A fellow economics teacher recently told me that, when he asked his students in his own class "Which economists you like most?", most of them said "John Rawls". He also added: some of them said "Paul Krugman".
This fellow teacher told me this because he thought that, in our department (economics), only I would mention John Rawls in class (economics). He was impressed by my "influence" on students' "economics" knowledge. I think he is right in an aspect: only I will mention John Rawls in class. But I am not sure if I should be considered to be "influential". Well, at the time he told me this, my reply was (half-jokingly): I haven't told my students that John Rawls is not an economist.
What's the point for me to tell you this in this blog? There is an interesting (or funny) issue here, and we may interpret it positively or negatively.
The negative aspect is of course that John Rawls is a philosopher but students consider he is an economist (and like him most). This reflects that students cannot distinguish philosopher from economist (let me declare interests: I did told my students - in fact emphasized - that John Rawls was a philosopher in my class). At the very least, they didn't pay attention to the identity of economists, or they didn't care. In fact, some economists are often proud of their theories that are scientific, not philosophical, and proud of the scientific methods used in economics. If students didn't care about this difference, these economists would be sad to learn this.
Also, this may simply reflect that students don't have many other names in their mind and so they basically keep only the names mentioned by their teachers who can impress them. If students are very interested in economics, more likely they will have big names in their minds. This was obviously the situation when economics was an attractive subject in the past (at least this was true when I was an undergraduate). At that time, most students knew who were Milton Friedman, Paul A. Samuelson, and Kenneth Arrow, etc. Some also knew Gary Becker, Ronald Coase, etc. Certain students might consider some economists were their "heroes" or even "idols".
Of course, time has changed, and all these big names mentioned above did pass away.
To an economist like me, who has ever experienced these golden days, the current situation is not very cherishing. Students nowadays are normally busy in coping with the syllabus and have less time and so will pay less attention to something that is of only hobby value, but not of exam value.
Nonetheless, there are also some positive aspects.
First, I in fact do not think recognizing some economists as "hero" or "idol" is good. As an economist and a scientist, I don't care very much "who says what" but care "what is said". The name in itself should not be a guarantee for academic or scientific value. What is said (by whoever) is more important. Indeed, when a scientific subject becomes more mature, it may also turn to become more de-humanized, emphasizing less about the personal contribution, but the contribution in itself. In fact, this appears to the current way where economics is studied and taught. It emphasizes less on persons and but more on the results. Teachers will also mention less frequently the names but only the theories or results. In a way, this perhaps makes the teaching boring. But it could be a right approach.
Another "positive" aspect is that both Rawls and Krugman are not free-market economists. I don't mean that free-market economics is not good. Some of them are certainly good. However, it appears that laymen, and even economics students, often have an incorrect impression that economics is just about promoting free markets. This is incorrect as economists are not always one-sided. But now what students mention is not a free-market economist. This may reflect that the old prejudice for economics already starts fading out, at least for my economics students.
