This teaching note describes how to use Drew Carey’s short public policy documentaries in the classroom, and as part of a writing assignment for an introductory microeconomics class. Students are challenged to identify the core microeconomic concepts that are relevant to real-world policy matters, including healthcare, immigration and jobs

Holian, Matthew J.

English

This teaching note describes how to use Drew Carey’s short public policy documentaries in the classroom. The appendix includes sample multiple choice questions and we have created our own original video that demonstrates the models discussed below. The links, both to the Drew Carey videos, as well as the video demonstrating the models, are provided in footnotes below

Matthew J. Holian

CiteSeerX

Using Drew Carey in the Classroom

SJSU ScholarWorks

San Jose State UniversitySJSU ScholarWorksFaculty Publications Economics1-1-2011Using Drew Carey in the ClassroomMatthew J. HolianSan Jose State University, matthew.holian@sjsu.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/econ_pubPart of the Other Economics CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in FacultyPublications by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact scholarworks@sjsu.edu.Recommended CitationMatthew J. Holian. "Using Drew Carey in the Classroom" The Journal of Private Enterprise (2011): 161-167.The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167161Using Drew Carey in the ClassroomMatthew J. Holian*San Jose State UniversityAbstractThis teaching note describes how to use Drew Carey’s short public policydocumentaries in the classroom, and as part of a writing assignment for anintroductory microeconomics class. Students are challenged to identify thecore microeconomic concepts that are relevant to real-world policy matters,including healthcare, immigration and jobs.JEL Codes: A1, A22Keywords: Video teaching toolsI. IntroductionCommentators on the current state of higher education oftenpoint out that most teaching in universities is done the way Socratesdid it 2,400 years ago (Vedder, 2004). Recently, however, a number ofwriters have begun systematically developing the pedagogy of usingvideos in conjunction with teaching economics.1 Since 2007,comedian Drew Carey has released tens of entertaining, shortdocumentary videos that can be used with great success to highlightcore economic concepts as well as market-based policies.2 Thesevideos are a useful addition to the classroom toolkits of college                                                 * I thank valuable comments from the editor, an anonymous referee, the audienceat APEE’s 2010 conference, and Mark Brady. As a complement to this article, Ihave created a video based around my presentation at the APEE conference. Ihave also created a number of multiple choice questions. A link to the video, andthe multiple-choice questions, are provided in the draft version of this article,available here: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/matthew.holian/drewcarey.pdf.1 See Diamond (2009), Mateer and Li (2008), Mateer (2005), Hall (2001), Formaini(2001), and Hammock et al. (2000).2 There are currently more than 20 episodes available. These videos are posted onhttp://reason.tv and have so far been available as free streaming Internet videos.For videos that highlight contrasting policy positions, I use the PBS NewsHourwebsite; navigating it can be somewhat tricky, but students can watch streamingfull-length episodes at their convenience: http://video.pbs.org/program/979359630/.162 M.J. Holian / The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167economics professors because showing them can enliven a lectureand bring the issues closer to home. Most importantly, the videos canbe connected to the topics of the standard principles of economicscurriculum: supply and demand, price controls, opportunity cost, andso on.The main difficulty for an instructor showing these videos is inmaking the connections between the topics of the standardcurriculum and the storyline of the videos. Some videos definitelywork better than others for this purpose. On the other hand, as Ihope to convince the reader with this note, these videos definitelycan be used with great effect for the purpose of teachingmicroeconomics. Many of these videos are highly complementary toeach other. This facilitates showing multiple videos in one classsession or using them as the basis for a writing assignment thatrequires the students to compare and contrast two or more videos.3As examples of how multiple videos can be complementary toeach other, combining the first video I will discuss, on technologyand trade, with the video on the middle class and the one onimmigration usually makes for a nice discussion on the connectionsbetween globalization and innovation.4 The other two videos Idiscuss in this article are on kidney sales and medical marijuana, andtogether these two can provide the backdrop for a discussion onhealth policy, perhaps combined with the video on “bacon dogs.”5                                                 3 In my class, there is a required writing assignment, and I have found that somestudents greatly benefit from following a somewhat rigid outline. In particular, Isuggest students follow the “5 x 5 x 5” outline; it is a paper with five sections,with five paragraphs per section, and five sentences per paragraph. The fivesections are the introduction, discussion of video one, discussion of video two,discussion of video three, and a conclusion. My intention with this rigid outline isnot actually to make sure students follow it exactly, but rather to force them tothink organizationally about writing. But constraining my students’ writing in thisway has been so useful that I even suggest to them their thesis statement: “Thispaper will show how the core principles of microeconomics relate to three videosfrom