<p>As you probably guessed from the title, this is going to be a somewhat controversial post.</p>
<p>I'm considering applying to UChicago undergrad to study economics, just like every aspiring economics student is. My problem is (and I don't mean to sound pretentious, just logical) that I am enlightened enough to realize that ardent support of one political mindset is counterproductive and deleterious to government and its role in contributing to the well-being of its citizens. However, almost every publication I've read from the University of Chicago appears to be slanted with libertarian (or just plain right-wing) rhetoric and even logic.</p>
<p>Specifically, economics. I know it's not exactly political, but I have not read a single paper from a Uchi economist that advocates any form of Keynesianism. Not saying there isn't one professor that the university that agrees with it, but the overwhelming academic belief seems to align with the right; Keynes is the devil.</p>
<p>As I try to align myself in the center of the political spectrum, I've read their articles but really haven't found any warrants as to why Keynesian economics is bad. Clearly, empirics and Paul Krugman (yes, I know he's a liberal. and that Uchi economists also think he's in the reincarnation of Satan, and thus only respond to his arguments with unwarranted ad hominem attacks) seem to indicate that this just makes sense.</p>
<p>Obviously, being a debt hawk and all that stuff makes sense in good economic times, but Keynesian stimulus spending has been proven to work in times when it's needed.</p>
<p>I realize I strayed off topic and turned this into more of a "Y U NO KEYNES" thread, but as an emerging student of economics, I feel this is important. I don't want this to spiral into a Keynes yes/no debate; rather, I'd like to understand the premise of UChicago's logic and how it would affect me.</p>
<p>If I study economics at the University of Chicago, would I turn into an ardent libertarian and anti-keynesian economist?</p>
<p>I certainly have the same impression that you do of U of Chicago econ, at least that is the historical reputation. I would be interested to hear from any econ majors there on this.</p>
<p>Oh my gosh. I’m sure current students and recent grads who’ve majored in economics will jump on this when those who so indulge return to CC after the Christmas break. But just so’s you have something to read in the interim in case none of the well informed happen to see your post before the 26th . . . </p>
<p>Speaking from the perspective of a current parent who over the past several years has had much contact with his son’s friends and made multiple in-session visits to the school, I think your fears are unfounded. My kid, who professes non-alignment and the disinterested pursuit of truth, has among his closest friends a staunch libertarian and an unabashedly right-wing economics major. They, in contrast, would characterize my son as devoutly liberal. Their debates, while usually passionate (the beer insures that), remain civil and they remain unshakeable friends. </p>
<p>I offer this small, not necessarily representative slice, because my sense is that it tends to hold rather more than less throughout the university. You will likely be rewarded rather than penalized for positions that may be contrary to a presumed orthodoxy if you can argue them persuasively and support them well. As for the Economics Dept. being a coven of rabid, and closed-minded, anti-Keysenians with that specific economic philosophy insisted upon for membership, that would surprise me (but I am not speaking from specific knowledge). Chicago as an institution values discourse and the intelligent clash of ideas from which new and richer understandings are born. Even though I’ve heard and read that certain particular departments have decided positional bents, I would be extremely surprised if they did not, as a matter of principle, seek to include an adequate leavening of reasonable contrary takes on their discipline. (By “reasonable” I mean that the geology department would not include flat-earthers (although the profs might love a clever paper “proving” same).) That seems to be the Uchicago way.</p>
<p>If your Keynesian sentiments edifice is supported on shaky pillars, I suppose it could topple during a 4-year encounter with the Economics faculty, but to believe a priori that you’d be a pariah in the department, or that they’d manage to turn you into something you are not (unless theirs prove to be the better, more supportable arguments) seems unlikely to me. But let’s let those who know what they’re talking about weigh in on this matter. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and best of luck with your college applications process.</p>
<p>It’s beyond dispute that Chicago econ leans conservative. Whether this impacts how macro is taught I’m not sure and is something current students can hopefully add. Perhaps more importantly it influences the kind of research questions that are studied. Even if there are no empirical disagreements the kind of research that you will do if you start with say rational expectations and efficient markets is totally different than if you start with market failures. I suspect this leads to a rather difference experience as an econ major but does not have much effect on the general culture of the college.</p>
<p>The Chicago School has always had a bent for free market economics. Having said that, a strain of behavioral ecnomics has grown within its walls. Also, its not “libertarian”, even though Hayek was a professor there at one time. His presence there was more a proof that the school allows for discourse between opposing views.</p>
<p>Historically, the reason why Chicago School is seen as having a free market bent is because the other leading schools of economics at that time were so against the idea of a free market - and discriminated against anyone who disagreed with them. These people found a place in UChicago’s open discourse, and were able to prove their theories - and win gazillions of Nobels for the school as a result.</p>
<p>As far as Keynes and learning about him, you will learn everything at UChicago. Will you find ardent champions of Keynes there? Probably not.</p>
<p>It’s also important to note that the Econ department does not reflect upon the student body as a whole. I am yet to meet any ardent anti-Keynesians, and while there is a pleasant ideological balance, overall the student body leans to the left. We discuss Marx in class with the same objectivity as Smith (who tends to be misunderstood either way), and the university even hosted a whole series of talks on Marx that lasted for at least two months. I apologize for deviating a bit from your question OP, but I wanted to assure you that even if the Econ department turns out to be a “breeding ground for libertarianism” (which I doubt), that would not be the case for the university as a whole.</p>
<p>Right. You are going to have a hard time finding another university where 100% of the students read Marx during their first year.</p>
<p>Anyway, not everyone in the Chicago Economics Department is a member of the “Chicago School” (and the Chicago School was successful enough so that it’s hard to find an economics department anywhere that it doesn’t more or less dominate). And, more importantly, no one on the faculty at Chicago sees his or her job as breeding uncritical, uneducated followers. (Nor, by the way, do they view themselves as uncritical followers of any “school”.) The Chicago School critique of Keynes is interesting and valuable only if you understand what they were criticizing and why they thought it was important to re-examine it. The content of courses on macroeconomics and fiscal policy at Chicago will not be significantly different from the content of such courses at Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford.</p>
<p>If you want to get some sense of the status of Keynes at Chicago, look at the Becker-Posner blog, and try to find their 2009 discussion of why they (reluctantly) supported the stimulus program. (No one living is held in higher regard at Chicago than Gary Becker and Richard Posner.)</p>