<p>I applied to UChicago EA and it is one of my top choices. I am admittedly trepidatious though given the fact that I think UChicago's Econ dept. might spill out and start affecting other areas including the Political Science department where I plan to spend most of my time. UChicago seems much more conservative than many of the other schools I plan on applying to (Brown, Swarthmore, Reed, Columbia, etc.) and I'm worried I won't feel comfortable in that environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with a little debate, but I do want the majority of the student body at the college I go to to be fairly left.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you’re asking. The student body here is very liberal, maybe much more so now than ever, given President Obama’s strong influence over the Hyde Park area. As for the material being taught, I’m not sure teaching conservative economics has anything to do with political leanings (if that’s what you’re asking about). I also think the Econ Dpt. does a good job of teaching both conservative and liberal economics, so as to expose its students to both prominent schools of thinking. This is in contrast to other schools (my professor mentioned Yale specifically), which fail to do so.</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m asking. It just seems like everyone I talk to about UChicago talks about how “conservative” (I dislike the conservative/liberal dichotomy) the faculty is.</p>
<p>Conservative/liberal economics has very little to do with conservative/liberal politics. Also, you’ll barely notice the lean at all as an undergrad. You’ll only notice that they’re more quantitative than most other programs – you won’t get too into the true Chicago School of Economics stuff.</p>
<p>I think all of the top schools lean left. UChicago may have a rep for having some more conservative faculty in Economics, but I highly doubt you would really notice a conservative bent as a student (especially as an undergraduate student).</p>
<p>My son’s concentration at Chicago was in economics, and he took almost as many courses in political science. He’s definitely on the liberal side of the spectrum but also has some libertarian ideas. He found the mix of courses and faculty at Chicago to be “just right.” He also saw differing POV’s in the social sciences when he studied abroad. More generally, UChicago is not about indoctrination. You take a course, you read some things, you talk to people, you write papers, you think for yourself! It’s better to be in an environment where you interact with people who don’t all think alike.</p>
<p>I think the political science department is pretty mixed. Obviously there’s a conservative skew in econ due to the presence of the Chicago School, but you won’t feel that a whole lot as an undergrad (especially if you’re not majoring in econ). It mostly plays out on a scholarly/academic level from what I can tell. </p>
<p>As for the student body, it leans liberal, but not strongly so. Most people are mainstream and moderate, Maddow-watching Democrats. Politics don’t really affect your everyday student life, though there are a lot of people who are well-informed and you will have ample opportunity for discussion if you so choose.</p>
<p>objectiveperson, I have only a very general knowledge of Friedman’s views, but I had never heard that he opposed “volunteering.” I did a quick google search and found that he was actually instrumental in urging an all-volunteer army, and of course he was quite Libertarian in his general outlook.</p>
<p>I realize that you were almost surely using the term to mean something like “unpaid social service.” But even then I would be very surprised to learn that Friedman opposed something like voluntary efforts to help others. Why on earth would he oppose something like that when so much of his emphasis was on individual liberties? If you have any citations that support your claim, I’d greatly appreciate it.</p>
<p>When I went to the U of C a while back, I met – for the first time in my life – people who considered themselves Objectivists. That was weird. But I also met people who leaned much, much further left. You have to remember that although Hyde Park was home to Milton Friedman and Allan Bloom, it was also home to Barack Obama and many of the people who shaped his political views. Given that David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, has been put in charge of the institute of politics at the U of C, I would be very leery of saying that the school has a conservative bent. A rigorous bent, yes. But that’s not conservative.</p>
<p>On the one hand, if the OP is concerned about the influence of neo-classical economics of the sort Milton Friedman championed, that influence is everywhere, in every corner of the social sciences, in every university in America and, likely, the world, Cuba and North Korea included (albeit barely, and with lots of camouflage).</p>
<p>On the other hand, Chicago is distinctly un-cult-like, at least since the death of Leo Strauss. People, even if they are politically conservative in the same vein as Friedman, tend to exercise a lot of independent judgment and to take idiosyncratic, not ideological, positions. No one wants to be anyone else’s follower. (Or, to put it differently, there are a lot of divas, and not so many chorus-girls.)</p>
<p>If you want a peek at the particular Chicago brand of right-wing discourse about political economy, check out [The</a> Becker-Posner Blog](<a href=“http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/]The”>The Becker-Posner Blog). Gary Becker is a Nobel Prize winner with a joint appointment in the Economics and Sociology Departments, and Richard Posner is the most respected right-wing federal judge in the country, and former dominant figure on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School. Becker and Posner come as close as anyone to being cult-figures at Chicago. And they are invariably interesting, even when you feel like throwing rotten vegetables at them. What you don’t get from them is a lot of knee-jerk responses.</p>