<p>^ That is only one department, and regardless, UChicago econ = Harvard econ (at the very least, for undergrad). The Chicago School, in my opinion, relies too much on certain axioms and dichotomy’s that are overly simplistic and easily dismantled, and, honestly, with Milton Friedman dead and with what happened with the banking system (please, don’t turn this thread into a discussion about this), I don’t see it retaining as much influence as it had in the past. Regardless, it’s ‘influence’ is only so because of the opinions of the American people. If we were to compare their influence now, then Harvard’s econ department would trump that of UChicago’s econ department. However, you can’t go wrong either way.</p>
<p>As well, I can only give a comparison of one other department (although, I know that Harvard trumps UChicago in many areas and vice versa), which is the philosophy department. And, Harvard philosophy>>>>>>UChicago philosophy. This is not only true now, but if you look at the past, as that article that idad posted did, many important North American philosophers were/are associated (went there, taught there, etc.) with Harvard ([Leiter</a> Reports: A Philosophy Blog: So who <em>is</em> the most important philosopher of the past 200 years?](<a href=“http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/so-who-is-the-most-important-philosopher-of-the-past-200-years.html]Leiter”>http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/so-who-is-the-most-important-philosopher-of-the-past-200-years.html)) and very few with the University of Chicago. I guess it depends on what you define as an ‘intellectual hub,’ but, if you haven’t noticed, Rawls’ work has had a considerable amount of influence on our current president (and, if I’m not mistaken, Nozick’s (another Harvard phil prof) work had a considerable influence on the ‘libertarian’ movement which, at least partially, helped the Chicago School have some influence on the political scene in America).</p>