“Two of these – creativity and communication (especially writing) skills – surfaced repeatedly as concerns of employers of new Ph.D.’s of graduate faculties, and of students themselves.”
“The worry is that current forms of graduate education may actually be stifling creativity.” (Krueger, et al, 1991, pp. 1048)
故对研究所之核心课程（core curriculum），COGEE表示忧心：
“The Commission’s fear is that graduate programs may be turning out a generation with too many idiots savants, skilled in technique but innocent of real economic issues.” (Krueger, et al, 1991, pp. 1044~1045).
Minsky (1996, p. xi)更毫不保留的指出: 这样子的课程，系「异常反智，系一种训练，而非教育」：
“Unfortunately, economists are generally ill-equipped to provide much practical guidance. One peculiarity of the preparation of economists at the end of the twentieth century is that the modern graduate curriculum does not require students to study either the history of economics or economic theory. In fact the curriculum is extraordinarily anti-intellectual: graduate programs in economics aim to train rather than educate.”
Winch亦曾以反讽的口吻批评：
“Economics may have produced some great scholars but it is not a scholarly discipline.” (Winch, 1962, p. 198)[25]
（四）无力可回天
COGEE的研究结果，固然印证社会以及社会科学界对经济学门的批评，但不仅毫无能力扭转乾坤，更未能舒缓此种情况之恶化。主要之因素，由前述1977-78获取博士学位者所具备之专业技能之结构，即了然于胸。具体而言，经济学界已自形成一个封闭坚实「自我繁衍」的生态体系，其内部之利益与权力结合信仰，不仅阻却一切外来的挑战，亦扼杀内部之「异端」：
“I believe, a pervasive feeling among a large number of economists – even though they are only a minority of the profession – that there is something so fundamentally wrong with economics that, until the error is corrected and economics placed on a different footing, little advance in economic knowledge can be expected. This feeling is accompanied by the belief that there is little hope economics will reform itself – at least not without substantial pressure from without – and that therefore the necessary change must come from within. Criticisms are rejected, not because they lack intellectual merit, but rather, because they go against the grain of the prevailing orthodoxy. No appeal to the evidence will succeed. Only the evidence which accords with a priori belief is acknowledged. Economics has, in this respect, become a closed system of ideas, more like a religion than a science.” (Eichner, 1983a, p. xiii)
“A dismal performance…. What economists revealed most clearly was the extent to which their profession lags intellectually” (Business Week, 18, January 1982, p. 124) This editorial comment by the leading economic weekly (on the 1981 annual proceedings of the American Economic Association) says, essentially, that the “king is naked.” But no one taking part in the elaborate and solemn procession of contemporary U.S. academic economics seems to know it, and those who do don’t dare speak up.” (Leontief, 1983, p. vii)
（五）被害人转为加害人：拾人牙慧
在前述的经济学「训练」体制下，获取经济学博士之研究生，美国公民所占比率，大幅下降；获取经济学博士之研究生人数，属美国公民者，1977年为560位，1987年降为475，1989年为422位，占47.2％；外国学生中，相当高的比例，来自亚洲国家；同时，值得注意的是GRE的分数，quantitative scores虽然维持不变，但verbal scores却有下降(Hansen, 1991 , pp. 1057~1058)。
换言之，美国的经济学教育对学术之扭曲，透过其授予外国学生博士学位，亦扩散到「外国」；而其扭曲的程度，远超过美国本土。一方面，由于语言文化之限制，外国学生必然偏向数量之训练；另方面，这些外国学生回到本国以后，挟着美国教育背景的优势，以及其美国同侪之奥援，又迅速掌握本国学术发展之霸权。而诚如Jacob Viner所言：”What economists do is what they are trained to do in their graduate programs.” (Hansen, 1991 , p. 1054)。因此，对为何能运用「反科学」的标准检验科学研究的成果，而不汗颜（shameless）也就不足为奇！
四、飞越杜鹃窝
就学术评鉴之本质谈起。学术评鉴系针对学术工作者的研究成果，所谓「学术工作者」又系指涉科学研究者，其主要担负之社会使命，在于「发现」真理，创造「新知」。如果这样的界定是可接受的话，应可发现，学术工作者的研究成果系「独一无二」；就自然科学而言，系古今「内」外，独一无二；就社会科学而言，则在一定之时、空环境内，独一无二[26]。因此，一个学者之学术成就，或许能够评价，但两个学者之间的学术成果是否能够「评比」，则值得深究；更遑论是否有一套「科学」的判准，资为「评比」之准据！
换言之，对学术（特别是社会科学）研究者而言，除了缺乏科学、客观的标准，评价其研究「产出」外，对学术研就者之「成就」，亦无科学、客观的评比指针。故学术评鉴就如同科学知识的界定：
“Kuhn’s focus on the community of scientists and on consensus and change is crucial because it brings us to the rather obvious question: When no mechanical rules or absolute critical determine what scientific knowledge is, is the consensus of the scientific community scientific?” (Redman, 1993, p.166).
因此，目前备受争议，以发表于符合「特定规格」的期刊之论文「篇数」作学者与学术机构之学术评鉴评量指针，不仅是「反科学」，更是戕害、扭曲学术之发展。
（一）学术「威权」的箝制：权力非科学[27]
省思自威权体制遗留迄今的「模范」学生、母亲、劳工、、、之制度，与所谓学术评鉴，有异曲同工之妙。
人生而平等，乃是普遍被接受的普世「价值」（非真理亦非科学可以验证），因此，人与人之间既不能评比，亦不应评比。惟虽如此，为何又能经由「评比」而产生「模范」、、、；如由历史经验，加以观察，所谓「模范」、、之举行，大致上[28]都是独裁专制政体之产物。换言之，这是独裁专制统治者之统御术的运用；透过「模范」、、、的赐予，就如同封建王权之贵族头衔的恩赐，呈现其政治统制的权威，以达到威权统治的效果。
学术的评鉴，系掌握学术资源者，透过评鉴制度，包括评鉴评比指针的设定，评鉴人员的遴选，遂行其「权力」之行使，藉以排除异己，招降纳叛，以建立其学术威权，掌控学术版图，分配学术资源。至所谓「量化」指针，只是为粉饰其「公正、客观」性[29]；所谓提升学术水准，只是为掩饰其「权力欲」之企图。其对学术发展会产生何种影响！显而易见：
”How long ….? That state is likely to be maintained as long as tenured members of leading economics departments continue to excise tight control over the training, promotion, and research activities of their younger faculty members and, by means of peer review, of the senior members as well. The methods used to maintain intellectual discipline in this country’s most influential economics departments can occasionally remind one of those employed by the Marines to maintain discipline on Parris Island.” (Leontief, 1983, p.xi)
（二）学术商品化：金钱或道德
如前所述，由主流经济学者所推动的学术评鉴，隐藏着市场经济逻辑的运用；其企图经由学术评鉴制度，将学术「市场化」，透过市场机制（包括竞争、金钱利益），规范学术资源（包括人力、物力）之配置（allocation），以提升其效率。
“…, there is a ‘new orthodoxy’ favouring the use of prices. All too often solutions are sought by using markets and perfect competition. Liberalization and privatization tend to be offered as solutions to all problems,…
This ‘new market orthodoxy’ by far stretches the limits in which the price system is an effective and useful social decision-making mechanism.” (Frey, 1997, p.2)
姑且不论，主流经济学者对市场经济逻辑的运用在一般正常的商品，是否已达到其所宣称的结果，仍未能提出「证据」外，由历史经验及人类之社会行为观之，就学术商品，市场机制不仅未能提升学术发展，反而带来灾难[30]。