Melanie Long seems to have only found Colander’s text under unorthodox.  I admit I don’t teach mainstream intro courses, but if I did I’d probably choose Goodwin, et al.  this is probably way to radical for someone who thinks that individuals exist in a vacuum and everyone (90%) agrees (generally or with provisos) with Mankiw, but its not likely to be as difficult a sell as the Bucknell solution (see Geoff and his colleagues’ books ).

“This innovative, principles-level text takes a broad "contextual" approach to economics—including serious consideration of ecological, feminist, and social concerns—while still including coverage of the standard microeconomic concepts and models. This book goes beyond a discussion markets and efficiency to address the question of human well-being. It includes such critical concerns as ecological sustainability, distributional equality, the quality of employment, and the adequacy of living standards. It is the companion textbook to Macroeconomics in Context<>.”

Barbara Hopkins, Ph.D.
Economics Dept.
Wright State University
3640 Col. Glenn Hwy
Dayton, OH 45435
office: 937 775-2080
211 Rike
Fax: 937 775-2441
[log in to unmask]
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: John Watkins<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 10:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Searching for a micro princples text

We are currently trying to decide a book for a standard micro principles class. One of my colleagues heading the micro-rebuild committee has recommended Mankiw’s book. Besides the protests over Mankiw’s failure to provide alternative views, for those going through similar searches, I refer you to Melanie Long’s Senior Thesis<> where she compares the six bestselling micro texts to Marshall’s Principles focusing on Mankiw’s methodology. Not surprisingly, she has found biases (I know, no surprise here) in Mankiw’s survey of economists’ preferences among other issues.
Question: does anyone have recommendations for a micro text that is well written, but does not serve as a complete apology for the status quo? Thank you so much,
John Watkins