Current students who post on this board - folks like @HydeSnark and @DunBoyer and @Skyrior - do you like the direction the College seems to be headed? With all the threads on declining admissions rates, switching to a semester system, etc., I’m curious to hear responses to this overarching question: are you happy with the direction the College seems to be going?
(I keep this intentionally ambiguous - as I’m certainly not sure what the direction is.)
Curious to hear thoughts!
I honestly get a sense that the College is changing for the sake of changing. I’m also worried if they are changing their target student demographic to more closely align UChicago with Ivy League. But to be quite honest that isn’t even my biggest concern. It’s not a zero-sum game and there are many potentials for different demographics to both be better off.
My biggest concern is the neoclassical economics paradigm that is taught in undergrad but hardly challenged unless you go out of your way to challenge yourself. It’s ironic when List and Thaler, two great behavioral economists, are in this very university. I’ve heard rumors that Thaler didn’t feel at home at UChicago and I guess I didn’t really feel surprised. There is a shocking lack of serious behavioral economics courses available to undergraduates here. A lot of them are offered in Booth school but only open to PhDs. The ones that are open to undergrads are either joke courses oriented towards people chasing the next buzzword, or things that aren’t really economics, like public policy courses cross-listed as economics courses.
Even within the neoclassical paradigm, there aren’t good graduate preparation-oriented microeconomics courses other than Honors Game Theory. If you’re serious about microeconomics you probably have to seriously consider Price Theory, a graduate course.
Going forward I really wish to see the department offer rigorous courses around behavioral economics and microeconomic theory. The macroeconomists have 3 graduate level courses that are highly challenging and taught by esteemed professors and the microeconomists have none!!! Almost all the economics electives that are micro-related do not really prepare you for serious graduate study. But macro folks get 3!!!
Skyrior - this is a good serious criticism. I wish you could get it to someone who could consider your concern, respond to your satisfaction and / or effect change. Maybe you could meet with the Dean or a senior professor, or send an email to Robert Zimmer. Whatever. But I would urge you to constructively pursue an answer to your concerns.
“Going forward I really wish to see the department offer rigorous courses around behavioral economics and microeconomic theory. The macroeconomists have 3 graduate level courses that are highly challenging and taught by esteemed professors and the microeconomists have none!!! Almost all the economics electives that are micro-related do not really prepare you for serious graduate study. But macro folks get 3!!!”
For Micro, there do seem to be several courses in various topics. Crime, Labor, one or two Game Theory and a few decision science/experimental courses. That’s more than enough electives! If someone is beyond the level of analysis put forth in those courses, then yeah - price theory will keep 'em busy. The Econ. Dept. actually recommends that you get the proper exposure to math and programming and also broaden your knowledge and perspective of social science problems and challenges by taking courses from other departments in the division. It may not be necessary to load up with a ton of near-grad-level MIcro courses yet, even if you are headed for a PhD in economics.