ThJefferson

Good point. Some people are probably just naturally better at teaching. Has anyone had poor experiences with grad student teaching? If you have, do you think there is a way to avoid those experiences? One possible way would be to have a screening process for new TAs, where those that do not meet the teaching proficiency requirements cannot become TAs. Maybe that's too harsh. Thoughts?

During a break today I found this article: Do Econ Grad Students Need a Teaching Bailout? News: Do Econ Grad Students Need a Teaching Bailout? - Inside Higher Ed I find it interesting that only "29 percent of departments require graduate students to take a course for academic credit on how to teach undergraduates" and "Just over half of departments require graduate students to attend a non-credit program about teaching undergraduates." Students pay a good amount to receive a college education and deserve to be taught by someone that is trained. It is surprising that only half of graduate teachers are trained. What do you guys think?

Good post, claphands. My own (initially negative) feelings toward economic theory have definitely been adjusted to be more positive and optimistic after reading many of the above comments by you and other posters (Epanechnikov, murni, Antichron, GoldenRule, among others) for and against my position.

Hey GoldenRule, It seems like you have read some articles that provide empirical evidence that supports the notion that people maximize their discounted utility over time periods. Could you post or send me links to 1-2 of these papers? I would greatly appreciate it. I cannot answer your question about international trade because I don't know enough about it. Can anyone else answer his question?

You make a great point Antichron, and I am excited to partake in (3) as soon as I have the training. We must agree, however, that (3) comes from (1) and/or (2), because if a model isn't broken, then why fix it? It is our future duty as researchers a) to discover which models are broken and need fixed and b) come up with ways to fix them, i.e. your #3.

I never said dynamic programming is wrong. I think it is a great mathematical tool that has a lot of application in many sciences. It, however, is not always used best when dealing with an economic problem. And because people are complex beings, a lot of the "simple" assumptions used in dynamic programming problems make the drawn conclusions wrong and/or useless. I agree with what pevdoki1 said earlier: "After a year of macro, I don't find "add more assumptions" to be a very good argument. What you start with in your models is preference relations that at least lead to utility representations, forward-looking agents etc. Complicate your assumptions all you want, but what can you buy in the real world with dynamic programming [with respect to human behavior]?" You say that "It is not ok just to state: this is unrealistic, dont do it." I agree with you to an extent, in that not much research could be done if every economist acted like this. And so yes, we as scientists need to judge when an "unrealistic" assumption is justifiable in a model. For example, if it makes the model extremely simple, then it might be worthwhile to put it in there to see what happens. After reading through some of the other responses, it seems like a model should be rated in three categories: Simplicity, tractability, and realism, where realism is based on how realistic the assumptions are. I think there should be some minimum rating in each category that a model must have to be considered worthwhile. For example, take a physicist who is estimating the trajectory of a fired cannon ball. Suppose he assumes that the force of gravity is twice as much as its true value. This is a poor assumption and he will get a wrong answer. Suppose, however, that the physicist gets his paper published in a good journal because his results are simple and tractable. People read his work and continue to use his assumption and it becomes common practice. In my opinion, the physicist was wasting his own research effort as well as others research effort because the assumption used is wildly incorrect and yields incorrect answers. Most researchers don't have time to consider altering assumptions that have been used time and time again and, as a result, take those assumptions for granted. In an ideal world, every researcher should take a lot of time to challange every assumption that has been used in past work. Unfortunately, scientists have deadlines and they must "publish or perish." I feel that this phenomenon is a central criticism of current economic theory. At the same time, it might just be that I am misinformed with the education I have received (undergrad degree and the first year of phd econ). I want to be in the camp among the TM'ers that are confident about the way economic thoery and application is performed. You say that "people act as if the would solve such problems" as you refer to people maximizing their utility over periods. Could you direct me to a few studies that have documented this?

Krugman makes a good point about realizing economic models are metaphors and not "truth." I especially find his last point helpful. I don't fully agree with Friedman's comment. If a model with an unrealistic assumption helps us gain deep insight, we must remain skeptical of that insight because it is based on an unrealistic assumption. On the other hand, there is a range of realism that assumptions can take on. The less realistic an assumption, the more skeptical we should be.

I took 14 or so, including intro micro/macro. Intro to Micro Intro to Macro Intermediate micro Intermediate macro econometrics 9 electives

To your first point. I hope to see more what you have seen. And I do agree that simplicity and tractability are important in economics. To your second point. I didn't say anything about perfect data. Come to think of it, does any empirical study use perfect data? All I am saying is that some data is better than no data. And if there is no data and the data cannot be accumulated, then the theorist should (and many might already) make an attempt to come up with an experimental design for validating/rejecting their results. Think of the alternative. A theorist comes up with a way that people decide to save money. For some reason the theory cannot be tested. Is it wise for public policy to use the theory to make judgments? On a slightly different topic: I'd like to propose a fun challenge to the test magic community. Can anyone find a mathematical theorem in economics describing the way people make decisions that has been "verified" by empirical evidence? And when I say verified, I mean verified in the sense that Albert Einstein's theory of relativity has been verified by empirical observation. I am sure some are out there that I have not yet read; it would greatly help me ease my angst toward economic theory. If you find one, please send a link to the empirical paper that verifies the theorem.

Since my senior year in college (07-08), I have dealt with the "problem" in economics described in the thread, i.e. building "the edifice of nonsense" from wrong assumptions about human behavior. Let me say up front that I think empirical economics is on the right track with finding better ways to handle data via more sophisticated statistical procedures and/or better data sets. My main objection to economics, on the other hand, comes from economic theory. It infuriates me when I read a paper that assumes something that is not even empirically observed, but something that makes the math convenient. Say, for a simple example, that we assume people maximize their discounted utility when they make a decision over time periods. Dynamic programming or calculus of variations tells us how to solve for the person's decisions. This is a wrong assumption about human behavior. Why? Who can honestly say that they behave like that? Who sits down and solves the complicated math problem? I have a degree in math and cannot solve most dynamic programming problems by hand. The theorist might respond that people don't know that they act like that but they in fact do, or they act close to it. Why don't theoretical studies site empirical evidence defending their assumptions then?? The theorist might respond saying that it is too difficult to attain the required empirical evidence. If this is the case, then we still have a problem, in that we assume something that is not empirically justified. What I would like to see in the future of economics are ALL models and results based on empirical evidence. This would lead to high emphasis on experimentation and observation, which is what every science has (or should have).

I'll be starting the Cornell AEM Phd program in the fall.

I am pretty sure Harrington advises people in IO. I'm not sure about Shum.

I am a current first year student at Hopkins. The first year class is large; there are 25 or so of us after a few left last semester. Because funding is tight and the larger 2nd-5th year student body, the department doesn't have much funding for the new incoming class. If you guys have questions, feel free to ask.

I have been admitted to the AEM Ph.D. program and I have already accepted the offer. If you guys go, I will probably meet you in the fall because the AEM students take similar courses during the first year (micro sequence for sure, maybe the same math sequence as well).

Has anyone else been accepted to Cornell AEM Phd?