Yale vs. Harvard: Economics

[tetrishead]

<p>

Right…this makes sense. So if a high school student is applying to both Princeton and Cornell, but says “Cornell is much better than Princeton in math, and if anyone disagrees, they are delusional,” they are neutral?? I mean…wow. I’m speechless. What? Please–explain how “your stance makes me think you are delusional” is neutral? You are “strongly one-sided” to the fact that Yale is weaker in the economics area. You can’t be one-sided and neutral at the same time.

I wasn’t biased prior to the assessment. I was biased after the assessment, like you should be, because I had drawn my conclusion. Had my foundation been biased then the conclusion could be shaky on personal grounds, but it’s not.</p>

<p>RE: the Wharton v. Yale thing, Wharton is basically the Grand Poobah of job placement out of undergraduate. Putting Yale above Wharton, and listing it amongst Harvard and MIT as an equal in economics is delusional. My assessment of that starts with neutrality too. First, is the statement incorrect? Yes, the statement is incorrect because MIT and Harvard have better economics programs, and there are other schools that should be slotted in the top 4 posterX listed above Yale. Second, is the person making the statement delusional? Yes, the person is delusional, because Wharton is the king of the Thunderdome. Two schools enter, one school leaves. Wharton and Harvard have a truce for control of Bartertown. Yale, because of its strength in humanities, will refuse to kill Wharton when it realizes that Wharton is ■■■■■■■■. Subsequently, Yale will be sent into the desert wastes.

What? Again, makes no sense. An opinion that both sides are equally good, would be a neutral opinion.

My statement was more general, which is to say that if all our opinions are neutral then we would envitably not have opinions. If all is equal on varying measurements of its merits, you cannot differentiate between anything, and you would be left with one opinion: there is equality in everything. So I stand by my statement that if all is neutral you cannot have opinions.

Then I believe your understanding is not quite as solid as you believe it to be. “Time spent on forums?” Are you serious? And how do you know what companies “target” what schools? Does it mean they do interviews at Stanford and Princeton but not at Yale? Are more recruited from Stanford and Princeton compared to Yale? Data please?

I was expecting that first bit. If years and various friendships with people in the financial industry and time spent watching those already in the industry talk about a multitude of topics isn’t sufficient knowledge, then the reality is that no one but the head of a industry advocacy group for the financials would have enough information to draw conclusions. You know what companies target what schools because they openly say what job fairs they go to. [url=<a href=“http://www.google.com%5DGoogle%5B/url”>http://www.google.com]Google[/url</a>]

What? No, it does not.

Yes it does. They recruit direct out of the stronger CS and EE programs for ETF and intranet work. Most people in the back offices are recruited straight out of college unless they’re going into a managerial position. Yale doesn’t have the strength to have a serious amount of recruiting go on for that kind of work.</p>

<p>

I don’t even know how to argue your empty statements. You think job placement is so cut-and-dry that I can’t help feel a bit of pity. “Princeton and Yale are pretty much equal in name, so we turn to the rankings of their quantitative programs. Princeton wins there. So Princeton students get better job placements.” Are you so blind that you don’t see a fault in that statement?

Princeton students get better job placements in finance because finance is a heavily analytical industry and Yale does not have the quantitative strength of Princeton while all other things are equal. Princeton also has programs Yale does not. Of course job placement isn’t that cut and dry, there are thousands of variables in the process from your ability to network to how hard you work to simple luck. Again, Princeton > Yale in economics. Princeton > Yale in graduate economics. Princeton > in CS and EE. Princeton > Yale in spcific financial programs (although yeah, Yale doesn’t really have those). With so many boons specific to one industry you logically have to assume they do better in job placement.

Nice changing the above quote to “That is the way should have felt from the beginning.”
Of course.

I thought it fit better.</p>

<p>You know I’m secretly in love with you, right?</p>

<p>Let me ask you something, no one else is online and I’m driving myself crazy trying to get my application essay to stay below 1700 words. I don’t like the way this reads:
“…, taking a test I didn’t expect and didn’t think I could pass satisfactorily.”
Satisfactorily doesn’t sound great in that context when I’m reading. How would you restructure that?</p>

[Tami]

<p>Thanks for the love, sweetie. ;)</p>

<p>“Taking an unexpected test that I was not confident about…” perhaps?</p>

<p>

With so many boons specific to one industry you logically have to assume they do better in job placement.

