Yes, why not go to Smith? As an additional opinion, I think it would make the better choice for you based on everything you have posted thus far.
Nonetheless, I’m much less inclined than other posters to suggest that a school that ranks 32nd by faculty publishing in economics (Smith) would offer you equivalent opportunities to one that ranks 8th (Hamilton). In their paper, “Economics Research at National Liberal Arts Colleges,” Hartley and Robinson commented on the importance of faculty to the student experience:
The above noted, since literally no one on this thread has recommended that you should choose Hamilton, you would need an independent streak not to favor Smith, at least in this context.
I don’t doubt that one could find a ranking that ranks any elite LAC highly in any particular field. How much weight one should put on any such ranking is of course highly debatable.
Smith has produced 25 PhDs in econ in the last 20 years compared to Hamilton’s 9. For that matter, all of the 5 Colleges except Hampshire have produced more econ PhDs, including Amherst (36), U Mass-Amherst (35), and Mount Holyoke (19).
It is absurd to suggest that OP would be disadvantaged for graduate school by matriculating at Smith.
There will always be a resistance to sourced data — and a preference for anecdote — on CC. That has proven to be the nature of the forum. Nonetheless, it seems that in cases of larger schools, the data from a source similar to that introduced up-thread would be more likely to be accepted. Though I have no preconceptions on the topic, most would think it entirely credible that Yale, #10 in the following analysis, might support a generally more internationally renowned economics faculty than the (also highly credible) Penn State (#30): https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.usecondept.html. However, by a parallel site, https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.uslacecon.html, in which Hamilton places 7th and Smith 33rd, the source itself has been called into question. In addition, I’m not sure whom you are arguing against, @warblersrule, in that I haven’t gleaned much from the OP’s posts to suggest that Hamilton would be a good match for her, and have posted information contrary to this opinion with some degree of reluctance. Lastly, do I have an, as yet unstated, opinion as to which of the OP’s alternatives would be stronger for the study of economics specifically? She can ask me that if she’d like.
Regarding the economics ranking, since it seems plausible that Williams would be stronger for this field than Colorado College, Claremont McKenna stronger than Susquehanna, Vassar stronger than Berry, Amherst stronger than Furman, and Pomona stronger than Washington College, it would also be plausible to conclude that Hamilton would be stronger than Smith.
It’s strange that the ranking was even called into question.
@apple23, I meant no disrespect to Hamilton. I know you and @merc81 are very fond of your alma mater, and there is no doubt that it is an excellent school.
What I questioned was the implication that Smith provides inferior preparation for graduate school, when the data does not bear that out. Smith has sent more graduates to PhD programs in economics than Hamilton, not fewer; clearly Smithies are not having difficulty getting into graduate programs. In any case, it is not necessary to choose the “best” program for undergraduate studies – it is only necessary to ensure that your school of choice is good enough for good PhD and job placement, which Smith obviously is.
No doubt Hamilton students are perfectly prepared for PhD programs as well but, for whatever reason, are simply not as inclined to attend (a trend in not only econ but also other departments at Hamilton).
Note that, based on posting history, this is false speculation.
Not incidentally, when posters contribute to their potential without interference, this represents the CC forum at its most beneficial in my opinion. Here is a result of which I’m personally proud: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/transfer-students/2172515-chance-me-hamilton-brown-nyu-gallatin-wesleyan-vanderbilt-gwu-p1.html. Note that the original poster was resistant to Grinnell based on numerical aspects, was persuaded to seek further information, and, consequently, * will soon be attending Grinnell*. The same result would have been very difficult to achieve if the discussion had been pervaded by suggestions of a bias in favor of Grinnell. For the record, it has been suggested on CC that I have a bias in favor of, or some type of connection to, quite a few schools by now. This can be humorous.
