UNC strengths?

**sefi** · 12-08-2008, 01:32 PM

hi,

I'm quite confused as to UNC's strengths...rankings show it listed in econometrics and in nothing else. The site has quite a few working in micro thoery, international finance...
also would UNC be considered a mid range school?

Thank you!

**YoungEconomist** · 12-08-2008, 02:05 PM

They're stong in metrics. I also thought I heard once that they are decent in labor (hopefully someone else can confirm whether or not this is true). They also have a unique specialization in financial econometrics, so I'm guessing they're decent at finance/financial-economics.

**notacolour** · 12-08-2008, 05:36 PM

They were once decent in labor and health, but everyone doing any applied micro (except Donna Gilleskie) has now left. Needless to say, this kind of screwed over anyone who went there to do labor.

If you might want to do applied micro, do not go to UNC. Sure, you can take applied classes over at Duke without much trouble, but there's nobody at UNC to advise you. Looking over the list of nine (only six tenure-track) faculty that joined this year, they're pretty much all macro and econometric theory, so it looks like there's little/no interest in getting any new micro people.

**notacolour** · 12-08-2008, 05:46 PM

Examples of (very good) applied micro people who have left UNC in the past several years, since 2006 at least:

David Blau
Tom Mroz
Ed Norton
Koleman Strumpf

**YoungEconomist** · 12-08-2008, 10:43 PM

Is UNC really that bad at applied micro? I thought they were supposed to be ok at applied micro.

**notacolour** · 12-09-2008, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

Is UNC really that bad at applied micro? I thought they were supposed to be ok at applied micro.

They were; they're not any more. As I mentioned, they've lost some really good people in the past several years, and they haven't been hiring applied micro people.

You can look at the page listing the research interests of faculty. Three list applied micro: the DGS and two non-tenure-track lecturers. Three list labor: Donna Gilleskie, one of those lecturers, and an adjunct secondary appointment with her primary appointment in American Studies. Two list health: Gilleskie and John Akin.

Sure, there may be a couple of applied micro people who don't list those as their research interests (well, I can find econometrician David Guilkey and demographer Boone Turchi, but the latter doesn't appear to have published in a while), but the point remains. Without people like Tom Mroz and David Blau the only labor economist is Donna Gilleskie, and at best only several others could be classified as applied microeconomists. And while Donna Gilleskie is great, if you're thinking of doing labor it's to your advantage to go somewhere with multiple labor faculty.

**YoungEconomist** · 12-09-2008, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by notacolour

You can look at the page listing the research interests of faculty.

Three list IO, which doesn't seem that bad.

**notacolour** · 12-09-2008, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

Three list IO, which doesn't seem that bad.

Four actually, if you include the DGS. But two are junior faculty, one of which seems to have only published one paper in five years. So that basically leaves Gary Biglaiser (senior) and Brian McManus (junior).

I don't think of IO as applied micro, though I guess it is (I would usually think of labor/health/empirical public). But would two active IO researchers be considered a decent group? I obviously know little about IO...

**unitroot** · 12-10-2008, 04:19 AM

I/O has a very theoretical side and also a very applied side. I know people who are basically theorists but work primarily in I/O. Their research is usually in game theory and various models of market arrangements with applications in I/O.

Then, there is also the empirical I/O, which probably has even more people working in it. They fit models to data, do industry studies, etc. Then there is the whole field of regulation that's again mostly empirical subject.

**YoungEconomist** · 12-10-2008, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by unitroot

Then, there is also the empirical I/O, which probably has even more people working in it. They fit models to data, do industry studies, etc. Then there is the whole field of regulation that's again mostly empirical subject.

Woud UNC be a good place to study empirical IO? It would seem so to me because of their stength in metrics, but I figured I'd ask since I'm less knowledgable about specific program strenghts than you guys.