I am a math major and physics minor senior. I’m seriously considering a Austrian economics for graduate school. Unfortunately, as you all know, the preponderance of programs are Keynesian. According to my research, I’ve found some Austrian or quasi-Austrian programs out there, e.g. NYU, GMU, Auburn, West Viriginia, etc. What do you guys think of these programs? At this point, I want to work on a Master’s, not Ph.D.
Are there any new, up-and-coming programs? Also, I’ve only taken Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory. What else is requisite to be prepared for graduate economics? Thanks!
Hulsmann? I’m actually new to Austrian economics so I’m not familiar with too many of the current leading economists. In Europe, I only know of the guy in Spain. My macro class was Keynesian. I remember distinctly thinking to myself that mathematical models don’t predict what actually happens. What actually happens does not have to fit these models. It’s not physics.
In the U.S, the two biggest “Austrian”/Libertarian graduate schools that I know of are NYU and George Mason. NYU is highly mathematical, and apparently very hard to get into (25 acceptances out of 1000 applicants-yikes!). I’m not sure about how hard it is to get into George Mason. Be aware though, that at least in any American school (can’t comment on European ones), that there is no 100% Austrian program. They are called Austrian/Austrian bent because there is some faculty that is 1)Austrian 2)Semi Austrian 3)Libertarian and friendly/knowledgeable of Austrian economics. I haven’t heard of a school in America where all day you read Mises and Rothbard in graduate classes. NYU for example, is apparently very mathematically bent and as Walter Block describes it “applied mathematics”. If all you want to do is learn Austrian economics, unfortinately there is no program yet that I know of (I wish haha). Anyone seriously considering a PhD in economics has to be willing to learn Neoclassical economics and put up with the math.
Yeah. I knew no problem is 100%. Do we know roughly the varying amount of Austrian in the curriculum among the programs? I’ve also seen advice on here where people recommend going to the most prestigious university possible to add more credibility to your argument when you contradict Keynesianism. That is not the first time I’ve heard that argument.
I may narrow down my choices and then see what you guys think of the program(s).
As has been pointed out, any PhD programme is going to require some level of mathematical sophistication (which judging by OP should be no problem for you whatsoever), even at GMU you’re going to have to do all the core classes such as Micro (which looks somewhat like micro from 30 years ago at GMU), Metrics (apparently piss easy at GMU) and Macro (no idea, but there are no macroeconomists at GMU AFAIK). To my knowledge it’s not until you start taking field classes that you can specialise in Austrian economics, as such, at GMU (although the core classes are no doubt influenced by them).
Other faculties with a high number of Austrians on them would include FSU, WVU and Suffolk (possibly Auburn, but if I recall correctly they scrapped their PhD programme a few years back anyway). NYU isn’t particularly Austrian anymore, it’s a very good programme though and is on an upwards trajectory. Things in Europe are a little simpler, for most places that aren’t following the American model you basically choose to study under a particular individual for a number of years as opposed to the programme as a whole, you work for this given faculty member and spend the vast majority of your time working on your research without having to take core classes. I suppose the two most notable LvMI related guys in Europe are Huelsmann and Huerta de Soto, perhaps I’m missing some.
And on a final note, Keynesian macro is no longer mainstream. If you go to grad school you’ll most likely end up learning some DSGE stuff.
If you’ve done maths and physics, I personally think it would actually be better to study at a mainstream institution, and learn the material to its advanced level with a critical eye. With your background you shouldn’t be as flummoxed by the material, and be able to get past just the superficial symbols and hopefully be able to point out where you think conceptual and logical errors are being made. This is an essential task and I feel it is highly dangerous if younger Austrians ignore it. I would also recommend to keep reading Austrian work while doing the Phd and apply for sumer fellowships with the Mises Institute and other places.
Personally, if I was to run an Austrian program the students would be trained in both neoclassical economics and Austrian economics as well as being taught critically how to relate the later to the former, along with a mathematical training at least as good if not better than rival neoclassicals schools. Other essential topics I think should include logic, the scientific method and history(along with its methodology).
By the way, think carefully about going into grad school at an Austrian programme. For right or wrong, these programmes aren’t very highly ranked. NYU not included, GMU is the best “Austrian” programme (FSU ranks above, but is considerably less Austrian) and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it included in a ranking of econ grad schools. The thing is this, if you’re not towards the top of the class at a prestigious programme you’re not likely to land a job that justifies the investment in grad school. For Austrians this may be slightly different because of private (Koch) funding, but even so you’re going to have to be at the very right hand of the distribution for you to secure a job that will come close to being worth it. I don’t know you, but the rational expectation should be that you’re not.
GMU’s very best placement was Leeson at Chicago – for a year. Other than that the placements haven’t been stellar, Boettke’s undeserved praise on his blog notwithstanding. Just look at how many GMU graduates there are on the faculty. Given this my advice would simply be to go to the very best programme you can, Bob Murphy did and got a reasonably OK job in academia before switching to the private sector. With your math and physics background you could probably get into a decent programme, although I’m not sure on your grades and the rank of your department. If you do follow this path I’d suggest taking all the micro and macro classes, as much metrics as possible and possibly a few others like IO or public economics.
