4 ms·

It really isn't "quite common". There are some places that take pride in those things, but they are a small minority. People that have only been in the "top" de

It really isn't "quite common". There are some places that take pride in those things, but they are a small minority. People that have only been in the "top" departments are probably not aware of that though.

barry-cotter 4y ago
The top 20 US Economics Departments train a majority of PhD economists so “quite common” seems fair. Also, using scare quotes for top in Economics is, ah, questionable. There is a very visible ranking and you’d get substantial agreement on it from most academic economists. The strong core agreement on techniques and axioms is part of why economists are more influential in policy than the rest of the social sciences put together. > The Superiority of Economists > There exists an implicit pecking order among the social sciences, and it seems to be dominated by economics. For starters, economists see themselves at or near the top of the disciplinary hierarchy. In a survey conducted in the early 2000s, Colander (2005) found that 77 percent of economics graduate students in elite programs agree with the statement that “economics is the most scientific of the social sciences.” Some 15 years ago, Richard Freeman (1999, p. 141) speculated on the origins of such a conviction in the pages of this journal. His assessment was candid: “[S]ociologists and political scientists have less powerful analytical tools and know less than we do, or so we believe. By scores on the Graduate Record Examina- tion and other criteria, our field attracts students stronger than theirs, and our courses are more mathematically demanding.” https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.1.89 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.1.89
- workingon 4y ago
  Yeah but it also attracts students a lot worse than actual sciences. And yet here we are, listening to people with two straight lines intersecting talking about “supply and demand” and writing the world based on it.
- bachmeier 4y ago
  > The top 20 US Economics Departments train a majority of PhD economists so “quite common” seems fair. Perhaps if I had commented about PhD students. I specified "places" because there are lots of places to work, and the miserable folks are mostly found in a small percentage of places you can work as an academic economist. > There is a very visible ranking and you’d get substantial agreement on it from most academic economists. Others are free to define "top" as they wish. I am under no obligation to accept their definition.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    You are of course free to have your own definition of top Economics departments, just as you are free to decide that you do not need to pay taxes. Social facts exist.

barry-cotter 4y ago

The top 20 US Economics Departments train a majority of PhD economists so “quite common” seems fair. Also, using scare quotes for top in Economics is, ah, questionable. There is a very visible ranking and you’d get substantial agreement on it from most academic economists. The strong core agreement on techniques and axioms is part of why economists are more influential in policy than the rest of the social sciences put together. > The Superiority of Economists > There exists an implicit pecking order among the social sciences, and it seems to be dominated by economics. For starters, economists see themselves at or near the top of the disciplinary hierarchy. In a survey conducted in the early 2000s, Colander (2005) found that 77 percent of economics graduate students in elite programs agree with the statement that “economics is the most scientific of the social sciences.” Some 15 years ago, Richard Freeman (1999, p. 141) speculated on the origins of such a conviction in the pages of this journal. His assessment was candid: “[S]ociologists and political scientists have less powerful analytical tools and know less than we do, or so we believe. By scores on the Graduate Record Examina- tion and other criteria, our field attracts students stronger than theirs, and our courses are more mathematically demanding.” https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.1.89 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.1.89

workingon 4y ago
Yeah but it also attracts students a lot worse than actual sciences. And yet here we are, listening to people with two straight lines intersecting talking about “supply and demand” and writing the world based on it.
bachmeier 4y ago
> The top 20 US Economics Departments train a majority of PhD economists so “quite common” seems fair. Perhaps if I had commented about PhD students. I specified "places" because there are lots of places to work, and the miserable folks are mostly found in a small percentage of places you can work as an academic economist. > There is a very visible ranking and you’d get substantial agreement on it from most academic economists. Others are free to define "top" as they wish. I am under no obligation to accept their definition.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  You are of course free to have your own definition of top Economics departments, just as you are free to decide that you do not need to pay taxes. Social facts exist.