Beginning Econ at UChicago?

uchicagoalum
Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:56:31 +0000

First, I only had two economics courses where there was ever a regular reference to real world entities, rather than firm A or B, country 1 or country 2, in the context of well known models. Further, when there were references made, they rarely came even remotely close to talking about policies as specific as Reaganomics. There truly is nothing akin to the high brow economic commentary that Paul Krugman or Thomas Sowell peddles - left or right – to be found in the actual classroom. Indeed, you could very well graduate with honors in economics and have almost zero knowledge about current affairs (domestic or international). To digress, I believe this lack of a political breath requirement in undeniable weak point in the Chicago undergraduate curriculum.

Second, towing the neoclassical line does not constitute taking a political position for the most part, at least not in the manner in which top departments do it. Neoclassical economics fails to tell you unambiguously whether there should be free trade, if the government should fight a research war against cancer, what the optimal tax rate should be, and so forth. Instead, it ultimately is about giving you the tools to measure the impact of these choices, principally through the economic definition of efficiency. Both Barack Obama and George Bush have advisors linked to UChicago Econ of enormously varying political stripes, yet these very same advisors would all consider themselves in agreement with the core tenants of neoclassical thought.

An apt comparison would be getting a degree bioengineering. Pretty much everyone concurs with the fundamentals of DNA, RNA, proteins synthesis and so on, but that knowledge does not necessary imply that scientists who study the subject support human cloning.