</p>

<p>No, you don’t. Do all hiring companies really see those greater-than signs and agree with you? I doubt it. How is princeton > Yale in econ? Or CS? EE? If you base such things on pointless rankings (completely based on the opinion of what factors the ranker considers important), you consequently also state that employers hold those rankings as factual? I doubt that as well.</p>

<p>

You know what companies target what schools because they openly say what job fairs they go to.

</p>

<p>So, show me them. And also justify how the companies you show me (if any), can be deemed evidence to support the following statement: “The financial job market of the United States favors Princeton over Yale.” Since you’re so keen on being cut-and-dry, we should say that “given 1000 companies exist in the US, 501 must explicitly say they like Princeton grads more than Yale grads,” correct?</p>

<p>

I was expecting that first bit. If years and various friendships with people in the financial industry and time spent watching those already in the industry talk about a multitude of topics isn’t sufficient knowledge, then the reality is that no one but the head of a industry advocacy group for the financials would have enough information to draw conclusions.

</p>

<p>You are applying to college now. Years? How many? Also, no, not just industry advocacy groups. The only people who do have enough information are the job recruiters themselves. People who’ve actually engaged in finance. Who are in the business industry, working right now. CEO’s. Employers. </p>

<p>

I wasn’t biased prior to the assessment. I was biased after the assessment, like you should be, because I had drawn my conclusion. Had my foundation been biased then the conclusion could be shaky on personal grounds, but it’s not.

</p>

<p>Your sentence is so convoluted, that it really detracts from the argument. Yes, you drew your conclusion. I called your conclusion non-neutral. You said you were in a neutral position. But how so, exactly? Because you are applying to both schools? Who cares if you stand in a neutral place when the words you type are one-sided? Answer me the question I’ve been consistently asking: How is “your stance makes me think you are delusional” neutral?</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>Your sentence helps me think of different structures, but in the context of what I’m writing about satisfactory is the word I’m looking to get in over satisfactorily just because satisfactorily sounds weird. Princeton is better than Yale in economics because it has a heavier quant focus, and yes, because rankings say so. As far as CS and EE, well, I kind of thought that was common knowledge. How is Yale better than anyone else in the humanities, then? Princeton has programs Yale does not, a lot of the recruiting that goes on for the back office work is going to be direct out of those programs. Back office is different than what we’re talking about anyway, but I thought I’d throw it in there.</p>

<p>If you honestly believe I’m going to go through the websites of 50+ companies looking for the schools they target so I can show them to you you’re nuts. If you don’t want to believe me then you can go ahead and do it yourself, navigate to most of their HR/“Job Opportunity” pages and look and see if they have anything for college students. If they don’t, you’ll have to do more digging, but most of them furnish a list. The financial job market of the United States favors Princeton over Yale because for any intangible Yale could have to compensate for weaker programs that correlate directly with the financial industry (alumni network, resources, prestige, internship opportunities) Princeton is not at a disadvantage.</p>

<p>Four years, and yes, pretty much just industry advocacy groups. HR does the filtering, for entry-level positions that matter managers do the interviews themselves. Managers will only care what reaches their desk, HR is not engaged in finance although they’re given directives. This, obviously, does not apply at all companies, but it’s how it works in general. The only people who would have enough information from varying sources would be a consulting firm brought in to audit the hiring process or an advocacy group.</p>

<p>When you say my conclusion isn’t neutral you’re not really saying my conclusion isn’t neutral, because most conclusions aren’t neutral so it wouldn’t make any sense. What your saying is that my conclusion is inaccurate, and it’s a result of problems with impartiality. I was not biased to begin with, I began from neutrality. I had no reason to believe <school> was better than Yale, I formed the opinion on my own, over time, with information and opinions from varying sources. My conclusion isn’t neutral because the conclusion I came to favors one over the other. Expecting neutrality from every conclusion, as I said, doesn’t make sense.</school></p>

[Tami]

<p>Uhm, no. I’m pretty sure I know what I’m saying, and I am saying that your conclusion isn’t neutral. </p>

<p>All you are stating in that long paragraph is that conclusions cannot be neutral, so expecting neutrality makes no sense. You starting from a neutral position has no bearing on this argument what so ever, because that is not the issue here. My statement was that calling the opposition delusional is not neutral. You cannot be neutral and have an opposition.</p>

<p>No one starts out impartial to something. But someone who says “people who think Yale is better are delusional” connotes anti-Yale sentiments. How is that neutral? It matters not if you started out neutral, or are in a position of neutrality as a student, when what you say is anti-Yale. That was my statement from the beginning, and that is my statement now. So perhaps we finally agree–you are right NOW, with time PASSED, have formed the conclusion which is negative towards Yale. </p>

<p>

Expecting neutrality from every conclusion, as I said, doesn’t make sense.

