Stuy

Perhaps old, but starting 9/11 Ernst Fehr will spend 1/2 of the year at NYU and not anymore at MIT.

Ken Wolpin (at UPenn) got his PhD at CUNY

I believe that this post gives the wrong impression that at NYU people doing macro are rather old/retired. First the group of people doing active macro research is very large. Besides Sargent and Gertler you have Cogley, Violante, Lagos, Midrigan, Leahy, Benhabib, Jovanovic and Burstein (should he decide to stay) + people @ stern like Cooley, Backus, Veldkamp and Zin. There are 3 macro seminars per week (regular econ, at stern and a student seminar). There are two reading groups: Sargent's and Gertler's. Reading groups meet once a week and typically discuss a few working papers. Some professors go to the reading groups regularly, but they are attended mostly by students who generally present the papers. And as you can probably check, most of the people in that list are rather young. Violante and Lagos got tenure only a couple of years ago and are already producing students. Last year Violante's student (Greg Kaplan) went to UPenn.

fellowship will be the same.

I'm currently at NYU. I have no clue about when they're going to send admissions, but I understand that given the funding changes the classes from this year onwards will be smaller. It used to be that the usual offer was: 8 semesters of guaranteed funding & in return you'd have to TA in 5 of them. (Usually conditional on good performance you have funding for years 5 & 6). Now, as far as I know (but it may have changed recently), they will offer 10 semesters of guaranteed funding with NO teaching requirements. They are trying to have people more focused on doing research and thus finishing earlier. You actually can always choose to TA for extra money. In short it used to be the case that they targeted a 20 people class, but I understand that they will target an 18 people class from now onwards.

I second chicunomics in that we should specify whether we're doing this by university or only the econ dept. Specifying nyu a bit more, that is besides the ones that are already mentioned (in the past 5 years) + Persico (from UPenn) - Chen (to Yale) - Eaton (to Penn State) + Pearce (from Yale) In the B-School + Gabaix (from MIT Econ) + M. Katz (from Berkeley) In the junior market (not right from school) + Graham (Berkeley) + Andrea Wilson (Harvard) I also know Stanley Zin (from Carnegie Mellon) is coming but dunno if he's joining stern or the econ dept.

Why do they just report a stat related to the mean and not the std dev as well? Given that Minnesota is a school that divides waters somehow, what if some respondants thought relatively low of it (say gave them 2s) and some very highly (gave them 5s). I think Columbia got the same score. Just wondering but, what if Columbia got it through uniform 4s? I think that's not the same and perhaps us news could solve ties with the std dev or just report it for the reader to judge.

Yes, going to berkeley

Bryan S. Graham (Berkeley) and Stanley Zin (Carnegie Mellon) to nyu

Engle is not that old and is not at ucsd. He is at nyu stern finance.

I understand that they founded Pless when they hired Palfrey a few years back. Since he decided to move back to Caltech I thought that lab was mostly used by people in the psychology department as there are no economic experimenters at Princeton. Thanks for pointing out that my 'no lab at princeton' statement was clearly wrong as they kept the lab open after Palfrey left, but the main fact still remains: even though there may be the occasional faculty member running an experiment there is no one to train you in experimental economics there. By the way, your 'clear-cut downward trajectory' is at least exaggerating. You make it look as it is a given and you may well be better informed than I am but for what I know it is not obvious at all.

Fair enough, I forgot Benabou. But I still stand by a (rather strong) relative statement. Usually people doing research in behavioral profit from a lab and as far as I know there is neither a lab nor experimental people at princeton. At nyu I know that people doing behavioral interact with people doing neuroeconomics at the neuroscience department (paul glimcher to be more precise). I understand that harvard would give you a comparable alternative (if interested in neuroeconomics). This is what I meant by 'broader'.

Bottom line: I'd say that unless you're 100% positive you want to do pure orthodox theory go to Harvard. If you want to do theory then you may consider Princeton. Princeton> Stanford = Harvard for pure theory IMO, but both Harvard (Fudenberg, Athey) and Stanford (Bernheim, Segal) are great places. No behavioral economics at PU. Check Gul and Pesendorfer's paper 'the case for mindless economics' to see their view. Princeton, Stanford and Harvard have top Pol Sci departments. Princeton (Romer, Lee and theory people that have worked in political economics theory like Pesendorfer, Dixit) and Harvard (Alesina, Helpman) are relatively stronger than Stanford econ (Jackson), but Stanford GSB (Baron, Krehbiel) at least compensates, assuming you'll have access to them. anyway, 3 great places, I guess overall Harvard is broader and thus gives you more opportunities.

I don't think there is a limit. You just need the DGS's approval, in other words, you'll have to explain why you want to take such class and I guess that if it's reasonable permission will be granted

I didn't know that you are the one who says what matters and what not. You must be some sort of economics god.