They recently got 2 good people. And then they have a ton of dead wood. That sounds like a top 80 department to me.
Thank you. You just confirmed that you are out of touch.
Regional feds ranking
-
They recently got 2 good people. And then they have a ton of dead wood. That sounds like a top 80 department to me.
Thank you. You just confirmed that you are out of touch.
What's the news? Did they just hire someone? The guy who used to be at Pitt is bad. Who else?
-
They recently got 2 good people. And then they have a ton of dead wood. That sounds like a top 80 department to me.
Thank you. You just confirmed that you are out of touch.
What's the news? Did they just hire someone? The guy who used to be at Pitt is bad. Who else?
Is your silence a "no"?
-
One way to rank Feds is the historical track record of economists at them transiting back to academia relative to the size of the staff. I would guess that the Minneapolis Fed does well in this metric, especially if one takes into account that the average size of the research staff was less than 10 for around 30 years.
Transiters back to academia include: Amador, Aiyagari, Chari, Christiano, Cole, Holmes, Kehoe, Klenow, Kocherlakota, Lagos, McGrattan, Phelan, Prescott (1/2 Fed, 1/2 ASU), Bruce Smith. (Arellano just turned down Stern to stay there, Phelan turned down Wisconsin to stay there).
I think Chicago also does well in this metric.
I wonder what fraction of the NY Fed staff would prefer to be a full professor at Stern than a senior economist at the NY Fed?
-
Can we get a ranking by broad field? Say, monetary issues vs employment issues as per the dual mandate. (add banking/credit as you wish)
That may be hard as some Feds are organized differently and thus not comparable.
Minneapolis and St Louis for example are very good in general macroeconomics but have no banking/finance group. Others like NY and Boston are very biased towards finance. -
Can we get a ranking by broad field? Say, monetary issues vs employment issues as per the dual mandate. (add banking/credit as you wish)
That may be hard as some Feds are organized differently and thus not comparable.
Minneapolis and St Louis for example are very good in general macroeconomics but have no banking/finance group. Others like NY and Boston are very biased towards finance.How about a list of which Fed is best at what?
-
One way to rank Feds is the historical track record of economists at them transiting back to academia relative to the size of the staff. I would guess that the Minneapolis Fed does well in this metric, especially if one takes into account that the average size of the research staff was less than 10 for around 30 years.
Transiters back to academia include: Amador, Aiyagari, Chari, Christiano, Cole, Holmes, Kehoe, Klenow, Kocherlakota, Lagos, McGrattan, Phelan, Prescott (1/2 Fed, 1/2 ASU), Bruce Smith. (Arellano just turned down Stern to stay there, Phelan turned down Wisconsin to stay there).
I think Chicago also does well in this metric.
I wonder what fraction of the NY Fed staff would prefer to be a full professor at Stern than a senior economist at the NY Fed?So places that can't retain good employees should be ranked highly? I would think the opposite direction is a better metric. Look at what fraction of the staff moved to the Fed from tenured jobs or aps at good unis. Chicago, minneapolis, and st louis all do well on that margin.
-
Macro group equivalent to top a 20-30 econ dept in the US
1-Minneapolis
2-Chicago
3-Philadelphia
4-St Louis
Equivalent to top 30-50
5-New york
6-San Francisco
7-Atlanta
Equivalent top 50-70
8-Richmond
9-Cleveland
10-Boston
Equivlent to top 100
11-Dallas
12-Kansas
you are welcomed (from a fed insider)Update please