Yale definitely has converged to being like other top departments. As has been pointed out, poor junior hiring is one reason. Another is being exceptionally weak in macro, where traditionally they had great success in placements with Engel’s students. And then if current seniors are not as dedicated to advising as those before, it explains a lot.
diverged from*
Yale definitely has converged to being like other top departments. As has been pointed out, poor junior hiring is one reason. Another is being exceptionally weak in macro, where traditionally they had great success in placements with Engel’s students. And then if current seniors are not as dedicated to advising as those before, it explains a lot.
Yale simply needs to commit to macro. Something like 1/4 of their students do macro and from a faculty perspective it is neglected in hiring. GM is great but he’s literally it for serious advising there at this point for most macro fields. FZ/MP have the growth students but there’s a lot of crowding in that relatively small field. It’s not a winning strategy
Yale definitely has converged to being like other top departments. As has been pointed out, poor junior hiring is one reason. Another is being exceptionally weak in macro, where traditionally they had great success in placements with Engel’s students. And then if current seniors are not as dedicated to advising as those before, it explains a lot.Yale simply needs to commit to macro. Something like 1/4 of their students do macro and from a faculty perspective it is neglected in hiring. GM is great but he’s literally it for serious advising there at this point for most macro fields. FZ/MP have the growth students but there’s a lot of crowding in that relatively small field. It’s not a winning strategy
I agree. Macro is the largest subfield in econ. Just doesn't make sense for a top program to not have much coverage in it.
It is not a lack of commitment. It is an issue of not hiring well.
They’ve made about 5 senior hires in labor and dev in the last 5 years but 1 in macro. . And their last junior hire for macro was what? 2018? But they’ve hired at least 3 trade juniors in that time. This is the lack of commitment
They can’t recruit students who will place well in macro, so what’s the point?
It is not a lack of commitment. It is an issue of not hiring well.They’ve made about 5 senior hires in labor and dev in the last 5 years but 1 in macro. . And their last junior hire for macro was what? 2018? But they’ve hired at least 3 trade juniors in that time. This is the lack of commitment
Yup Yale was the first place I rejected - macro bro
They can’t recruit students who will place well in macro, so what’s the point?
It is not a lack of commitment. It is an issue of not hiring well.They’ve made about 5 senior hires in labor and dev in the last 5 years but 1 in macro. . And their last junior hire for macro was what? 2018? But they’ve hired at least 3 trade juniors in that time. This is the lack of commitment
Yale definitely has converged to being like other top departments. As has been pointed out, poor junior hiring is one reason. Another is being exceptionally weak in macro, where traditionally they had great success in placements with Engel’s students. And then if current seniors are not as dedicated to advising as those before, it explains a lot.Yale simply needs to commit to macro. Something like 1/4 of their students do macro and from a faculty perspective it is neglected in hiring. GM is great but he’s literally it for serious advising there at this point for most macro fields. FZ/MP have the growth students but there’s a lot of crowding in that relatively small field. It’s not a winning strategy
I agree. Macro is the largest subfield in econ. Just doesn't make sense for a top program to not have much coverage in it.
I wish some top department would have the courage to say out loud what most of us have realized for a long time. "Macro" is a dead field and deserves to be buried. Some of what macro should do should survive. Keep it but call it "monetary economics" or something. Forbid any current "macro economist" from being involved with it. The rest:
-- "Macro labor:" bad search theory and bad labor
-- "Family macro:" bad economic demography
-- "Macro of firms:" bad IO
-- "Growth:" bad economic history
-- "Dynamic public finance:" bad theory, bad public finance
Yale definitely has converged to being like other top departments. As has been pointed out, poor junior hiring is one reason. Another is being exceptionally weak in macro, where traditionally they had great success in placements with Engel’s students. And then if current seniors are not as dedicated to advising as those before, it explains a lot.
Yale simply needs to commit to macro. Something like 1/4 of their students do macro and from a faculty perspective it is neglected in hiring. GM is great but he’s literally it for serious advising there at this point for most macro fields. FZ/MP have the growth students but there’s a lot of crowding in that relatively small field. It’s not a winning strategy
I agree. Macro is the largest subfield in econ. Just doesn't make sense for a top program to not have much coverage in it.
