<p>I know that Chicago's economics department is one of, if not the best in the country, so I was wondering if an undergrad should have a background in economics before going to UChicago to study it. </p>
<p>I haven't formally studied economics in a class setting, my school doesn't offer any AP econ classes, though I have watched lectures from a professor on an intro course through a purchased dvd. Will not studying econ before put me at a disadvantage at Chicago or will the intro classes help getting me acquainted to the subject?</p>
<p>Don't worry about it. There are two econ courses, Microecon and Macroecon, to help you get acquainted with the subject. Neither course assumes previous knowledge in economics. Some students skip these, but many take them, so you'll be on the same level as everyone else.</p>
<p>If you are going to be an economics major, it is not at all necessary to take intro (I never did). Intermediate will fully rehash all the topics but at a deeper level of rigor. Really, it is the math one should worry about. In fact, you rarely hear economics majors saying that the theory is too difficult. On the contrary, the paradox is that the math behind such seemingly simple ideas can be so profoundly complicated.</p>
<p>There is zero ideology in the classroom in the top 10 or so departments. All adhere to the neoclassical line via the same textbooks, which leads to a cold, scientific feel. That is, no one is going to be giving you moral lectures about the virtues of free exchange or conversely government intervention. This lack of a moral / policy discourse does turn some students off to the field.</p>
<p>I find that a bit hard to believe. Some facts just glaringly stick out and directly contradict things. That's not to say that economics needs to have values, but if you're going by the cold, scientific feel it is hard to deny certain things (e.g. how Reaganomics assumed America was on the left-side of the Laffer curve, if such a curve even exists).</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is zero ideology in the classroom in the top 10 or so departments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not completely true. Yale and Brown come to mind. They are fairly Keynsian. Amongst the top 5 (econ) though, yes, it is neoclassical down the line. N.B. One must recognize that the choice of neoclassical economics is in fact an ideological choice.</p>
<p>The GSB is split between EMT and behavioural.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is UChicago's economics mostly the Chicago school still? Are there any Austrian economics or Keynesian economics there?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody (reputable) really teaches Austrian economics. This is most probably because of its rejection of econometrics.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>So I was accepted to Chicago and if i go I'm studying Econ. I was visiting this weekend and decided to introduce myself to Gary Becker. i asked his secretary and she let me in to talk with him. We talked for 10-15 minutes and he gave me a paper of his to read. He then left to give a lecture. It was amazing!</p>
<p>That is either A. completely untrue, or B. the ballsiest thing I have ever seen a prospective student do. When I took him for human capital, a guy used to whistle the imperial march tune from Star Wars as he was about to stride in (always a minute late). In general, the GB is regarded as terrifying. He also is a menace of a cold caller.</p>
<p>I swear I did! He gave me a paper on human capital. I'll look at the title when I get home. I told him that I was from California and he said that he is visiting the Hoover Institute in the coming weeks. I went to Steven Levitt's office toobut I guess he is not teaching this semester.</p>
<p>I basically just decided that I may never get another chance to meet Gary Becker and it was worth the risk and nervousness. His office was amazing. Three huge desks covered in letters and papers. Two huge bookshelves and a three sided picture window overlooking a courtyard. I urge anyone who wants to meet him just to ask. He was sooo nice about it.</p>
<p>Well I've taken two Econ classes at the junior college level. I also spend alot of time reading books on Econ. He asked me what I was interested in and I said Developmental Econ and Econ History among other things. I said that I had read several books on development including Sach's The End of Poverty and Development as Freedom by Sen. I said I also really liked Ferguson's stuff on Econ History. I asked him if he had any recommendations. So he said that he prefers papers to books and that I might find one of his papers interesting. So he rummaged in a case/bookshelf and handed me "Health as human capital: Synthesis and extensions." I've been reading it, but it is about thirty pages and at times math heavy.</p>
<p>When the GSB moved to its new building, the econ department certainly claimed some prime real estate at the heart of the campus. They also tend to have the nicest classrooms as they are hangovers from the old GSB renovations.</p>