I'd Have a Very Hard Time Explaining This to My Last Ancestors Who Lived in Africa...
Keeping UC at the Top

Graduate Macroeconomics @ Berkeley

Updated due to "unclarity":

The retirement of George Akerlof is tremendously distressing--as is Chad Jones's decision to go to visit Stanford next fall. (Memo to Chad: if you stay at The Farm, you (a) get $, but (b) you lose the best office view this side of Beta Lyrae, (c) you must teach mbas, and (d) you confirm the Stanford administration's belief that it was right to nuke you for tenure when you came up internally because you had already given them a call option. Your marginal utility of wealth can't be so high that (a) outweighs (b), (c), and (d), can it?)

Note: The real reason for Chad Jones to think about changing from Berkeley to Stanford is, of course, the presence of Pete Klenow and Paul Romer at The Farm. Add Chad Jones to that and you have the strongest endogenous growth group in economics.

At any event, we now have to figure out how to teach graduate macro with two holes ripped in our fabric...

There are seven slots in the curriculum--first come four eight-week slots that are taken by everybody in the Ph.D. program in their first year, and second come three sixteen-week slots that are taken in their second and third years by Ph.D. candidates especially interested in the field. As I understand macro, the slots are:

  • Moral hazard, near-rationality, and coordination failures
  • Neoclassical growth theory
  • Keynesian and new-Keynesian models
  • Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models
  • Monetary theory, policy, and history
  • Capital markets and macroeconomics
  • Endogenous growth theories

Plus there are all the "international finance" topics...

The question is: are these the right seven slots to teach, and is this the right ordering of them?