Oh gee, one more comment (and deep apologies for three in one day): 
 
Another interesting phenomenon that I think DOES take place in 
graduate school is that students can find themselves synthesizing 
elements in different professors' outlook in a way that neither 
professor would have imagined.  I know this happened to my generation 
of early Americanists -- what started out as a search for "which 
was the correct model of early America -- tenancy or home ownership; 
capitalism or traditional nonmarket mentalites" turned into the 
realization that there was stunning diversity throughout early 
America.  What had been intense battles among our mentors was, for 
us, different pieces of the same puzzle. 
 
Having been a grd student in econ at TWO different universities 
(and also discussed interpretations with my spouse, who shows the 
mark of his own graduate institution), I have longf been fascinated 
by the way economists all insist on graduate students taking 
two semesters of Grad macro theory and Grad micro theory --  
and it can be a wildly different course.  Furthermore, while I 
think you can point to a few "schools" of economics that teach 
"their" systems, or professors who teach their textbooks -- the 
schools that both my husband and I were associated with included 
professors who made what I would call an honorable effort to 
introduce us to the breadth of economic analysis, even while 
acknowledging what they found most usable or persuasive.  So 
I found myself automatically incorporating bits and pieces of, 
say, Friedman, neo-Keynesianism, and rational expectations -- 
even if they were supposed to be arch-enemies.   
 
I wonder how many of you  out there had similar experiences.   
 
That would mean that NOT ONLY is the ADVISOR important, but 
also perhaps the interaction of ideas at that point in time, 
including those the advisor detested. 
 
-- Mary Schweitzer, Dept. of History, Villanova University 
(on leave 1995-96) 
(last posting on subject, I promise) 
[log in to unmask]