From his rebuttal to Krugman:

Krugman is trying to say that a cabal of obvious crackpots
bedazzled all of macroeconomics with the beauty of their mathematics, to the
point of inducing policy paralysis.  Alas, that won’t stick. The sad fact is that few
in Washington pay the slightest attention to modern macroeconomic research, in
particular anything with a serious intertemporal dimension
.  Paul’s simple Keynesianism has dominated
policy analysis for decades and continues to do so. From the CEA to the Fed to
the OMB and CBO, everyone just adds up consumer, investment and government
“demand” to forecast output and uses simple Phillips curves to think about
inflation.  If a failure of ideas caused
bad policy, it’s a simpleminded Keynesianism that failed. [emphasis mine]

As far as I can tell, Cochrane’s right.  The only thing weirder than the sharp disconnect between undergraduate and Ph.D. macro is the fact that for practical purposes, Ph.D.s rely on what they learned as undergrads.