UCLAri

southpasdena,

Maybe...I'm not sure. It is a good program, and it may actually offer future economists the kind of academic rigor that they want/need.

UCSD is ranked higher than UCLA in some things-- particularly econometrics. UCLA is better in other things.

However, for undergraduate experience, I think UCLA is a much better place to be.

UCLAri

joshua007,

They're certainly not better departments, but they may offer undergrads better educations in the basics.

I guarantee that an average Caltech grad comes out better equipped to do economics at a graduate level than an average Berkeley grad-- if for no other reason than the amount of math that Caltech requires of its undergrads.

Remember guys: the best research does not equal the best education.

theghostofsnappy

USNews ranks UCSD's graduate program higher than UCLA, and even then, only marginally, and certainly not significantly. To the best of my knowledge it is the only ranking that I have seen that places UCSD above UCLA. Certainly others could exist, however I think one would really be hard pressed to effectively argue that UCSD>UCLA.

I don't want to say that UCSD is a one-trick pony, but outside of econometrics they don't shine very brightly.

AtomicLightbulb

I was just wondering, where would some LAC's (some of my top schools are Liberal Arts Colleges) like Amherst and Pomona rank in comparison to Northwestern and other top Econ schools? I plan to pursue a masters in Finance or Economics anyway, but I'm wondering - if I got into say, University of Chicago and Pomona, how much more would I gain by going to Chicago?

Milton Roark

Chicago is likely to have better name recognition. If you plan on going into business then this might make it worth the difference. I would also suggest the University of Chicago because they have the best economics staff in the world (and have for quite some time.) Levitt is amazing from all of the class reviews and how he applies economics to different fields. I would go to U of Chicago because the teaching staff will be better (not to say Pomona won't be good) and it will have more name recognition and immediate job opportunities. To boot, Chicago is quite an exciting place (it is also a larger financial market than Claremont).

Milton Roark

"I'd like to know what people think about Harvard Econ vs Chicago Econ. I've seen some non-US News rankings that put Harvard on top, but I'm wondering if the level of teaching is better at Chicago or what."
I will grant that I am biased, however, I think Chicago is superior. They have had more Nobel Laureates in economics than Harvard. The late Milton Friedman changed economics profoundly and was a professor and graduate of that university's economics department. Harvard econ has had no equal to Friedman in that regard. Mankiw of Harvard is an excellent writer but Levitt is as well. I would give a slight edge to Levitt simply because he has done more to develop the use of economics in crime (although both are excellent professors). Beyond just looking at the current staff Harvard hasn't had the same impact on economics as UChicago. The "Chicago style" for developing worlds has helped countries transition into free-markets and has provided a contrasting approach to economic gradualism. I believe it is safe to say that Chicago economics has had a more profound impact than Harvard. Both are excellent programs,however.

AtomicLightbulb

Thanks, Milton. I suppose Pomona was a bad example - how about Claremont McKenna or Williams? From what I understand, they're top-flight economics schools. I mean, I know they don't have the name recognition of a Berkeley or a Stanford, but would they still me get into a top-tier MBA program or Masters in Economics programs?

And, in general, what are the two best LAC's for Economics? I'm still applying to all the "brand-name" schools - I just generally find that LAC's are a better fit for me.

aquamarinee

Interesting. My counselor told me that Pomona was strong in both Econ and Biology. Is that not true [for econ]?

Milton Roark

I know they don't have the name recognition of a Berkeley or a Stanford, but would they still me get into a top-tier MBA program or Masters in Economics programs?

You can still get into a top level masters econ program without going to UChicago. If you do well in the economics classes there and in some of the math courses then you'll be in the running for spots at masters economics programs (granted you get to know your professors well). The top MBA programs will base your admission more off of your work experience than on which school you got your economics degree from.
The two best LAC's for economics are
1. Amherst
2. Carleton or Claremont McKenna College
This is more of a repost and others on this forum might be able to give you more detailed information. I wouldn't shy away from an LAC like these because of name recognition. You'll get to work with excellent professors and you won't have to compete for their time with graduate students and you'll have smaller classes with them. For some people a place like Amherst might be better than a program like UChicago (although it all depends on that individual.
Pomona has a strong economics program. I am just asserting that UChicago is better in some senses. You may be able to receive more specialized attention at Pomona, however.

SarahsDad

Agree with the specialized attention one can get at Pomona. There's 25-30 kids in Pomona's Intro to Macroeconomics course. Compare that to Intro to Macroeconomics at UChicago, which according to a CC poster has 150. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...#post4 657754

Both Pomona and UChicago send a high percentage of kids to top MBA, Law, and Med schools. If you believe the (much maligned) WSJ ranking of top feeder schools, Pomona is ranked #13, just above #14 UChicago. http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf

dh5123

How would Tufts fall into this list?

phuriku

This is a bad example. At Chicago, microeconomics and macroeconomics are treated as prerequisite courses, and it is largely believed that real economics starts with "Elements of Economic Analysis". You can find the number of students per class here:

http://timeschedules.uchicago.edu/vi...t=ECON&term=72

Most class sizes are probably very similar at Pomona. I can almost guarantee that you will get as much individual attention at Chicago than at Pomona. The faculty here is truly excellent, not just in the sense that they're experts in their fields but also in that they're very involved with their students. When I went on a tour at Chicago, the tour guide said that once, the Econ department chair came down and basically took over the entire tour simply because she was so enthused to be meeting prospective students.

This is incredibly irrelevant. If you'll look at statistics for how many students certain colleges send to grad school to eventually attain PhDs, you'll see that schools like Reed have a much higher rate than Harvard and Princeton. This doesn't mean that Reed students have an easier time at getting into top programs; it's just that Harvard and Princeton grads get recruited at a much higher rate coming out of their undergraduate studies and thus many don't make it to graduate school (of course, a humongous percentage would get into their top choice grad school).

From what I've heard, many Chicago econ grads go immediately to places like New York to earn $100k+/year positions.

vossron

The PhD data say that Princeton does very well at preparing grads for advanced degrees.Careful, you make it sound like they cannot get into grad school to land the more common $200k+/year New York positions. The PhD data say that U Chicago does very well at preparing grads for advanced degrees.

Sam Lee

PhD data? You mean the report (forgot its name) showing % grads doing PhD? That doesn't say how well colleges prepare you for advanced degrees. It tells just what it is--fraction of grads doing PhDs. LACs, even the ones not very well-known, are doing "well" on that list because LACs kids tend to be less preprofessional. If anything, it reflects career preference more than anything else. It doesn't tell you where the grads do their PhDs.

vossron

This is true, but inferences can be made, and I admit to making assumptions: For the most part, high school graduates are not prepared to enter PhD programs, and it is the undergrad schools which transform students into viable PhD candidates. Now if the backward-looking statistics show which undergrad schools produce the highest percentages of future PhD earners, these schools are necessarily "doing well" at preparing their graduates for that end. I also assume that it's "easier" to earn a master's than it is to earn a PhD in the same field, such that if a school does well at preparing students for PhDs, those same students would have good preparation for earning a master's in the same field (but, hey, maybe I'm wrong about that). Master's origin data is not collected like it is for PhD origins, so similar comparisons cannot be made.

The claim that LAC grads earn their PhDs from second-rate institutions is made from time to time, and I assume that such data could be culled from the IPEDS/NSF/HEDS data, though it may be tedious to do so.