Torsten, I agree that some of the mathematics is valid - I even believe Austrians would do well to employ mathematical tools as a further extension of praxeology. However, I might as well be doing a course in applied mathematics as opposed to economics. I’d rather study the topic in my own time, and devote more time to Austrian economics, as well as neoclassical economics.
Regarding philosophy, I will be sticking mostly to matters of epistemology, Enlightenment and some classical contintental philosophy, ethics and the like. One of the courses will have a component on hermeneutics and post-modernism, which is fine, since I want to better understand them so as to be able to critique them. My plan is to do a JD at GMU or NYU, or even Harvard, in the USA afterwards, so employment prospects aren’t something I’m concerned about.
Inquisitor’s post really highlight my own difficulties in coming to terms with my predilection for Austrian thinking.
I have no doubt I could thrive in a PhD environment with a heavy mathematical flair; I’ve finished two courses in multivariable calculus and haven’t really met a concept that’s been difficult to grasp.
However, my love of economics stems not from tinkering with equations, but discovering fundamental (but not so obvious) truths.
I have no desire to pursue the graduate level, math-oriented economics at most major universities, but I feel that the Austrian School really hasn’t gotten its act together (please tell me that I’m wrong!) in the sense of comprehensive offerings aimed at the up and coming generation of undergraduates.
So far, I’ve heard of Austrian professors at Harvard, NYU, and GMU (any other big names?). I really do enjoy economics, and I’ll probably continue to read Mises, Rothbard, Kirzner, et. al well into college.
But it seems as though other fields have far greater research opportunities, faculty resources, and a sense of stability in the undergraduate experience that lends itself more to further study.
Possibly they like mathematics, since this is easier to teach and test[:P].
Hermeneutics you can include as long this is related to people like Schleyermacher and even Nietzsche or Heidegger (It’s really only about interpreting texts). The last two are what postmordernists like Derrida and Foucault base their stuff on. They are not that original, what lets them look smart is their skill in playing with words and shifting the meanings, cicumventing the rules of logic and the like.They’ll insist that you already applied (unproven) value judgements in your argument and that is why it must be flawed. A good foundation in formal and informa logic, will be very helpful, when dealing with these people. All they usually do succeed is, is to get you into a more lengthy and more complex argument wasting your time. Most people will throw the towel then and that’s makes their “philosophy” so attractive to halfwitted academics, since they believe that this means they’ve won the debate.
I always struggled with academia since on the one hand one has biased teachers (who’ll find fault with your work), on the other hand they almost only can measure and will look at what “knowledge”/information you can repreduce in a test or assignment. There is not much space for originality or creative thought. So the average people are the ones performing best at school or in university. Your brightest 5% will actually struggle very often those days.