Koch recognizes students
Student papers win them trips to Central America
Jefferson Ventrella
Issue date: 4/9/09 Section: News
The term papers that junior Dave Wasmer and senior Hannah Mead wrote for an economics class last semester won them a trip to Central America this week. On Monday they presented the essays at a conference of the Association of Private Enterprise Education in Guatemala City.
Assistant Professor of Economics Nikolai Wenzel, who assigned the essays in his Constitutional Political Economy course, said his department paid for the trip with a grant from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. He and Associate Professor of Economics Ivan Pongracic have a longstanding relationship with the foundation, he said, which led to a large donation to the school for economics-related programs.
Wenzel selected the four A papers as finalists, then sent them to a panel consisting of economics professors at other schools.
"I approached it as I would a normal paper but with an added bonus," Wasmer said.
Wasmer's essay argues that free-market principles and biological evolution through natural selection are essentially the same mechanism.
"It's an ontological, not analogous comparison," Wasmer said.
He said natural selection and the free market both operate according to the same information theory. Information, be it ideas or genetic codes, competes for dominance in a competitive environment, and the winners reproduce themselves, whether as DNA or profitably-priced products, he said. He used this model to illustrate the inefficiency of central planning, in both domestic animal breeding programs and centrally-planned economies.
Mead tackled a broader topic for her paper: developing trends within contemporary libertarian thought, and the reasons she considers those trends incompatible with their alleged object, personal liberty. Deeply-rooted "traditional values" promote freedom, rather than erode it, the essay argues, because they serve as a check to the excesses of people's passions.
Mead said the essay raised controversy when she presented it at Hillsdale's Fairfield Society. She received a similar reaction at the conference, thanks in part to lighthearted opposition from Pongracic, who asked the first question.
"It sparked a lively discussion," she said.
Mead, Wasmer and Wenzel served on a panel Monday afternoon and spoke for 15-20 minutes each before opening up the floor to questions. They also attended lectures given economists from third world countries and ate dinner with a number of Wenzel's economist friends.
By all accounts, Mead said she considered it an enjoyable and profitable experience.
"It was really good. I thought all the presentations went really well," she said.
Wenzel concurred.
"I would not have invited them to speak on a panel I am running if I had not had full confidence in them," he said.
Assistant Professor of Economics Nikolai Wenzel, who assigned the essays in his Constitutional Political Economy course, said his department paid for the trip with a grant from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. He and Associate Professor of Economics Ivan Pongracic have a longstanding relationship with the foundation, he said, which led to a large donation to the school for economics-related programs.
Wenzel selected the four A papers as finalists, then sent them to a panel consisting of economics professors at other schools.
"I approached it as I would a normal paper but with an added bonus," Wasmer said.
Wasmer's essay argues that free-market principles and biological evolution through natural selection are essentially the same mechanism.
"It's an ontological, not analogous comparison," Wasmer said.
He said natural selection and the free market both operate according to the same information theory. Information, be it ideas or genetic codes, competes for dominance in a competitive environment, and the winners reproduce themselves, whether as DNA or profitably-priced products, he said. He used this model to illustrate the inefficiency of central planning, in both domestic animal breeding programs and centrally-planned economies.
Mead tackled a broader topic for her paper: developing trends within contemporary libertarian thought, and the reasons she considers those trends incompatible with their alleged object, personal liberty. Deeply-rooted "traditional values" promote freedom, rather than erode it, the essay argues, because they serve as a check to the excesses of people's passions.
Mead said the essay raised controversy when she presented it at Hillsdale's Fairfield Society. She received a similar reaction at the conference, thanks in part to lighthearted opposition from Pongracic, who asked the first question.
"It sparked a lively discussion," she said.
Mead, Wasmer and Wenzel served on a panel Monday afternoon and spoke for 15-20 minutes each before opening up the floor to questions. They also attended lectures given economists from third world countries and ate dinner with a number of Wenzel's economist friends.
By all accounts, Mead said she considered it an enjoyable and profitable experience.
"It was really good. I thought all the presentations went really well," she said.
Wenzel concurred.
"I would not have invited them to speak on a panel I am running if I had not had full confidence in them," he said.
Be the first to comment on this story