A link to the list of diploma / bachelor theses published by Mr. Petr Barton at the University of Economics (link to the list at VŠE). He is a rather peculiar teacher and therefore it is also a peculiar topic, which often aroused ridicule and a kind of talk about "the most difficult high school in Prague." But the problem is that it is completely different.
Economics (probably like most other disciplines) is studied mainly by two groups of students: those who are really interested in economics (and who may be real economists) and those who are learning it, because "therefore" - just get the data, definitions from textbooks and they are no longer interested. They are not tired of that object, they do not want to know more than what they have to try out during the exam. Economists will probably never be one of them. They don't want to be, they want a degree.
For the former, economics is usually a general science dealing with "human action" as such. They have no problem analyzing crime from an economic perspective.
For the latter, economics is usually the science of "money" or "business" or "management," where something is added and subtracted and some graphs drawn, accounted for - accounting ++. Economic analysis of crime is nonsense for them.
The problem is that both the First and the Second will win the same degree that will "certify" them at one level of education. Yes, only the First (and not the Second) understands the field, but they will probably be treated for some time as well.
The First, if it is really good, will draw the Second with its successes - both are graduates from one school (for example), and when the First Good came out of it, the Second Good will certainly be in the eyes of many. However, the opposite is also true. That The Second Bad One, with his inability, makes it difficult for the First One to succeed. Because in the eyes of others, when the "Second was so bad, the First will be so bad - they have the same school."
It is a redistribution of success. If there are more Seconds than the First, then the Firsts have a difficult path to success in the field, because the inability and failure of the Seconds prevail.
It is therefore necessary to "purify" the field from the Others - to let them seek happiness elsewhere, in a field that will suit them and entertain them. The second is "inflationary" economists. Economists without value (and reducing the value of other economists).
Conservative themes make things worse
If you give the First and the Second as a topic of diploma some variation other than "inflation and economic policy," the Second earns at the expense of the First. Why?
All possible "serious" topics, which many think should be written diploma theses, have already been written millions of pages of text. There is no need to invent much new (it doesn't go very well either). Just rewrite the texts of those "in front of you" and somehow you will go through. There is nothing to spoil. It is the equivalent of "getting out of a textbook," only at the diploma thesis level.
The second will continue to practice mechanical teasing. The greatest work on the entire diploma is its writing, not fiction and a kind of "realization", creation as such. Just mechanical writing (and following the rules).
The first will examine the topic in depth, trying to find a new perspective or other starting points. The greatest work on the entire diploma is its invention and implementation, not its mechanical writing. The first can think "out of the box", which is exactly what an economist needs.
Or make it easier to do the job and do it like the other one.
However, the result is the same title. Equally perceived formal education. "Equality," or as Bastiat put it, "academic socialism."
Redistribution of effort
It is a redistribution of effort - from the First (good) to the Second (bad). It is not a real test of knowledge and economic skills.
I'm not saying the Others are absolute. They can certainly be very intelligent people. Fighters as they belong… but only more suitable for another field. For example in banking, management, accounting, whatever.
Maybe they can't even think that they're studying a field that isn't optimal for them - they just don't have the information. Tuition fees are not paid, there are no student scholarships and interest. They do not know because they do not have real market prices.
How to distinguish who is the First and who is the Second?
How to distinguish between whom to award a degree and to whom to indicate that it should try differently with that economy or whether it is looking for happiness in another field?
It's not that complicated: just enter the original topics. Who is interested in a diploma in a variation of the plethora of economic policy topics? Only one in a million can bring something interesting. The others are works of the style of the Others.
Give the First and the Second as a topic, for example, "Economic analysis of hip-hop with an emphasis on the substitution of production factors of labor and capital" and watch what happens.
Both the First and Second will probably have some problems with the topic. However, První is more likely to successfully complete and defend it. The second collapses over the "unseriousness" of the topic. He collapses that there's nothing about it, not even in the textbook.
And according to the second - what is economics in hip-hop, when he is to be interested in inflation and so on, well just economic topics!
At the same time, it is nothing more than (in other words) an “Economic analysis of the development of lifestyle depending on the degree of substitution of production factors work and capital. ”Does that sound more serious? Textbooks? More economical? Yes. Sounds easy. But only those who think "out of the box" will find out. Economist.
Only the First will appear, not the Second. The first is an economist and can build on a green field. The second is a transcriber and can only mechanically copy what others give it (textbooks, former authors of the same topics).
Mr Bartona's topics, which has flown around Czech Internet users and often aroused ridicule and smirks over the "fading level of education" and something about the "most difficult high school in Prague" are topics that will really test the knowledge and skills of an economist. Challenging topics. Topics great because they really check who is and who is not an economist.