Despite appearances to the contrary, I do not think Krugman and DeLong actually disagree with me on the dominance or otherwise of the New Keynesian business cycle model in academia. I wrote:
“Yet in many who were part of the New Classical revolution, or who were taught by its leaders, there remains a deep antagonism to Keynesian ideas…. As a result, in certain places NK theory was tolerated rather than embraced, or was quietly marginalised.”
That was a key point of the post, although I admit I did take rather a long time getting there.
So I do not think there is any qualitative disagreement. The New Keynesian model is the dominant model of business cycles in central banks. In academia it is not dominant. Is it still the framework of first choice for the majority, as I suspect, or only about half of academics, as DeLong suggests? Impressions gained from non-random contacts or gatherings are not good evidence, so I was relying more on this survey, but that is just one particular sample. And it would be interesting to know results for other countries besides the US - particularly those that have chosen to embrace austerity or advocate it for others.
I did find some evidence from a survey of grad students undertaken by David Colander in 2005. This only covered the major US schools, but from Table 5 you will find that 22% of students from Chicago believed price rigidities were unimportant, while the equivalent number for Harvard was zero. 13% of Chicago students and 20% from Stanford disagreed that ‘fiscal policy can be an effective stabilizer’ (Table 6). But perhaps more revealing are some of the observations Colander makes in the text. Here is one.
“The students told me that the differences in policy views on macro that showed up in the survey did not reﬂect what they were taught about policy in macro, since they were taught almost nothing about macro policy, but reﬂected their undergraduate training. When asked about survey results showing that students at his school had changed their views on policy, one student stated, “I think that in the macro course we never talked about monetary or ﬁscal policy, although it might have been slipped in as a variable in one particular model, but that wasn’t the focus, so it didn’t come from the courses.” Another stated, “Monetary and ﬁscal policy are not abstract enough to be a question that would be answered in a macro course.”
I guess it might be possible to teach the NK model as if you were not talking about policy, but it would be an odd thing to do.
For me this reaffirms Paul Krugman comment that, “It would be interesting to know how many graduate departments were in fact teaching New Keynesian macro in 2008”. Even if records on this are not immediately available, memories should still be reasonably fresh. And knowing what is taught in 2013 should at least give us a lower bound. A good indicator of academics’ views is what they teach or what they were taught. I don’t think this information has been collected by anyone, and I think it would be a valuable thing to do if anyone has the time.  What I am pretty sure about is that, in twenty years time, some people will write about this, and it would be nice for them to have some more concrete evidence: the time to collect it is now.
 I think the key number here should be the proportion of a core masters macro course that is devoted to New Keynesian analysis (i.e. any DSGE model with sticky prices, and policy analysis using that model). Obviously zero would be a very interesting finding, but one week out of twenty is also somewhat suggestive. Measurement is tricky of course, but my quick estimate of this number for the current Oxford MPhil, which would also apply to 2008, is around 20-30%.
Information on current teaching should either be available from the web, or available on request from the departments. However it would be interesting to try and collect information from recent students as a cross check. As one academic once told me: “I intended to cover NK economics but I just ran out of time”.