the Drew Carey Project.” This format could work equally well with theNewsHour videos I referenced above; the suggested thesis statement would bemodified by substituting “PBS NewsHour” for “Drew Carey Project.”4 For easier reference, the technology and trade video is Episode 15, immigration isEpisode 10, and the middle class video is Episode 7.5 The kidney sales video is Episode 9, the medical marijuana video is Episode 2,and the bacon dogs video is Episode 11.M.J. Holian / The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167 163II. Mexicans and Machines: Why it’s Time to Lay off NAFTA(7:43)This video, originally released during the run-up to the 2008presidential election, begins by highlighting the negative view thatsome in the media and government have toward the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It then equates this position withthe view the Luddites had toward technology in nineteenth-centuryEngland. After showing the video in class, we scrutinize the concretearguments the video puts forth. We also explore some arguments thatthe video does not discuss, but which are nevertheless related.The deep point that I aim to stress with this video is thatglobalization and technology are intimately related. Indeed,globalization can be defined as the gradual reduction in the costs oftrade, where the reductions (e.g., transportation and transactioncosts) were often caused by technological advancement.6 Mexicans andMachines can be used to illustrate the effects of both technology andtariff reductions on jobs and wages. During the lecture, after we havewatched the video together, I analyze a demand and supply model forboth skilled and unskilled workers, in both the US and Mexico. Thisresults in a simultaneous analysis of four related markets.7 I explainhow in the United States, globalization, like an improvement intechnology, decreases demand for unskilled labor but increasesdemand for skilled labor.The particular model I highlight of course rests on simplifyingassumptions. For example, the new technology here is labor saving innature; see Taylor (2008, pp.92–94) for a textbook treatment.Essentially, the main arguments have long been known. Hazlett(1952, p.48) discusses how the introduction of a new machine cancreate new (skilled) jobs: Tom Jones “has just got a new job inmaking the new machine, and Ted Brown…has just got a joboperating one…”The video also describes how, like technology, tariff reductionsdestroy some jobs but create other jobs as well. The video explainsthis by noting that, by making some goods cheaper, tariff reductionsfree up consumers’ income to buy other goods and services, and this                                                 6 Spulber (2007, p.6) presents a similar definition. By conceptualizing immigrationas trade in factors of production, both this and the immigration video (Episode 10)can be seen as a type of globalization.7 I depict the four markets graphically in two-by-two fashion, where the “rows” areskilled and unskilled, and the “columns” are the United States and Mexico.164 M.J. Holian / The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167has the effect of increasing demand for other types of labor. A similarpoint was also made by Hazlitt (1952, p.48) in connection to newtechnology: “…Daisy Miller…can now buy a coat for half what itused to cost her,” and this frees her to buy other goods. The generalargument is the same, whether couched in free-trade or technologyterms.However, just as one can tell multiple stories in the case oftechnology for the increasing demand for labor, one could also tellanother story, a comparative advantage story, to motivate the laborsupply and demand model described above. After opening up tradeand specializing, production of the good in which the country has acomparative disadvantage will decrease, and so demand for the laborthat was used in that process will fall. However, with trade aneconomy will increase production of those goods in which it has acomparative advantage, and so demand for labor in these industrieswill rise. With respect to the United States and Mexico, this versionof the story nicely parallels the technology story (Taylor, 2008;Hazlitt, 1952) referenced above, as long as one is willing to assumethat the United States has a comparative advantage in the productionof goods that require skilled labor.III. Organ Transplants: Kidneys for Sale (9:44)This documentary explores the issue of legalizing organ sales as apolicy to reduce the shortage of organs for transplants, focusingespecially on kidneys. One segment follows a patient who is on atransplant waiting list as she begins her morning at a dialysis center.Another segment interviews a kidney donor. While both of theseindividuals are in favor of legalizing organ sales, the video alsointerviews a transplant surgeon who is against legalization. In thissense, whereas Drew Carey’s pro-legalization position is obvious, thisvideo fairly portrays both sides of the debate.The chronic shortage of kidneys in the United States and othercountries is an issue about which few students are aware, but thisdocumentary relates some powerful data and, more importantly, vividpersonal stories that drive home the gravity of the problem. Bans onorgan sales are frequently modeled as a price ceiling set at a price ofzero (Mankiw, 2007. p.152). This model also presents a niceopportunity to discuss consumer surplus and producer surplus.The topic of altruism (and the crowding-out of altruism) can alsobe incorporated into the discussion. Epstein (2008) presents a supplyM.J. Holian / The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167 165and demand model for organs that incorporates altruism via an organsupply curve with a negative price intercept, and describes theargument for how introducing compensation might cause a leftwardshift in the organ supply curve. Epstein’s position