In the case of your decision, @luckygranola, I’ve been tentatively for Smith since your original post. However, I did not think you should make such a major decision without further information. Moreover, I do not think that you should choose Smith based majorly on the comments of those on this thread, but that you should use your own critical judgment with the aid of resources and opinions you regard as reliable, unbiased and well-intended.
I’m a bit curious why you applied to Hamilton. Did you visit the college or research its location? If you do not want a rural environment and are looking for a vibrant college town, why apply to Hamilton in the first place? No one who has done even minimal research on the college would think it would meet your requirements for anything other than academics. There is much more that goes in to choosing a college that is the right fit. Since you are looking to transfer, I suspect you already know that.
Given the nature of your non-academic desires, you should go to Smith.
Edited to add:
(By the way, D20 applied ED to Hamilton and was thrilled to be accepted. I am not suggesting Smith due to bias. I just don’t understand why students who want to avoid a rural location and have easy access to a vibrant college town, choose Middlebury, Hamilton, Colby, etc. and then complain that they are “stuck in the middle of nowhere.”)
“There will always be a resistance to sourced data”
Sourced data is actually welcome, but you still have to figure out where the data come from and how the conclusions were derived. In this case published research, citations is pretty reasonable but that would favor research universities and there’s no guarantee you can take a class or do research with the professor. And since it’s a total number and not per-capita, it’s definitely going to favor larger depts. Any ranking with a top five of Harvard, MIT, UCB, Chicago, Princeton is probably not going to questioned but note that BU at 11, MSU at 23 ad Duke at 26 seems a little odd. And the first LAC doesn’t appear till 52.
Note that this ranking is effectively normalized for department size (with exceptions — Williams maintains a graduate department, Colgate is on the larger side, etc.): https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.uslacecon.html.
In the cases of Hamilton and Smith, though, this shouldn’t pose much of an issue.
I overstated this at a point at which I thought the thread had been derailed.
OP–you’re right in considering whether you’ll be happy at a school more than the rankings etc IMHO. If you’re not happy, grades tend to slip and there you go. It’s that much harder to continue forward.
As for grad schools, while not dipping toe into the ongoing rankings debate here, my understanding of many grad schools is that the comment that came before the rankings debate is more accurate. That comment said that grades, tests, statement, and your professional accomplishments (inc. research or internships) are important. Many Ph.D.-level programs at least the students are basically entering a mentorship with a professors. Often, though admissions offices handle the application, it’s the professors who screen or help screen whether they want to mentor someone 5-7 years. It’s a relationship. So, if you’re brilliant on your application–shown through the above-listed items–the professor will care much less what school you went to as undergrad. Most profs that I know do not keep a list of USNWR ranking in their brains. They are more concerned about other things–their research and mentoring, for example. They might give extra consideration to the Harvard undergrad application, because that name stands out, but if the application is thin, then there’s a high chance that Mr or Ms Harvard will be set aside. Schools like Smith vs Hamilton–few professors really care about the rankings IMHO at that level of granularity. While I haven’t extensively studied every single masters program, it’s telling that Harvard Law School accepts people from a wide swath of undergraduate programs–from tiny religious schools you’ve probably never heard of to state directional schools to USNWR high-ranked LACs and from Harvard itself. It’s worth googling for Harvard’s current list of undergrad schools they pulled from. In other words, most people know that the school you attend is just one of many indications of brilliance but the best indicator is what you produced on your application, in your work, in the interview and elsewhere.
I think the OP has moved on from this comparison. Nonetheless, those reading through should know that Hamilton is within ten miles of urban attractions such as an appealing museum and roof-top dining, and even closer to extensive suburban amenities. Clinton itself is charming, with shopping, restaurants and cafes. On a Saturday afternoon in the fall, I would call it vibrant, actually. Hamilton’s Jitney regularly services all of these areas.
For those interested, these descriptions partly capture the differences in breadth, depth and rigor that can be offered under an identical course title:
Econometrics
Econometrics
Note that econometrics represents an essential course for students with an interest in pursuing graduate studies in economics.