Hayekian Comments on Student Papers
27 January 2010
| Peter Klein |
A grad student inspired these:
“The writer clearly suffers from a fatal conceit.”
“Reading this proposal helps me understand the knowledge problem.”
“Your paper appears to be the result of human action, but not human design.”
“The proposed outline reveals how little people really know about what they imagine they can design.”
Your suggestions?
6 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Anouar El Haji | 27 January 2010 at 2:13 pm
“Spontaneous order does not apply to writing.”
2.
david stinson | 27 January 2010 at 4:49 pm
Time spent on this paper was a malinvestment?
3.
Niklas Hallberg | 28 January 2010 at 4:56 am
“I love the Keynesian touch to this paper… not!;)”
4.
David Gordon | 28 January 2010 at 5:46 pm
As we used to say in Vienna, you must be geisteskrank.
5.
Peter Klein | 28 January 2010 at 11:48 pm
David, is that worse than Mises (teasingly) calling Rothbard a Schmollerite?
6.
Pietro M. | 29 January 2010 at 4:40 am
What about this Schmollerite? Never heard of the anedoct.
My favorite so far is that of human design, but I would add “this paper is an abuse of reason” and “your plan as a researcher and my plan as a reviewer do not coordinate”.