is actually not thata large shift of this sort would be likely to occur, but this model canbe used to explain (and lend credibility to) the position held by thedoctor that is interviewed in the video.Overall, I find the whole exercise most useful in highlighting thedifference between movements versus shifts in supply. Removing theprice ceiling incentivizes donors, causing a movement along thesupply curve to the northeast; however, if legalizing organ sales leadsto a crowding-out of altruism, this would cause a leftward shift insupply.IV. Medical Marijuana: Drew Carey Defends MedicalMarijuana (10:41)As with the other videos discussed, Drew Carey’s position onmarijuana legalization in this video is clear: he argues for legalization.The concept of paternalism is also relevant here, which connects thisvideo with the documentary on organ sales. With respect toeconomic concepts, several segments nicely illustrate opportunitycost, though the narrative is free of economic jargon. After watchingit together, I again take the liberty to connect the themes in thevideos with models that were not discussed in the video but whichbroadly relate to the issue.In California and other states, patients with a doctor’sprescription can now purchase medical marijuana without violatingstate or local laws, though the federal law criminalizing possessionand sale of marijuana remains in place. Prohibition of marijuanaparallels in many ways prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s, and thisvideo presents the opportunity to relate the current U.S. drug policyto historical events and economic analysis. The best context I havefound within which to discuss this video is the supply and demandmodel, as above with the Mexicans and the Machines video, but this timein a product market setting.Perhaps due to having first watched the kidney video, studentsare often tempted to conceptualize the issue of prohibition with“quantity ceilings.” However, I have found a simple supply anddemand analysis of black markets more illuminating. Sharp et al.(2004, pp.123–25) describe how decriminalizing marijuana would166 M.J. Holian / The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167cause the demand for marijuana to increase modestly, whereas thesupply would increase more dramatically. This is because dealers aregenerally punished more harshly than users. The combined effects ofthese two shifts, of course, are that equilibrium price goes down andequilibrium quantity traded goes up.8In their term papers, students have also usually identified thefollowing other likely consequences of legalization: quality andtransparency increases, less criminal activity, and a release ofenforcement resources into more productive uses. Sharp et al. (2004)discuss legalization’s effect on freeing up enforcement resources, butperhaps as a result of one scene in the video, in which a patientrecalls an episode where she waited in a parking lot for hours for herdealer to arrive, students also recognize that legalization wouldreduce transaction and opportunity costs for consumers that areassociated with black market procurement.V. ConclusionUsing the episodes of the Drew Carey Project in lectures andwriting assignments is a great way to encourage interest in publicpolicy debates and the study of economics. Students are presentedwith short but interesting and entertaining episodes on issues towhich they can relate. These videos can then be used to illustrate thecore principles of microeconomics, and so fit quite naturally in theclassroom.ReferencesDiamond, Arthur M. 2009. “Using Video Clips to Teach CreativeDestruction.” The Journal of Private Enterprise, 25(1): 151–61.Epstein, Richard A. 2008. “The human and economic dimensions ofaltruism: the case of organ transplantation.” Journal of LegalStudies, 37(2): 459–501.Formaini, Robert. 2001. “Free Markets on Film: Hollywood andCapitalism.” The Journal of Private Enterprise,16(2): 122–29.                                                 8 The strongest argument made by opponents of legalization is that quantityconsumed, and therefore marijuana consumption’s negative consequences, wouldlikely go up; see Miron (2010).M.J. Holian / The Journal of Private Enterprise 26(2), 2011, 161-167 167Hall, Joshua. 2005. “Homer Economicus: Using the Simpsons to TeachEconomics.” The Journal of Private Enterprise, 20(2): 165–76.Hammock, M., M.J. Wilson, and Michael F. Patrono. 2000. “Lessons fromThe Lorax.” The Journal of Private Enterprise, 16(Fall): 116–26.Hazlitt, Henry. 1952. Economics in One Lesson. New York: Harper &Brothers. (Special edition for The Foundation for EconomicEducation, Inc.) http://fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/.Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2007. Principles of Economics. Mason, OH: ThompsonHigher Education.Mateer, G. D. 2005. Economics in the Movies. Mason, OH: South-Western,Thomson.Mateer, G. Dirk, and Herman Li. 2008. “Movie Scenes for Economics.”Journal of Economic Education, 39(3): 303.Miron, Jeffrey A. 2010. “The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition.”http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget%202010%20Final.pdf.Sharp, Ansel Miree, Charles A. Register, and Paul W. Grimes. 2004.Economics of Social Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Spulber, Daniel F. 2007. Global Competitive Strategy. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.Taylor, Timothy. 2008. Microeconomics: Economics and the Economy. Madison:Textbook Media.Vedder, Richard. 2004. Going Broke by Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.Washington: American Enterprise Institute Press.

San Jose State University

https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&amp;context=econ_pub

Using Drew Carey in the Classroom

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX

SJSU ScholarWorks

San Jose State University