught by a wide range, and know several personally, and I can safely say that they'd be equally critical of orthodox Marxian theory). As easy as it is to jump to this conclusion, to reduce ECOP to a mere left-right political battle is a gross misrepresentation of the merits of the discipline. Frankly, it's an undeserved and unwarranted.
I mean what is this, the 1950s? The Cold War ended two decades ago.
As for the socialist alternative element in the P.E cohort - yes, it's there, but it's everywhere, and it's not everyone in P.E. A lot of so called 'socialists' are the descendants of Mosmanites anyway, roughing it as commies for a bit of street cred, so you can never take them too seriously (and nor can you take them as ideal representations of the "left", whatever that may be).
It sounds like you're desperately unhappy with P.E and are probably doing it as part of Int Studies or Ec. Soc. Sci. You might do well to keep these caveats in mind. Also, dare I suggest that you do some of the more advanced, theoretical senior ECOP units in third year (they're the Pre hons units, but have changed names this year) Edit: this is where you truly dissect each school of thought - not just neoclassical, marxian and L.T.V, but you're also (re-)introduced to post keynesian, french regulation school, spatial P.E (economic geography), institutional economics (both old and new) and many more.
Or at the very least, consider ECOP2011 with Joseph Halevi (that surely will change your perception of P.E). You might've been better off doing ECOP2011 (or ECOP2016 as its now coded), rather than ECOP3012 straight after first year.
I don't mean to denigrate you, but feel there's been some misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
End rant.