I wish some top department would have the courage to say out loud what most of us have realized for a long time. "Macro" is a dead field and deserves to be buried. Some of what macro should do should survive. Keep it but call it "monetary economics" or something. Forbid any current "macro economist" from being involved with it. The rest:
-- "Macro labor:" bad search theory and bad labor
-- "Family macro:" bad economic demography
-- "Macro of firms:" bad IO
-- "Growth:" bad economic history
-- "Dynamic public finance:" bad theory, bad public finance
Sad but true
I wish some top department would have the courage to say out loud what most of us have realized for a long time. "Macro" is a dead field and deserves to be buried. Some of what macro should do should survive. Keep it but call it "monetary economics" or something. Forbid any current "macro economist" from being involved with it. The rest:
-- "Macro labor:" bad search theory and bad labor
-- "Family macro:" bad economic demography
-- "Macro of firms:" bad IO
-- "Growth:" bad economic history
-- "Dynamic public finance:" bad theory, bad public finance
You lack knowledge. Macro labor does better labor that reg y x wage race labor. Growth does better history than the historians with their coding errors (PG?). Dynamic public finance does better public finance that the effects of the gasoline tax on XYZ county's gas consumption. Family macro does better than the demographers who don't even know statistics.
The true reasons why other economists hate macroeconomics is imperialism and higher salaries. Imperialism is that macro people can do what others do and sometimes even better. Macro guys also get paid better. The run-of-the-mill Fed economist clears 250k mid career, while regression monkeys are stuck in a college town with low salaries.
If you think about it is the same reason why sociologists hate economists.
I wish some top department would have the courage to say out loud what most of us have realized for a long time. "Macro" is a dead field and deserves to be buried. Some of what macro should do should survive. Keep it but call it "monetary economics" or something. Forbid any current "macro economist" from being involved with it. The rest:
-- "Macro labor:" bad search theory and bad labor
-- "Family macro:" bad economic demography
-- "Macro of firms:" bad IO
-- "Growth:" bad economic history
-- "Dynamic public finance:" bad theory, bad public financeYou lack knowledge. Macro labor does better labor that reg y x wage race labor. Growth does better history than the historians with their coding errors (PG?). Dynamic public finance does better public finance that the effects of the gasoline tax on XYZ county's gas consumption. Family macro does better than the demographers who don't even know statistics.
Oh yeah, when Dopke and Sillibottom wrote up anecdates about their children and that was a major contribution
I wish some top department would have the courage to say out loud what most of us have realized for a long time. "Macro" is a dead field and deserves to be buried. Some of what macro should do should survive. Keep it but call it "monetary economics" or something. Forbid any current "macro economist" from being involved with it. The rest:
-- "Macro labor:" bad search theory and bad labor
-- "Family macro:" bad economic demography
-- "Macro of firms:" bad IO
-- "Growth:" bad economic history
-- "Dynamic public finance:" bad theory, bad public financeYou lack knowledge. Macro labor does better labor that reg y x wage race labor. Growth does better history than the historians with their coding errors (PG?). Dynamic public finance does better public finance that the effects of the gasoline tax on XYZ county's gas consumption. Family macro does better than the demographers who don't even know statistics.
Oh yeah, when Dopke and Sillibottom wrote up anecdates about their children and that was a major contribution
Yeah, much bigger than Kearney's anecdote about her children watching MTV. At least these guys have a model so you can disagree with their stated assumptions or find wholes in their reasoning. MTV regressions mean what exactly?
I wish some top department would have the courage to say out loud what most of us have realized for a long time. "Macro" is a dead field and deserves to be buried. Some of what macro should do should survive. Keep it but call it "monetary economics" or something. Forbid any current "macro economist" from being involved with it. The rest:
-- "Macro labor:" bad search theory and bad labor
-- "Family macro:" bad economic demography
-- "Macro of firms:" bad IO
-- "Growth:" bad economic history
-- "Dynamic public finance:" bad theory, bad public financeYou lack knowledge. Macro labor does better labor that reg y x wage race labor. Growth does better history than the historians with their coding errors (PG?). Dynamic public finance does better public finance that the effects of the gasoline tax on XYZ county's gas consumption. Family macro does better than the demographers who don't even know statistics.
Oh yeah, when Dopke and Sillibottom wrote up anecdates about their children and that was a major contribution
Yeah, much bigger than Kearney's anecdote about her children watching MTV. At least these guys have a model so you can disagree with their stated assumptions or find wholes in their reasoning. MTV regressions mean what exactly?
The more important contribution was Daron and his servants regressing crap on crap and then telling stories about why some countries are rich.