As another econ grad student and former self-professed Austrian, I'll concur with Matt Simpson. Some economists have a good handle on these topics and others don't, but there aren't clear demarcating lines. Except for in macro, there aren't clearly identifiable schools, which is a good sign. By field of study, micro theorists are more likely to use rationality jargon, be familiar with probabilistic logic, and know a few H&B classic like the Allais or Ellsberg paradoxes. Whether micro theorists actually apply this knowledge better than other economists is another question.
If you are interested in macro, check out Snowden and Vane's Modern Macroeconomics. It presents the full gamut of perspectives, steel-manning mainstream and heterodox schools chapter by chapter.
Out of personal interest: does Modern Macroeconomics discuss the "Monetary Disequilibrium" approach to macro?
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.