<p>Is the workload intense? Seeing how almost everyone on this site agrees on the hardcore workload of Chicago it must be really alot.....In Econ Princeton or Chicago?</p>
<p>word of advice - stop listening to people on this site, 99 % have no idea what they are talking about. In econ at Chicago, the workload is not that bad at all. I knew many athletes who were econ majors who had no problems managing their time, studies, and social life. You'll be fine</p>
<p>At Chicago they will discuss what they are teaching in Economics at Princeton. At Princeton they will not discuss what is being taught in Economics at Chicago.</p>
<p>So is that good or bad...It makes it sound as though Chicago is behind Princeton since Chicago talks about Princeton's Econ but Princeton won't bother talking about Chicago's......... -_-</p>
<p>
[quote]
So is that good or bad...It makes it sound as though Chicago is behind Princeton since Chicago talks about Princeton's Econ but Princeton won't bother talking about Chicago's......... -_-
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. It means that Chicago is more open to teaching everything.</p>
<p>I am an econ major, and so is 1/4th the school. The workload is flexible. You can be a slacker and take a light workload, or really get into it and take a heavy workload. No other major at the school allows you that felixibility. Needless to say, me and most of my friends take the slacker route.</p>
<p>econ is econ...the only place that doesn't recognize that fact is at Harvard where the ghost of Samuelson still walks (pure Keyneseian - sp?)</p>
<p>ps -- don't mean to denigrate UoC's econ dept, since it is one of the tops, and one of the few that is highly quantitative (as is Sloan)....unlike econ at some of the liberal arts ivies...haha</p>
<p>Maybe us current/future chicagoans can come up with some new economic theories to replace Hayek and Friedman (not that they had stupid ideas or anything, but they dont quite seem to be cutting it anymore as they are followed today).</p>
<p>I love both hayek and friedman. Now, please help me to become their child. :))))</p>
<p>My pursue is to be an economists, can you please suggest some most libertarian free-market schools...</p>
<p>What about those:
U of C (ok, that we know)
Stanford
MIT
Harvard (you say not, but there is Barro...)
U of Penn
Berkeley
Northwestern
Duke
Carnegie Mellon
U of Toronto
Princeton
Yale...</p>
<p>I really wouldn't like to come in a class and hear: page 1- keynesian theory of xxx</p>
<p>well you probobly will have to...because they are going to teach you everything about econ, not just hayek.</p>
<p>maybe not...actually I'm an international student applying for phd in economics. I'm looking for prospective schools....I thought you would maybe know something more about these schools. As an international student I don't have much clue about that...</p>
<p>I hope to study economics...with maybe some sociology and/or psychology on the side...at U of Chicago, entering in 2006. Again, I hope.</p>
<p>Quote: I love both hayek and friedman. Now, please help me to become their child. )))</p>
<p>Hayek is great. Although, I believe he didn't stay very long at Chicago. (The poor guy was seperated from his wife for the entire length of World War Two. He was teaching in Chicago when the war broke out, and I think she was in London. But don't trust my word on where his wife was.) Friedman, now, Friedman---I've heard that while he was a great populizer of free markets, his monetarist theory failed. Why? Maybe he was working in the wrong direction. I'm sorry that if by summarizing I butcher his theory but here goes...</p>
<p>Monetarism in one sentence: If free markets are good, and finance is the heart of the economy, then finance should be the first thing we deregulate.</p>
<p>Of course, all those you label as "Keynesian" would quickly tell you that Monetarism failed because free markets don't work (perfectly), and thus finance needs regulation. But like I said earlier, I think Friedman might have been working in the wrong direction. The preferable way to go about deregulating an economy would be to deregulate industry and service first, and deregulate finance last.</p>
<p>P.S. George Mason University's Economics department is very free-market oriented. The college is in Virginia, very close to Washington D.C.</p>
<p>Hayek taught at LSE from c 1930 to 1950, then he moved to Chicago. One of his most influential books, which became a cult text in Eastern Europe, 'The Road to Serfdom' (attacking state planning) was written during WW2 while he was at LSE. One of his LSE students, Arthur Lewis,was the first black person to win a Nobel Prize (in economics of course).</p>
<p>My bad. I posted quickly without checking my facts.</p>
<p>Well, I've heard about Mason, but I'm not sure how good is it's ranking...</p>
<p>I have read one another good book from Hayek recently - Fatal conceit. I like it much more than Road to serfdom. But it's a very hard language! </p>
<p>By the way, Chicago is for me the best place to study at. I prefer it even to Harvard and Stanford. But I don't know whether it would be a good thing to mention my libertarian belief in my essay...cause they stated that their underlying belief is not philosophical but rather methodological. What do you think - is it good to mention that or not?? What will you do?</p>