<p>The title of this thread is “Is Yale really a top research university.” To me, that implies questioning the overall strength of all of Yale’s research programs, not just the hard sciences. Now, if you admit that Yale is one of the best universities in the country in the humanities, the arts, the social sciences, and the biological sciences, and that it is has good (though not the very best) programs in the hard sciences and math, I don’t see how you can question Yale’s status as a top research university. In fact, on an overall level, the only schools in the US that are definitely stronger overall than Yale are Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard. MIT and Caltech are better at what they do, but both of them lack any programs in the humanities or arts, Caltech also lacks social science programs, and MIT lacks some of the social sciences.
From this, I would say that Yale is certainly one of the top 10 research institutions in the United States on an overall basis. This is confirmed by most research based rankings - the Shanghai Jiaotong rankings (biased toward the sciences, thus hurting Yale) had them 9th in the US, Newsweek’s rankings of Global Universities had them 3rd in the US (which is probably too high, it was biased by taking into account library holdings as 10% of the score), and the Time Higher Education Supplement had them tied for 2nd in the US with MIT (again too high because it considers several factors beyond research quality).
If being one of the top 5-10 overall research universities in the country does not make Yale a “top research university” in your mind, maybe you need to reconsider your standards.</p>
<p>bruno, when presented with information conflicting with what you were looking for, you changed the subject. The purpose of this thread - as indicated by your title - was to ask whether or not Yale is a top research university. It’s been clearly proven. </p>
<p>Any school with a top 10 (and rising) med school, number 1 law school, and millions of dollars going into research funding for all sciences and non-sciences, is going to be a research institution. </p>
<p>Please, ■■■■■ elsewhere!</p>
<p>bruno123,</p>
<p>No… you started this thread about research, not about which nobel laureates you can learn under, but nice try. Edmund Phelps did his research at Yale, so it counts as Yale research.</p>
<p>Your original support proved ineffective, yet instead of providing new support you continue with your ridiculous assertions. Now if this was no more than a “I think yale sucks. Discuss” thread, I think it’s pointless to continue.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.yale.edu/opa/v31.n7/story1.html[/url]”>http://www.yale.edu/opa/v31.n7/story1.html</a></p>
<p>“Yale faculty and graduates have won nine Nobel Prizes in medicine, five each in economics and physics, three in chemistry and one in literature.”</p>
<p>But the OP isn’t interested in facts.</p>
<p>Nauru, did I ask for your opinion on what kind of impression I created? The purpose of my questions is to glean information, not to present myself as an expert in the field. Even if I didn’t know the difference between business and econ, is that necessarily a sin? And frankly, I don’t care about the rank of an econ department if the graduates do not receive good job offers. Sure there is more to econ than lucrative job offers, but again, did I say there wasn’t? I simply asked for a comparison for those who work in the industry.</p>
<p>And you, my friend, have created the impression that you are a snobbish little prick. Please keep your acerbic comments in Amsterdam.</p>
<p>kyzan,</p>
<p>If you think graduating from Wharton is gonna land you an i-banking job over a math major from MIT, you’re in for a nasty surprise.</p>
<p>Uh…correct me if I’m wrong, but when did I state that?</p>
<p>Wait, I DIDN’T. Please stop assuming what I’m thinking.</p>
<p>Kyzan, you did sin. You sinned hard. 
