Oh and how good are you at math? I've heard that students of Austrian Economics must be very good at math. I know in my "Integrated Liberal Professional" class that was half engineering statistics and half calc based macroecon, we did have to know partial *typo in the original* *derivatives*. Austrian Economics is supposed to rely heavily upon math. I'm not sure how far into calculus it goes, but that would probably explain why all of these stupid socialists support Keynesian Economics. They're too dumb to understand the math behind real economics so they developed a dumbed down version to compensate.
Erm.... I've never heard of Austrian economics being math-intensive. I'm assuming you were being facetious? Or mistaken?
Anyway, Economics is more complex than a single "school". Austrian economics has some very good normative prescriptions, and i like some of the methodology used - Mises was really the only Austrian that eschewed mathematical models, and in Rothbard books youll find a decent amount of mathematical models, but on the whole Austrian economics is certainly not math intensive. Keynesian economics does have many important components that have contributed greatly to the field, but alot of the modeling is so simplified that it is actually quite wrong, as you point out (such as the simplification of consumer surplus across an entire economy), especially at the undergraduate level.
Contrary to popular belief, the sum total of Keynesian economics is not "socialism". Keynes' normative derivations from his theories did proscribe a degree of government spending to supplement a drop in consumer spending, and to try to maintain full employment (again, not that these models actually apply to the real world). There ARE right wing Keynesians (Greg Mankiw). Neoclassical economics, then, builds heavily on some fundamental microeconomic theories - utility functions, indifference analysis, Pareto efficiency C-B analysis, and does not necessarily dissociate micro and macro as heavily as some keynesian models. This is where the math is REALLY rigorous. At any institution, even one with an "austrian" focus, youll be engaging in alot of math and econometrics, especially at higher levels.
Things like savings, government spending, etc, are clearly wrong in the Keynesian models when applied to the real world and real economic growth, but it doesnt make Keynesian economics necessarily wrong on all counts, and it has made some very important contributions. I think a combination of neoclassical methodology with some Austrian normative biases is a good thing to look for. Don't focus exclusively on "Austrian economics" - have an open mind, but certainly search for an economics department that takes itself very seriously, cuts through the bullshit, and is open to analyzing rigourously real-world problems.
Heres a post by bryan caplan on this idea of undergrad keynesian economic models being so simplified as to offer little of value, and how he sees "real economics" as working. I like Caplan, because he really does try to apply neoclassical economics to reality - though he does have some objections to Austrian methodology as well; some i am in agreement with. Look for an economics education that will actually allow you to control much of your education. Math is an important tool, but it is the language of economics- it is not economics itself, much the same way it is not physics, although it is the language of such. Many economics departments focus too much on the math and too little on reality.
Honestly, GMU seems like the best, at least as a graduate program. Unfortunately, GMU is a pretty shitty campus apparently, and is somewhat of a commuter school, so if youre lookin for a good college life as well, its probably not the best Ugrad pick.
Junk Macroeconomic Science
Why I am not an Austrian Economist
