I think part of your problem was that PhD economics programs are so narrow, and this is part of the problem with economics generally.
It has ignored too much of what is occurring outside its discipline, and turned in on itself and neat models that do not actually describe how the world works.
I don't want to get into a "what is wrong with economics as a discipline" argument, because I have far too much to say there. But I will say that between micro, macro and econometrics, macro is the farthest from reality by far (my program taught pure "Minnesota macro" or "freshwater macro", e.g. DSGE is god). Econometrics varies by program, but in my program it was 100% theory, and that was the problem. The idea of spending an entire year of econometrics in 2011 and not touch a single piece of real data truly pains me. I learned a lot that year, but it was so hard to find relevancy -- that's why I tried on my own by creating my own large datasets with Python.
However, micro 1 (consumer/producer theory) and micro 2 (game theory) were awesome and are relevant. In game theory, we talked about everything from spying and wars, faking orgasms, cancer cells, penalty kicks, and so on.
Yeah I was thinking of macro in my comments. I'm currently doing an MPP in economic policy (I'm a policy public servant). The great thing about the course is that it's multidisciplinary - we do look at economics, but it keeps coming back to how it is applied in policy.
Game theory was my favorite course in college. I really think it should be offered at more schools to wider audiences; I had to take it as an economics minor elective during summer classes.
It has ignored too much of what is occurring outside its discipline, and turned in on itself and neat models that do not actually describe how the world works.