But then you lost your composure and called me a snobbish prick. Although apparently I’m not snobbish enough to use big kid words like acerbic; I don’t even know what that means. Now how about a nice hot cup of relax. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look, not meaning to pile on here, but as a matter of fact, for a long time in economics the rankings were: MIT and everyone else. Yes, MIT has long had a superb economics program. With respect to undergrad placement statistics, I couldn’t tell you. But it’s irrelevant to the original purpose of this thread.</p>
<p>Nauru, a nice hot cup of relax is actually just what I needed Whew, tennis practice was intense. Oh about acerbic haha, I had to memorize words somehow for the SAT. Yet, for some reason, I hear that the best job placement for undergraduate was either from Wharton or Harvard, though I do not have any statistics to back this up.</p>
<p>Bedhead, thanks for your response. “for a long time in economics the rankings were: MIT and everyone else. Yes, MIT has long had a superb economics program.” That answers my question. So I’m guessing MIT’s economics is heavily math based? Is the major there particularly intense or difficult to obtain? I know a couple of people specializing in econometrics there, and they say that advanced math is required. So do quantitative people do better in economics than qualitative people in general? (I know this is a bad statement but bear with me.) Does it involve more pure math or applied statistics? I plan to take real analysis next year as a math course and wanted to know if it would help in college economics classes.</p>
<p>haukim if you knew anything about ibanking you’d realize that MIT is not even remotely as sought after for recruiting purposes as wharton is, especially math majors. Math majors usually work back office operations jobs in prestigous firms, but that’s not the same as ibanking. The only people who stand a close chance are the sloan students. wait until you’ve grown out of being a high school JUNIOR and then talk.</p>
<p>Wow you’re right. Too bad I’m a Yale freshman. Foot in your mouth?</p>
<p>Since you’re a hotshot from Wharton maybe you’d know what a quant is. Too bad those $500k jobs are reserved for the psycho anti-social MIT kids.</p>
<p>Maybe Penn treats you Wharton kids like something special, but keep your big nose on your own board.</p>
<p>Oh wait… you’re a PREFROSH. Wait until you’re out of HIGHSCHOOl then talk.</p>
<p>Oh I see, you go to a school where economics is ranked near dead last and you pretend to know about other school’s programs. I would’ve thought better of you if you were a junior in HS, at least that way you’d have a chance to succeed in business.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you look at an economics academic journal these days, it reads much more like a mathematic proof (okay, I may be slightly overstating it, but you get the point) than anything else. Economics without math these days is getting to be nearly as absurd as physics without math (which is taught sometimes). So, yes, MIT’s heavy quantitative bent has played well here. </p>
<p>I would say going to pure math route is a really good thing. Real analysis, I understand, is a very useful class for moving on in the “real” economics, which is now all math-based at the major institutions.</p>
<p>An undergrad institution I am familiar with – Berkeley – has both math and non-math tracks for economics. A friend taught there and said that the math-track students who do well can go anywhere, and that the non-math econ. is in essence like a mainstream liberal arts degree such as poli sci.</p>
<p>There is a thread on CC recently posted asking what is required to get into a top 10 Econ. PhD program. Anything short of 770 on the math GRE was stated as being dead in the water, if that’s an indication (though I couldn’t vouch for the accuracy).</p>
<p>And actually, even if you want to study Poli Sci at the PhD level, I am told it is getting more and more math-based. Or at least increasingly lending itself to the same kinds of models that has long been the domain of economics. Check my facts on this one, but I don’t think your math classes will hurt at all.</p>
<p>Hahaha you’re a frigging joke. You’ve taken, what, one year of AP econ? You think drawing supply and demand curves are gonna get you somewhere? Given your attitude you’ll be a first year washout.</p>
<p>Banker88,</p>
<p>Honestly, you don’t know the first thing about econ. MIT and Chicago are the two hotbeds of economic research of the 20th century. Most mainstream Keynesian models came out of MIT and while the Chicago school led the neo-classical charge. What exactly did Wharton do for economics? Penn has the best undergrad business school only because every other elite school believes an undergrad business major is too worthless to offer. Maybe you’re an i-banking nut thinking you’ll win one of those prestigious internships. Too bad financial firms actually care about MATH and given your paltry 680 Math SAT score, you’d have a hard time getting through multivar calculus. Oh and if someone with a 3.6 highschool GPA and a 32 on the ACT got into Wharton, I think that says something about the quality of the program. Mediocre.</p>
<p>Bedhead,</p>
<p>Almost all intermediate level economics is math intensive. I’ve taken intermediate micro and macro at Yale, and both focus on proofs. Macro is slightly more theoretical, but simple multivar calculus is used in both.</p>
<p>HYPW all place highly into prestigious internships. If you think that going to one or the other will make a bigger difference than other factors in getting one of these internships, you probably lack the perspective (and common sense) to get one.</p>
<p>Oh but I decided to check out that find posts feature you told me about:</p>
<p>AHAHAHAHA what a gem. Might want to change that location of yours, son.</p>