</p>

<p>And…this is completely irrelevant, as no one here expected such from ‘every conclusion.’</p>

<p>

As far as CS and EE, well, I kind of thought that was common knowledge.

</p>

<p>So…based on assumptions. Not factual. Got it. Moving on.</p>

<p>

How is Yale better than anyone else in the humanities, then?

</p>

<p>Uhm…I never said that. Yale’s humanities are awesome. So is Princeton’s. Stanford’s is amazing. Harvard’s rules. Northwestern is great, especially their journalism which is unbeatable. I’ve never used the word “better” in this argument for pro-Yale. They all have their strengths and weaknesses I’m sure, but I cannot judge, for I am not a student who attended all the schools. </p>

<p>

Princeton has programs Yale does not, a lot of the recruiting that goes on for the back office work is going to be direct out of those programs. Back office is different than what we’re talking about anyway, but I thought I’d throw it in there.

</p>

<p>“A lot of recruiting…” again, a blank statement which I’m guessing is again, based on assumption. So I’ll throw it out.</p>

<p>I was not asking you to browse 50+ pages; I was making the point that no such source exists. None. No factual data, because it is all subjective. You’ve missed my point again, but I’m getting used to that, love. ;)</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>Sorry for the delay in excitement, I was wrapping up my essay. 1738 words. I was aiming for <1400. There’s not enough time for me to try and split it into two separate topics, and I had to go with satisfactorily. Very disappointing. Ah well, any school that won’t read 1738 words isn’t a school I would have gotten into anyway.</p>

<p>No, that’s right, I’m not neutral. I like to think I have a well-informed opinion. But questioning the neutrality of an opinion is by proxy questioning the basis of that opinion. I am saying that the foundation for my thought was not faulty, or pre-determined by some bias. Yes, okay, we agree now.</p>

<p>No, actually, the back office thing isn’t based on assumption. The prerequisite is work in CS or EE, and most (yes, not all, I apologize that I cannot make everything absolutely firm for you) of the people working in the back office are recruited out of college. A college with better EE and CS programs, therefore, is going to have better recruitment into these positions. If you want to argue that Yale is on-par with Princeton in CS and EE then that’s a discussion you’re going to have to have with yourself because it’s going to end the same way this one did.</p>

<p>The resource exists. Almost every company in the business world has a page where it’ll say what schools it either tries to directly recruit from or attends job fairs at, usually under the heading of job opportunities -> college students. Just because I’m not going to spend time quoting the target schools of every company doesn’t mean these resources do not exist. With your logic, for all I know Paris Hilton doesn’t exist because I haven’t taken the time to fly to California and look at her in person.</p>

[Tami]

<p>I did search for it, but cannot find a single one that supports one school over Yale explicitly. </p>

<p>You do not have to make anything absolute, but how can you use words like “most” with no basis of said majority backing you up? I’ve only asked for one piece of objective evidence, but you have given me none! Not even one objective piece! :)</p>

<p>Oh, it’s not based on assumption? What exactly IS IT based on that’s actually valid?</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>You’ve backed me into a great corner. The correct response to your two statements, the first one being about recruitment and the second one being about back office work, both require I do things I can’t or don’t want to do. The first requires me to quantify the quality of undergraduate educations (which is effectively what this site is dedicated to), which to do completely is impossible beyond using rankings you consider irrelevant, and the second requires that I go through job listings and show you that most back-office work is at the entry-level and managerial positions are more focused on coordinating the back-office and middle/front, which is a lot less tech work and a lot more general management. You have to take my word for the second because I’m not going through that process for this, and we have to debate the first.</p>

<p>You’ve managed to reach the crux of the discussion–which is that qualifying certain programs at undergraduate institutions is impossible because there are too many variables, and it invalidates most of what happens on this board anyway. I commend you for that. You’ve effectively won this argument, and in the future I’ll try to steer away from Wellesley women and back towards those from Mount Holyoke.</p>

<p>So, what do you think about the 1700 word problem?</p>

[Tami]

<p><em>sigh</em> I do not consider it winning an argument. In fact, all I try to point out in all these “better than” “worse than” threads is that comparisons are pointles and only damage people’s feelings. They are all wonderful instutions–HYPMS, Wharton…all golden apples which only a few blessed and lucky will get to taste. (And perhaps you will too, tetrishead).</p>

<p>

In the future I’ll try to steer away from Wellesley women and back towards those from Mount Holyoke.

