<p>
</p>
<p>They’re both tied on USNews ranking. But the mere fact that the caliber of professors at Cal econ is higher, I definitely would not think twice that they’re better teachers too, and more prominent and respected in the area of economics. Berkeley econ has a Nobel awardee. Brown econ hasn’t.
[Best</a> Undergraduate Teaching | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/undergraduate-teaching)</p>
<p><a href=“Never%20claimed%20it%20wasn’t.”>quote</a> But there is absolutely no way for either of us to know since there is zero ways to measure ‘undergraduate programs’.
[/quote]
I would claim that Stanford’s undergrad econ is world-class. And, seriously speaking, there isn’t much difference between Stanford econ and Berkeley econ. </p>
<p>so, again, why is Berkeley’s undergad econ, for example, not worth the full-price, something that you think other schools’ econ are?</p>
<p>I know there are great alternatives. For example, I think Rice would be a great alternative for Berkeley’s. But it’s not those schools that I am interested in know about. It’s Berkeley’s.</p>