June 17, 2002
From the desk of Jane Galt:I've gotten some emails over
I've gotten some emails over the past few months from liberal correspondents who seem to be unaware that there are economics departments outside of Stanford and Berkely.
Specifically, several of them have mentioned that they have no interest in economists who do not come from those two august institutions, because they seem to be "generally wrongheaded". One correspondent has stated that he refuses to read other economists because "they're a waste of time".
What's shocking is that this fellow works at a University.
Okay, it's not shocking that he's liberal. But it is shocking that he would choose to take all of his economic information from a single school. I went to possibly the most reputable single school in economics, and I wouldn't limit my reading to Chicago economists; for one thing, I'm suspicious of some of their more aggressive theories, and for another, there's a lot of good work going on at other schools; it would be ridiculous to confine myself to one or two departments, no matter how fine. In addition, programs usually end up specializing to some degree, because powerhouse economics professors, just like famous professors in other fields, attract young professors who want to work in the same specialty. So a great program for energy economics might be only mediocre in, say, labor or trade.
But it did make me think more generally about the phenomenon. What are we saying when we say that there are only one or two schools we like? Well, for one thing, it means that the programs are probably outside the mainstream of their profession. Now, they may be doing excellent work. They may even be right; for a long time, political scientists could only work on certain theories at Rochester, because departments everywhere else were in violent, pig-headed disagreement with their ideas. But the broader the scope, the less likely that this is so. In other words, if you think Chicago is the last word in Finance, that's one thing; if you've decided that they are the Only Source for economics of all kinds, you're probably seeking confirmation, not information.
Academic departments, like any organization, are prone to being colonized by those who shut out, through selective hiring, those who disagree with them; that's why companies develop cultures and regulatory bodies almost never change their style after the early years of their inception. The tenure system only makes this more likely, as the colony sticks around for the next fifty years to make sure none of those bad-type people with different ideas get on board. It doesn't happen with every institution, or every single brand of thought, but I think few who have labored in academia (or seriously considered doing so) would fail to recognize the phenomenon.
Which is why I found it surprising that a reader with academic experience would confess that they are so disinterested in learning things about economics that they refuse to have any truck with information sources outside of Northern California. They can't be unaware of the likelihood that these departments, if they are so comfy and other departments are not, are probably colonized by a particular brand of politics. And even if you share those politics, it's still a very good idea to seek information from non-believers.
First of all, all scientists look for data that confirms their beliefs; peer review mitigates, but does not eliminate, this bias. (Ironically, this has been demonstrated by multiple peer reviewed studies, including ones which reviewed not social science, but Biology and Physics.) So it's important to seek academics from the other side; even if you don't agree with their conclusions, they will have apprehended the weaknesses and potential downfalls of your theory more fully than you have. And second of all, in a field like economics there is always the hope and expectation among many in a top-flight department of working in some administration; work does get curtailed or steered away from things which might hurt your chances with your political party of choice. J. Bradford DeLong and Larry Summers are unlikely to voice cogent criticism of the Clinton administration, any more than you'll expect to see Larry Lindsay headlining the problems with Bush's economic plans in 2 or 6 year's time.
A toiler in the groves of academe, even one who isn't a professor, should know this. That's why it's odd that you would say this to me. It's tantamount to saying "I have no interest in finding any information that does not confirm what I have already decided to believe." Okay, but then why do you want to get into an argument with me? It is unlikely that you are going to pop up with some startling economics I haven't seen before (given that we're usually arguing matters of broad public interest); I'm probably not going to be converted by someone who isn't better versed in the subject than I am; and I am certainly not fulfilling your stated goal of keeping you free from uncomfortable facts.
On the other hand, you're reading the site. Probably you're just reading it to find things to rant about on your own web site, but hey, the smallest journey begins with one step. So welcome, pinko trolls; stay awhile and let's chat.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 17, 2002 5:36 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>