Boston University is not much better. I cannot attest to the Ph.D. program, but the MA Macro class was primarily about growth theory, with a good amount of monetarist (Lucas, et. al.) research. Micro was better, but I cannot say that the perspective included too much outside of neo-classical economics. The labor and environmental classes I took were very good and offered other perspectives, but combined, I do not think that they ammounted to half of the number of students as were in the money and banking course. The development course was good as well, but offered a primarily neo-classical viewpoint. Asia was still riding high when I took the course, so there was a great deal of focus on long-term growth, rather than short-term stabilization.
peace
Jamie
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com