For applied micro, Berkeley vs Stanford vs Yale vs Princeton

[wobuffet]

I've decided to jump on the bandwagon and make a "vs" topic (with a poll too, just for fun), even though I'm heavily leaning towards Berkeley.

 

My interests are primarily in applied micro (both theoretical and empirical), especially public finance and labor economics. I'm definitely not interested in finance and macro.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated. :) In particular, any thoughts, faculty names, etc. from current students or anybody in a similar admissions situation might be quite helpful.

 

(I'm currently waitlisted at Princeton, so I've included 2nd choices for those who pick it in the poll.)

[heraclitus_junior]

Can someone define for me, exactly, what applied micro is? In particular, what applied theoretical micro is? The latter sounds like an oxymoron.

 

Everyone seems to be interested in applied micro, but I have next to no idea what it actually is!

[wobuffet]

Can someone define for me, exactly, what applied micro is? In particular, what applied theoretical micro is? The latter sounds like an oxymoron.

 

Everyone seems to be interested in applied micro, but I have next to no idea what it actually is!

I can't find the specific post, but someone here on TM explained it something like this:

 

pure micro theory = abstract theory about individual decision-makers (e.g., firms or consumers) with components that are general, in the sense that the model's parts are not applied to any specific economic situation (e.g., Assume a continuum of goods indexed by G in [0,1] with k symmetrical agents...)

 

theoretical applied micro = less abstract theory, with decisions and agents that are modeled in a manner as to conceivably correspond to real-life economic situations (e.g., We model the hiring decision of a firm in this housing market as follows...)

 

empirical applied micro = using microeconomic data to explore real-life economic situations (e.g., Using a regression discontinuity design, we examine individual-level labor decisions in the southeastern Pennsylvania logging market from the years 2001 through 2007 using microdata from...)

 

Essentially, there are two distinctions to be made: the pure/applied distinction distinguishes between theory for the sake of theory (i.e., models constructed with no real attempt to relate to real life) and theory attempting to explain (conceivably) observable decisions in the real world. This is necessarily not a sharp distinction, and indeed there is much disagreement as to what exactly constitutes "applied" work.

 

By contrast, the theoretical/empirical distinction within applied economics tells you whether you're dealing with mathematical constructs or actual statistics/data. Oftentimes, applied work blends theoretical and empirical components (e.g., We test the implications of the Wobuffet-Heraclitus (2013) model using public use microdata gathered from...)

Edited March 23, 2010 by wobuffet
fixed some phrasing, added pretty formatting

[xyz621]

Stanford is great in IO.

 

Berkeley is great in behavioral stuff.

 

Yale is great in Econometrics.

 

Princeton feels like pure math, just implied from their other-worldiness.

[econberkeley]

In terms of applied micro, berkeley and stanford aren't comparable. Berkeley has one of the strongest labor groups in the country (Card, Morretti, Klien) and some extremely talented applied people Della-Vigna, Ted Miguel, Ulrike Malmandier, Saez, and many many others. There are numerous applied lunches in which students and faculty present applied work (development is every tuesday and labor is every wed for instance). Stanford has only one applied group that meets and in general puts much more focus on micro theory (an area in which they are stronger than berkeley). in short, for applied micro, its not even close - berkeley is clearly better than stanford. i invite you to ask current stanford students, im fairly confident they'll agree.

 

with that said, if it turns out that you have a chance at princeton, then the decision is less clear. princeton and berkeley both have exceptional applied people, so i would recommend looking at the fields in which you are interested and takling to grad students to compare the environments, happiness levels and offerings of the two programs.

[econberkeley]

also for public finance, berkeley has one of the top groups in the country - saez (most recent john bates clark winner) and alan auerbach

[informer]

If you're interested in the theoretical side of PF then you should take note that the main guys working in the field are at Berkeley (Saez) and Yale (Tsyvinski and Golusov).

[gramophone]

Tsyvinski and Golosov (both are at Yale) are two most impressive researchers in public finance. But their work is basically in the context of macroeconomics, which I think is a new trend of public finance. But their tool is micro-based, of course.

 

Yale and Stanford are definitely the best schools in empirical IO and only NWU can be comparable with them in terms of faculty, I think.

Edited March 23, 2010 by gramophone

[fp3690]

If you're interested in the theoretical side of PF then you should take note that the main guys working in the field are at Berkeley (Saez) and Yale (Tsyvinski and Golusov).

 

This is not really true. As gramophone mentions, dynamic PF is more macro than PF, and some of the traditional PF guys see it as an altogether different field. Traditonal public is much broader, and it looks at any possible intervention of the government, but dynamic PF only deals with bridging the Mirrleesian and Ramsean models. So, I have to add to this list Chetty and Gruber, while Saez seems to be permanent co-buddies with Kleven from LSE (just mentioning the tax people here, not other PF strands).

[Eee]

First, my generic advice to everyone who knows what they're interested in: open up a spreadsheet, make a list of faculty in your areas of interest, and compare.

 

At first glance, if you're into labor and public finance I would've guessed Yale would be your first choice, but I guess Berkeley is similarly strong there.

 

Yale and Stanford are definitely the best schools in empirical IO and only NWU can be comparable with them in terms of faculty, I think.

I personally would've singled out Stanford and NWU--the field courses here are taught by (-1) Nevo/Rogerson (-2) Porter (-3) Hendel/Whinston... I'm not sure Yale is as strong.

But then I also don't know if wobuffet is into IO, so maybe this is irrelevant to him.

[wobuffet]

Thanks for the input, everybody! Looks like pretty strong support for Berkeley, except for possibly Princeton conditional on their accepting me. What's Princeton particularly strong in, health and development?

 

 

In terms of applied micro, berkeley and stanford aren't comparable. Berkeley has one of the strongest labor groups in the country (Card, Morretti, Klien) and some extremely talented applied people Della-Vigna, Ted Miguel, Ulrike Malmandier, Saez, and many many others. ...

Did you really make a TM account just to post in this topic? I guess you must feel strongly about this! (or perhaps your post count was wiped out when the forum went down...)

 

 

This is not really true. As gramophone mentions, dynamic PF is more macro than PF, and some of the traditional PF guys see it as an altogether different field. Traditonal public is much broader, and it looks at any possible intervention of the government, but dynamic PF only deals with bridging the Mirrleesian and Ramsean models. So, I have to add to this list Chetty and Gruber, while Saez seems to be permanent co-buddies with Kleven from LSE (just mentioning the tax people here, not other PF strands).

Interesting stuff, and good to know – thanks. I'm pretty sure I'd be more interested in the work of "traditional PF" guys if this is the case.

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying with the comment about Saez and Kleven though?

 

 

First, my generic advice to everyone who knows what they're interested in: open up a spreadsheet, make a list of faculty in your areas of interest, and compare.

 

At first glance, if you're into labor and public finance I would've guessed Yale would be your first choice, but I guess Berkeley is similarly strong there.

Ack, I'm really regretting not having visited Yale now... the poll numbers supporting my current leanings are vaguely comforting though. :p

 

I personally would've singled out Stanford and NWU--the field courses here are taught by (-1) Nevo/Rogerson (-2) Porter (-3) Hendel/Whinston... I'm not sure Yale is as strong.

But then I also don't know if wobuffet is into IO, so maybe this is irrelevant to him.

You're right, I don't think I'm particularly interested in IO. That said, it wasn't offered at my school, so it's possible I'll like it once I get some exposure to it... the level of (un)certainty I feel about my fields of interest is quite volatile.