Advice on selecting schools based on Macro Ideology

[bgg]

Hi Everyone,

I would really appreciate your advice on picking schools based on my interests.

The main principle is that I am not a big fan of the Chicago type macro. I think that it makes sense only when applied to international finance but pretty much in not many other areas.

 

So my research interests in order are

1. International finanlce (financial crises, exchange rates, current account balances...)

2.Econometrics

3. Monetary Policy

4. Development from a more macro perspective (growth models)

5. Labor applied to development (income inequality mainly)

 

I am looking forward to picking 6-7 schools in the 1-10 range

3-4 schools in the 10-20 range

2 schools in the 20-30

 

Thank you in adavnce for your help

[macroeconomicus]

Hi Everyone,

I would really appreciate your advice on picking schools based on my interests.

The main principle is that I am not a big fan of the Chicago type macro. I think that it makes sense only when applied to international finance but pretty much in not many other areas.

 

 

Hi. The last statement is not entirely clear to me. When you write "I think that it makes sense only when applied to international finance", do you mean by "it" Chicago type macro or the whole previous sentence?

 

 

PS: I am interested in knowing answer to this too (e.g. does Minnesota/Chicago-style macroeconomics apply or have many fruitful applications in international finance and monetary economics or are these fields dominated by other schools of thought? Should I apply to UMN if I want to study monetary econ or international macro and finance?)

[bgg]

I meant "it" Chicago type macro.

Every top school is more biased towards Chicago/Minnesota type macro but some more than other such as Chicago and Minnesota itself:). So if you are interested in international econ you will learn rational expectations theories everywhere. But I would rather go to a school that would give me some perspective. For example it's unlikely that any top school will spend much time teaching behavioural econ but at least some of them will acknowledge its existence

[macroeconomicus]

My understanding was that besides dynamic macro, the new Keynesian approach is the other most common approach in macroeconomics. I was once told by a professor that there is no such thing as UMN-style monetary economics any more. So, that's why I am wondering whether schools similar to UMN/Chicago/Rochester in their macro approach are worth considering if I want to study international finance or monetary economics.

[Tex Jansen]

Almost all current macro is dynamic, and most uses rational expectaions, if only as a benchmark. New Keynesian economics is no exception.

 

The Minnesota approach has little to say about monetary policy. There are no shortage of applications to other areas of macro, however, such as international finance, growth, search, and asset pricing.

 

If you want to do monetary policy, I would avoid Minnesota type programs.

 

Bgg:

 

Besides Minnesota and Chicago, other "freshwater" macro programs include UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Arizona State. If you attend these places, you will see very little New Keynesian macro. These schools will use RBC models more to explain fluctuations, although RBC is no longer a hot research topic. There are other schools that lean in this direction, but not as strongly (and I am probably leaving a few off of my list). I do not agree with the statement that top programs are generally biased in this direction.

 

Looking at your original post, you may want to look at Maryland. They are top notch in open economy and about as far away from the Minnesota school as you can get. Duke also comes to mind. Harvard would obviously work, but when doesn't it.

[bgg]

Thanks Tex Jansen

"I do not agree with the statement that top programs are generally biased in this direction."

 

I am realy glad to hear that

How would you evaluate

Michigan, UCSD, NYU, Yale (these are borderline schools I am wondering whether to apply to)

[macroeconomicus]

Besides Minnesota and Chicago, other "freshwater" macro programs include UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, Wisconsin, and Arizona State.

 

 

Also probably CMU, Rochester, and NYU. I believe some pretty famous macro were associated with them (and still are at least at NYU).

[Tex Jansen]

How could I forget Northwestern? They are clearly freshwater.

 

I agree with Rochester. I hesitate to include NYU. The Minnesota crowd would probably put Jess Benhabib on trial for war crimes if they could. Sargent's work is also too broad and too brilliant to be pegged so narrowly.

 

CMU is close, but I always think of Ben Mccallum as a counterexample. He is very old, however, and they do have a lot of Minnesota types.

 

Yale is obviously a great program where you can do anything, but I always think of it as a micro program first. In macro, they are stronger empirically, given that Engel is there.

 

Michigan is a good place. I do not do much open economy stuff, but they have produced strong regular macro job market candidates lately. I certainly wouldn't describe either Michigan or Yale as strongly Minnesota school.

 

I always think of UCSD as great in empirical macro, not so strong on theory. Again, certainly not a Minnesota type school. Timmerman is as prolific an economist as you will find.

[IntEcon80]

How about THE New School University in NYC? They have Lance Taylor there

[Tex Jansen]

The New School is a heterodox department. If you get your doctorate from there, 95% of your job packets will go right to the trash bin. Just hope that U-Mass is hiring.

 

On the plus side, noone has ever included it in the Minnesota school.