The best Fed is less prestigious than a top 50 department
Regional feds ranking
-
Idk about MN, didn’t their researchers recommend that early childhood care should be subsidized by the state because childcare costs ate up all of the additional revenue families got from having the second parent working and simultaneously childcare providers were underpaid? Obvious first order solution would be to just let the market clear and not have the second parent work when the costs outweigh the revenue.
-
Former Fed insider here. After meeting many people from each of the regional feds and spending time at most, it's pretty clear that quality of staff implies that:
1. Minneapolis, Chicago
2. St Louis, Philly, New York
3. Richmond, San Francisco
4. Cleveland, Dallas, Atlanta
5. Boston, Kansas CityGroup 1 rivals the macro groups at top 20, even top 10, schools. Group 2 rivals too 30 and has solid at junior and senior levels. Group 4 has a few great economists, and median is okay, with a bit of deadwood. Group 4 has a couple great economist that hog resources and have fairly toxic culture with lots of lemons. Group 5 are dumpster fires.
-
Current Fed insider here. The problem with views from former insiders is that they can be dated. This particular view seems very dated. A lot has changed in recent years. For a more objective ranking consider the REPEC citation ranking of the 10 best authors at each central bank in the last 10 years (which somewhat controls for size):
1. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
2. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
3. Federal Reserve Board (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System)
4. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
5. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
6. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
7. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
... -
Current Fed insider here. The problem with views from former insiders is that they can be dated. This particular view seems very dated. A lot has changed in recent years. For a more objective ranking consider the REPEC citation ranking of the 10 best authors at each central bank in the last 10 years (which somewhat controls for size):
1. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
2. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
3. Federal Reserve Board (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System)
4. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
5. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
6. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
7. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
...Dallas ranked higher than minneapolis, chicago and st louis? That's about as accurate as me claiming to be a better basketball player than Jordan, Kobe and LeBron. And, anyone currently in the fed system know that NY has been bleeding economists recently to other feds, so no way it is number 2. And by former insider, I mean within the last few years, so my information is not dated at all. Problem with citation count is that it gives lots of points for non-academic policy work and biased toward size, hence, NY, BOG being so high and MPLS so low.
-
Current Fed insider here. The problem with views from former insiders is that they can be dated. This particular view seems very dated. A lot has changed in recent years. For a more objective ranking consider the REPEC citation ranking of the 10 best authors at each central bank in the last 10 years (which somewhat controls for size):
1. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
2. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
3. Federal Reserve Board (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System)
4. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
5. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
6. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
7. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
...Current Fed insider here too.
The 10/10 ranking doesn't really control for size because it ranks places based on their best 10 researchers, not on the average quality.
So, places like NY and the Board--which have lots of economists, including a few very good ones--will be ranked higher than a smaller institution with higher average quality.
-
Dallas ranked higher than minneapolis, chicago and st louis? That's about as accurate as me claiming to be a better basketball player than Jordan, Kobe and LeBron. And, anyone currently in the fed system know that NY has been bleeding economists recently to other feds, so no way it is number 2.
I do not doubt your basket ball skills. As the NY Fed having been bleeding economists, I also agree. This is a ranking based on the last ten years (hence 10/10). The NY Fed still has some good economists, though. As to the relatively high rank of Dallas, you should not be surprised, since the Dallas Fed has been improving a lot in recent years, while other Feds have been falling behind. No offense, but you are clearly out of a touch on a number of regional Feds.
-
The 10/10 ranking doesn't really control for size because it ranks places based on their best 10 researchers, not on the average quality.
So, places like NY and the Board--which have lots of economists, including a few very good ones--will be ranked higher than a smaller institution with higher average quality.Average quality is neither available, nor is it clear that it is relevant. Many people at the Board do not have research jobs, for example. For better or worse, you have the choice between total citations and 10/10. The latter seems more representative for our purposes here. In any case, once you control for the Board and the NY Fed, this argument does not have much bite.
-
Dallas ranked higher than minneapolis, chicago and st louis? That's about as accurate as me claiming to be a better basketball player than Jordan, Kobe and LeBron. And, anyone currently in the fed system know that NY has been bleeding economists recently to other feds, so no way it is number 2.
I do not doubt your basket ball skills. As the NY Fed having been bleeding economists, I also agree. This is a ranking based on the last ten years (hence 10/10). The NY Fed still has some good economists, though. As to the relatively high rank of Dallas, you should not be surprised, since the Dallas Fed has been improving a lot in recent years, while other Feds have been falling behind. No offense, but you are clearly out of a touch on a number of regional Feds.
I know the Dallas Fed well, and I'd describe it as moving from a top 100 equivalent department to a top 80 equivalent. Improvement to be sure, but not nearly at the level of the fourth best research department in the system.
-
I know the Dallas Fed well, and I'd describe it as moving from a top 100 equivalent department to a top 80 equivalent. Improvement to be sure, but not nearly at the level of the fourth best research department in the system.
No, you don't know the Dallas Fed well. That's pretty obvious. I also have my doubts about how well you know some of the other regional Feds.
You remind me of those people who have strong priors and won't change them, no matter what the evidence. That's usually a sign of old age. Perhaps it was time to retire ...
-
I know the Dallas Fed well, and I'd describe it as moving from a top 100 equivalent department to a top 80 equivalent. Improvement to be sure, but not nearly at the level of the fourth best research department in the system.
No, you don't know the Dallas Fed well. That's pretty obvious. I also have my doubts about how well you know some of the other regional Feds.
You remind me of those people who have strong priors and won't change them, no matter what the evidence. That's usually a sign of old age. Perhaps it was time to retire ...They recently got 2 good people. And then they have a ton of dead wood. That sounds like a top 80 department to me.