Interesting. WVU and Suffolk are at the top of my list, actually.
I’m also considering a Master of Arts in Mathematics at my university, or something similar at a higher-ranked university. I suppose I could still get a job as an economist with a mathematics degee. Mathematics is formal logic. I like the philosophical elements of Austrian. It starts from axioms and builds propositions from there.
If I go that route, I would have to do all the reading on my own. Since I am new to the field, what are the canon of Austrian economics and Keynesian economics? A guy at work actually gave me similar great advice. In trying to proselytize, he told me I should understand the opposing theory, even better than they do, and then I will be able to tell them where they went wrong.
Apparently there’s an Austrian(adjunct), Patrick Barron, at the University of Iowa’s economics department. His field is banking, and his article was on today’s daily. From browsing their department’s page, their placements don’t look too bad. Assistant professorships at Chicago, New York Stern and Princeton in recent years already beats GMU!
Come on, If you were to run a med school would you also train your students in witchcraft and sorcery?
The very core of these economic schools are wrong, and whatever they got right can be better explained by an Austrian perspective. No need to study them at all.
At least for now, it is essential, and I don’t hold the view there is nothing to learn from mainstream economics, I think we have a lot to learn actually, even if we do learn indirectly from part of it. The Austrian School has been in a significant minority for a while, and hence it’s development I believe has been stunted in a few areas even despite the monumental efforts of giants like Mises, Rothbard and Hayek. (I’m kind of glad Bob Murphy’s now teaching a course in Austrian Price Theory, as I feel that could definitely do with an updated presentation)
We cannot refute Neoclassical and New Keynesian economics by ignoring them to death, and simply by talking amongst ourselves in a secluded circle. (though the Keynesians did manage to largely ignore the ABCT away…)
On another note, I also think training in maths or a mathematical discipline(like physics or engineering), allows one to have a more critical eye to the ways in which mathematics is used in parts of economics(one thing I’ve had to learn to tolerate is the sheer lack of dimensional analysis). Anecdotally, I think laypeople who learn maths from economics only tend to get blindsighted by the rapture of superficially impressive mathematical “acrobatics.”
Anecdotally, I think laypeople who learn maths from economics only tend to get blindsighted by the rapture of superficially impressive mathematical “acrobatics.”
Ken Binmore, for example… Or any number of the economists who majored in math and possibly continued with math until the doctorate level (amongst whom some are Putnam winners).
LOL, that’s not hard to count. I didn’t say knowing Maths automatically makes you Ludwig Von Mises, for that matter, you may as well include Fishcer Black, Maurice Allais, David Friedman, John Von Neumann, etc, etc, etc.
I come from a mathematical physics background myself, and if I never encountered the works of Mises I would still be a die-hard positivist and certainly not sympathetic to the Austrian school(aside of the fact I was a lukewarm freemarketeer), while still thinking the rest of economics was little more than mumbo jumbo nonsense pretending and failing to ape the methods of the natural sciences.
Human Action and Man, Economy and State are still the core Austrian texts IMO, especially to learn the “canon.” As far as Keynesian economics goes, modern textbooks give modern renditions of Keynesian Economics(e.g. New Keynesian), but on another level methodologically to a certain level all of modern macro is Keynesian. Keynes’ General Theory might be good background reading, but it may not be completely relevant in understanding current Keynesian doctrine. As far as textbooks go, I think Mankiw and Williamson’s Macroeconomics would not be bad places to start learning modern macro. I’m also a fan of Varian for Microeconomics, despite his flaws. Student on this forum likes David Friedman’s Price Theory, which from a glance/skim I think is perhaps not too bad either.
You’re missing my point, go to the Harvard Econ Department’s website and check out their current grad students. I only checked the first five students on the page (alphabetic order I think) and guess what? Every single one of them was a math major! My point is this, if you’ve got a problem with the level of mathematics that is taught in your programme its mostly likely the result of the rank of your department, not the profession as a whole.
My point was this, I know you have a background in mathematical physics you seem to it pleasurable to no end to remind us all of this. Fact of the matter is that most students at top schools will rival you in terms of math education and seem to find math to be a valuable tool for economic theory.
Can you show some topic where Austrian Economics fails and mainstream economics succeeds?
Being in the minority has nothing to do with some lack of consistency of the Austrian school of economics. Its theoretical body is incredibly consistent. Austrians are the minority because they relentlessly bash government for what it really is: a bunch of thieves who can only do economic harm. Until people stop seeing government as their lord and savior AE will be in the minority. But look closely around you: Is AE becoming more mainstream or is mainstream economics becoming more Austrian?
Austrians are right, if their reward for it is being almost ignored, so be it.
If you want to refute them, yes, you have to learn their crackpottery, if you just want to be an economist, you don’t.
As someone who studies mathematics just for fun (since I do love it), I think that if you want to be an economist you’d be better off spending your time studying psychology and history. Again, nothing against mathematics, but it’s not an essential tool for an economist.