The art of Macro-Economics

I've always been one of those people, who find professors boring and yet hail MBA professors as something of demi-Gods. I agree and whole-heartedly bow to all allegations of bias. But, in my defence I have to mention that some of the most interesting people I've met happen to be MBA professors - and therefore the basis of my theory.

One of the most recent ones is a man I heard a lot about even before I took his first class. Rude, sarcastic and even racist, I was told. And in all honesty, I probably entered the class with more apprehension than my ill-informed gossip sharer had intended to conceive. Yet, even before the first 15 minutes of the class was over, I knew I'd met a man who would change the way I looked at Macro-Economics for the rest of my life. Sarcasm was his strength, and boy did he flaunt it. You couldn't get away with a sub-standard assumption in that class. But I wouldn't agree to the allegations of rudeness and racism - those were plain fabrications. The man taught Macro-Economics like Classical History, with images, stories, assumptions, questions, cynicism and most importantly, a sense of humour.

There were no straight questions and therefore there were no simple answers. In his opinion, the only non-transient theory in the world had to do with culture. The fact that it didn't matter at all. And no wonder then, that his very first assignment had a caveat question thrown in ever-so-lightly on the multi-million dollar effect of culture on national income. And classmates and competitors tripped over each other trying to impress him with a leaner excuse to disregard the much-hated word.

Hillary is over now, and so is the 8-week schedule on the most discussed and argued about module this term. People who hate his cheek and some who idolise him are all feverishly hoping to pass a course they never believed would seem so unfamiliar. Notes exchanged, assignments completed and applause offered. What remains is his fan club.