pull down to refresh
Can confirm. My econ phd program had basically zero history. It was entirely technical. I became a better engineer than an economist, to be honest. I got better at being an economist after my phd program.
There aren't many programs that have any economic history, as far as I know. There's George Mason, Chicago, and some of the Ivies.
I kinda wonder what it would've been like to go to George Mason. That being said, I imagine that the technical skills I learned at my phd program are much better rewarded in the market, and thus was a safer choice.
They have all the normal mainstream stuff too, but there's safety in choosing a program that doesn't draw professional side-eyes.
yeah good point, even my preconceived notion that GMU only teaches unorthodox stuff is case in point
Most economists haven't read much of anything that would be considered economic philosophy or that's older than about ten years prior to their PhD.
Yes, they view the Austrians as right-wing quacks. No, Hayek and Mises are not widely respected in the field. They are, however, well respected amongst economists who actually study the history and philosophy of economics. Those economists aren't held in high esteem either, though.