</p>

<p>That basically made my day. xD</p>

[CJinCH]

<p>Could someone compare Yale to Amherst and Williams for economics? Are these smaller liberal arts equally employable?</p>

[Remi10001]

<p>Keep in mind Tami that some people will inevitably have to choose which apple to bite into, and without comparisons from numbers or students, we may be plunking our teeth into an apple that has a skin as glorious as the rest but a core that doesn’t quite agree with our stomach’s preconceptions.</p>

[slipper1234]

<p>Once again CJinCH, these are two very different things. Econ credibility: Amherst/ Williams will get you into the best grad schools, at the same rate at the Ivies. When it comes to recruiting Williams does incredibly well, almost as well as Dartmouth or Princeton. Amherst a little worse, as well as say a Brown or Cornell.</p>

[kyzan]

<p>Tetrishead, didn’t you get bashed enough in the “Will Ivies Expand Class Size” thread to figure out that you’re wrong? Your statement that Claremont Colleges and UCB grads have better job placement than Yale grads is absolutely apocryphal. From your posts in both threads, you sound like a broken Yale reject who is trying to get into the Ivy-League but can’t. Please spare me the ignorance. If you really know something about Wall Street, then you would also know that the top tier schools for bulge bracket firms, management consulting groups, Hedge Funds, etc. consists of (in no particular order) Harvard, Yale, Wharton, Princeton. To put Yale in the same league as Chicago and CMU just shows the degree of your stupidity. Please stop disseminating ********.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

Tetrishead, didn’t you get bashed enough in the “Will Ivies Expand Class Size” thread to figure out that you’re wrong?

I got bashed in that thread? Really?

Your statement that Claremont Colleges and UCB grads have better job placement than Yale grads is absolutely apocryphal.

Claremont has a bonus by virtue of locale, so does Stanford. UCB has one of the best quantitative programs in the country, although at the undergraduate level it’s really the same as any state university, which is to say that graduates are going to vary greatly in their skills.

From your posts in both threads, you sound like a broken Yale reject who is trying to get into the Ivy-League but can’t.

Uh huh.

Please spare me the ignorance. If you really know something about Wall Street, then you would also know that the top tier schools for bulge bracket firms, management consulting groups, Hedge Funds, etc. consists of (in no particular order) Harvard, Yale, Wharton, Princeton. To put Yale in the same league as Chicago and CMU just shows the degree of your stupidity. Please stop disseminating *****<strong><em>.

Yeah, if you’re leaving MIT and Williams out of that mix I’m going to go ahead and redirect the whole “stupidity” thing back to you, especially with the record Williams has in consulting. If you’re talking about graduate placement too, and you seriously think Chicago is a tier below anyone out of GSB or the joint fin econ program, you’re just wrong. If you “really knew something about Wallstreet” you’d know college graduates with <2 years of work experience rarely if ever get recruited by hedge funds, so maybe you should stop disseminating </em></strong>***?</p>

[kyzan]

<p>Whatever, I don’t care much for your opinions because you are patently wrong. Yes you did get bashed, why don’t we invite a few people from that thread over? </p>

<p>“Claremont has a bonus by virtue of locale, so does Stanford. UCB has one of the best quantitative programs in the country, although at the undergraduate level it’s really the same as any state university, which is to say that graduates are going to vary greatly in their skills.”</p>

<p>You weaseled your way out of my accusation. Yale grads still have better job placement than both of them on average. Who’s wrong now?</p>

<p>“If you “really knew something about Wallstreet” you’d know college graduates with <2 years of work experience rarely if ever get recruited by hedge funds, so maybe you should stop disseminating ********?”</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that none will be recruited. I personally know a few who went straight into hedge funds right out of college. Just because you don’t have the qualifications to work in such a high-profile industry doesn’t mean others don’t. </p>

<p>And yes I am leaving MIT and Williams out of the top tier because they churn out less bankers/consultants and aren’t as prestigious as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Wharton on Wall Street. </p>

<p>Why don’t you show some qualifications on the subject. Oh wait, you don’t have any. When you get into one of these schools, then maybe you can talk.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

Whatever, I don’t care much for your opinions because you are patently wrong. Yes you did get bashed, why don’t we invite a few people from that thread over?

It’s good to know you’re available for commentary. Are you going to send them e-vites or have something more professional hand-delivered? I’m not going to pay for it, but if you want to do it you feel free. Make sure you sign both our names, I don’t want to look rude.

You weaseled your way out of my accusation. Yale grads still have better job placement than both of them on average. Who’s wrong now?

What average is that?

That doesn’t mean that none will be recruited. I personally know a few who went straight into hedge funds right out of college. Just because you don’t have the qualifications to work in such a high-profile industry doesn’t mean others don’t.

Name three people from the graduating class of Yale (or Princeton, or anywhere else for that matter, as long as it’s sale side or analysis work–ETF/intranet/whatever tech stuff isn’t what we’re talking about here) 2007 that went into hedge funds who didn’t get their jobs as a result of (a) nepotism, (b) working for the companies during their undergraduate years. I’ll wait.

And yes I am leaving MIT and Williams out of the top tier because they churn out less bankers/consultants and aren’t as prestigious as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Wharton on Wall Street.

I’d like to see you do a sampling of the financials in the Northeast to get firm numbers on how many people you’ll talk to will be from Stern or Columbia compared to… Well, pretty much any other school. It would be cute if you’d do the same thing on the West coast and see who’s from the Claremonts, Stanford and the UC’s. I think you’d be surprised by the results. And by surprised, I mean you have no idea what the results would be now, so basically whatever you found out would be a step in the right direction RE: knowledge.</p>

<p>Remember, knowledge is power. And only you can prevent forest fires.

Why don’t you show some qualifications on the subject. Oh wait, you don’t have any. When you get into one of these schools, then maybe you can talk.

What, precisely, would be your qualifications other than incredibly insightful forum commentary? I, too, am insightful, and I would like to be insightful with you. We could fight crime.</p>

[bmwdan13]

<p>This thread is getting ridiculous, just when it seemed that the conflict was at least agreed to have ended.</p>

[kyzan]

<p>“Name three people from the graduating class of Yale (or Princeton, or anywhere else for that matter, as long as it’s sale side or analysis work–ETF/intranet/whatever tech stuff isn’t what we’re talking about here) 2007 that went into hedge funds who didn’t get their jobs as a result of (a) nepotism, (b) working for the companies during their undergraduate years. I’ll wait.”</p>

<p>You’re right. They got their jobs due to connections and internships. However, that still proves me right when I clearly stated earlier that there are undergrads who go straight into hedge funds.</p>

<p>If you don’t know your averages by now, I think you should go back to elementary school. But then again, maybe you are the one who should be training to prevent forest fires. We won’t miss people like you in higher educational institutions. Really.</p>

<p>“I’d like to see you do a sampling of the financials in the Northeast to get firm numbers on how many people you’ll talk to will be from Stern or Columbia compared to… Well, pretty much any other school. It would be cute if you’d do the same thing on the West coast and see who’s from the Claremonts, Stanford and the UC’s. I think you’d be surprised by the results. And by surprised, I mean you have no idea what the results would be now, so basically whatever you found out would be a step in the right direction RE: knowledge.”</p>

<p>Why don’t you go right ahead? I’ll give you a cookie when you’re done to make you feel better when you realize that the average Stern grad places at a less prestigious investment bank than the average HYPWharton grad.</p>

<p>Then again, why don’t you go to career services at HYP+Wharton. Maybe they can tell you how many people they send to bulge bracket firms. </p>

<p>“What, precisely, would be your qualifications other than incredibly insightful forum commentary? I, too, am insightful, and I would like to be insightful with you. We could fight crime.”</p>

<p>Not together we can’t. You’re counterintuitive and worst, just wrong sometimes. Look, I’m not usually arrogant, but if you keep on insisting that you schools such as Stern, UCB, Chicago, or Williams have better job placements than Yale, I’m going to go out of my way and stereotype you as someone who probably isn’t getting into HYP and now is having to deal with a drastic inferiority complex. You, out of all people, as business inclined as you are, should realize that incessantly repeating incorrect statements doesn’t make them true. </p>

<p>So, to bring my post to a reconciliatory note, I’m not saying that Stern, UCB, or Chicago or whatever have bad job placements. I agree that grads from those schools are rather fortunate in competing for jobs against just about every other tier of schools besides HYPSMWharton (and yes, Yale is included).
If your previous posts, you say that Yale’s graduate econ department is relatively weak compared to HPMSChicago. I would agree. But grad econ rankings and undergrad job placement are completely irrelevant in what we are talking about.</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>

You’re right. They got their jobs due to connections and internships. However, that still proves me right when I clearly stated earlier that there are undergrads who go straight into hedge funds.

Oh, well… If they got their jobs due to internships, and hedge funds actively recruit college students in the same way the rest of the financial industry does, then I guess no one has ever gotten a job at UBS without an internship out of college? I mean, it’s obviously the same thing, and it’s not incredibly rare, and pretty much hedge funds are exactly the same as investment banks. Experience is good, but they love kids out of undergrad. I am glad you have cleared this up for me, because for some reason I used to falsely believe that it was incredibly rare for hedge funds to actively recruit students with no work experience they had no ties to.

If you don’t know your averages by now, I think you should go back to elementary school. But then again, maybe you are the one who should be training to prevent forest fires. We won’t miss people like you in higher educational institutions. Really.

What average? You have no average. You have no numbers. Where’s the statistic for how much a Yale graduate in economics makes in the first three years out of school compared to a graduate from Chicago, or MIT, or Williams? </p>

<p>I’m pretty sure in elementary school when they teach basic arithmetic they don’t say “well, two times three is six. Why? Because.” I love this Tami argument, it’s so much better than mine was, I’m amazed I survived on sheer stubbornness as long as I did.</p>

<p>You have no numbers to prove anything you say. You have no rankings to prove anything you say (and, the only rankings we could use would be graduate rankings, where the Yale lags behind the rest–although I kind of think those graduate rankings are ******** anyway). You have no industry data to prove anything you say. So… Again, what we’re left with is insight, and the two of us fighting crime.

Why don’t you go right ahead? I’ll give you a cookie when you’re done to make you feel better when you realize that the average Stern grad places at a less prestigious investment bank than the average HYPWharton grad.

According to who? Where? What, when, why, how? What’s the average? What’s the sampling size you derived the average from?</p>

<p>Do you work in the financial industry? Are you a professional headhunter? Do you have your own HR company? Are the head of a career services department at a major university?

Not together we can’t. You’re counterintuitive and worst, just wrong sometimes. Look, I’m not usually arrogant, but if you keep on insisting that you schools such as Stern, UCB, Chicago, or Williams have better job placements than Yale, I’m going to go out of my way and stereotype you as someone who probably isn’t getting into HYP and now is having to deal with a drastic inferiority complex. You, out of all people, as business inclined as you are, should realize that incessantly repeating incorrect statements doesn’t make them true.

Actually, my initial claim was that Princeton has a better undergraduate economics program than Yale, and so do a few others (Harvard, Wharton, etc). The job placement claim was that Wharton has better job placement than just about anyone. The Stern/Columbia thing is a result of access, because their graduates are generally able to work during the year, even if it’s just part-time, which is something very few other schools can match. I’ve never said UCB or Chicago have better job placement (and I think their undergraduate offerings are not nearly as strong as their amazing graduate programs), although I probably alluded to it with Williams. My rankings on page one were my personal views of a combination of job placement and overall quality of departments. Which is generally what people are looking for on this forum–opinions. I think it’s why that chance subforum exists.

So, to bring my post to a reconciliatory note, I’m not saying that Stern, UCB, or Chicago or whatever have bad job placements. I agree that grads from those schools are rather fortunate in competing for jobs against just about every other tier of schools besides HYPSMWharton (and yes, Yale is included).
If your previous posts, you say that Yale’s graduate econ department is relatively weak compared to HPMSChicago. I would agree. But grad econ rankings and undergrad job placement are completely irrelevant in what we are talking about.

I understand we’re on page four so you’re a little lost now. We’re talking about, (1) in response to the OP: how does Yale’s econ program compares to Harvard, (2) in response to the OP: Economics or Economics and Mathematics, which is better for one who wants to more econ and finance (I guess econ and math for finance if they do a lot of statistical analysis, presumably economics for economics), (3) from later posts: the job placement out of the undergraduate program, (4) from later posts: the quality of the undergraduate program.</p>

<p>This is still funny to me because I intend to go into an econ program and if I had to choose between any of these schools and Yale I would choose Yale, but I’m not enough of a fanboy to think that Yale would get me better job placement in the financial industry out of college than Wharton. We’ve come full-circle: first I was arguing on things that could not be measured (the quality of X undergraduate program compared to X undergraduate program), and now you’re arguing the same thing while I’m saying you can’t possibly know. This is bizarre.</p>

[bmwdan13]

<p>Truce, everyone?</p>

[tetrishead]

<p>^ Only if someone acknowledges my Yale v. Wharton Thunderdome analogy as being as funny as I thought it was.</p>