<p>Hey everyone - any information would be helpful!!!</p>
<p>I previously had no idea what to major in, but I am now seriously considering economics (I'm a junior, I'll probably still change my mind...). I don't feel like listing my stats, but they are at the level where I will be applying to Ivy League schools. However, I need some more safety schools, or schools just under the Ivy ranking where there is a good econ program. Any suggestions?</p>
<p>Thanks :)</p>
<p>University of Chicago</p>
<p>University of Chicago or UC Berkeley</p>
<p>Chicago, MIT, Stanford, NYU, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UWisconsin, Northwestern, UMichigan, UMinnesota, and quite a few more excellent programs.</p>
<p>Dartmouth has a strong econ program... it's one of our most popular majors. We also benefit from the Tuck School of Business which brings a lot of speakers to campus.</p>
<p>Claremont McKenna College</p>
<p>Everyone can put whatever school they want to but mackinaw's list is seriously pretty good.</p>
<p>the schools on mackinaw's list all have superb PhD programs but my guess is the OP is asking about undergrad programs. If so, my guess is that few of them are good choices to be "awesome schools" because of the large size and impersonal education they deliver to undergrads.</p>
<p>Take UCLA for example. On the web page at <a href="http://www.econ.ucla.edu/8threview/8yrreview.pdf%5B/url%5D">www.econ.ucla.edu/8threview/8yrreview.pdf</a> is a self-review by the Economics department done a few years ago. If you examine the report you will see the following: "**Economics undergraduates must contend with a dearth of ladder faculty, a lack of diversity in the courses offered, and limited student-faculty interaction<a href="emphasis%20mine">/b</a>. Our honors program is moribund, with less than 1 percent of our students completing senior theses. Students can easily choose a course of study that will excuse them from having to write a term paper or from having to make a significant oral presentation during their undergraduate years, despite the fact that we know that writing and communication skills are the cornerstones of successful careers. These conditions are also essentially unchanged since the last review. The share of undergraduate teaching done by ladder faculty plummeted from 40 percent of students in the early 1990s to a mere 25 percent by the middle of the decade. Obviously, with upper-division class sizes averaging 100, few students develop either the skills or the contact with faculty required for them to contemplate devoting time to independent research. We continue to struggle to deliver an adequate number of courses to students in our four undergraduate majors, let alone meet the demands of students in other programs at UCLA. Clearly, the department cannot hope to offer a quality education in economics without a major change either in the supply of courses or in the demand for economics as a major. " </p>
<p>Only 1/4 of the teaching done by dept faculty? Upper-division classes averging over 100? A struggle to deliver an adequate number of courses? To me these are not the hallmarks of an awesome program!! </p>
<p>And I don't mean to pick on ucla. My guess is that you'd find a similar situation at most large public schools. Here is my advice. For undergrads, focus on the type of education you receive rather than the reputation of the major. Look for small classes where the profs will get to know you and there is an opportunity to participate in class discussions. Pick a school that is challenging for someone of your abilities. Choose a school with students you'd feel comfortable with; strong liberalism or conservatism or a religious/non-religious bent isn't for everyone. Aim for a college that pays attention to its undergrads rather than focusing on its grad students. This doesn't mean avoid universities, even larger ones, but you need to spend the time to find out what the undergrad experience is like at ones that interest you.</p>
<p>The first school on the lost Chicago, has less than 4,000 undergrads</p>
<p>Bettina is right about U of Chicago. My daughter advises that, most of her classes (even the core curriculum classes) have about 20 students per class and are taught by full professors.</p>
<p>Right about that. My son went to Chicago and majored in economics. Regarding other research universities, you have to keep in mind that "average class size" or even how many courses are taught by faculty doesn't tell you much for the typical well above average student who is posting on this board. All of these schools (including UCLA) have residential or honors programs and all have honors courses in which enrollments tend to be limited and all courses are taught by faculty.</p>
<p>Fastracer, you are entitled to your opinion of what makes a program good but I need to correct you on at least one part of your post and give my opinion so that yours is not the only one heard.</p>
<p>Only 1/4 of the teaching done by dept faculty?</p>
<p>The information you provided never said that ¼ of the teaching is done by faculty! It mentioned ladder faculty which means the more important faculty members. If UCLA undergrads have access to even 25% of some very important faculty members, that is still better than most schools. Most schools dont have faculty like UCLA. Even if undergrads are only taught by 25% of such faculty, that still is pretty damn good considering the size of the UCLA econ department.</p>
<p>Upper-division classes averging [sic] over 100? </p>
<p>I understand that many people dont like large classes. Thats fine but just because some people dont like large classes, there are many that do. For example, I think the large class environment and the competitiveness associated with it brings out the best in students. Competing for limited grades ensures students dont slack off. Aside from that, what people fail to understand is that classes generally break off into smaller sections of about 20 students that are taught by TAs. TAs dont teach classes; they only teach sections. I cannot see how having a small section to compliment the larger class is a bad thing. UCLA undergrads now have two people to go to for help; the professor and the TA. Keep in mind that these Ph.D students are among the brightest young economists in the world. They are more than bright enough to help out with undergraduate coursework.</p>
<p>A struggle to deliver an adequate number of courses? </p>
<p>In winter 2005 UCLA econ undergrads have 26 classes to choose from. That doesnt sound like too few for me. In my studies at UCLA, I have never worried about the number of classes to choose from.</p>
<p>To me these are not the hallmarks of an awesome program!!</p>
<p>I give you credit for at least admitting that this is only your opinion. In my opinion, I think one should go to a school where there is a good fit. For example, dont go to UCLA if you dont like large classes. If you are looking for a good program, you should look at a school that has top notch faculty and a good reputation. University of Chicago, MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, and yes, even UCLA all fit that description.</p>
<p>shyboy13, thanks for posting and giving another opinion. I think we're in agreeement that person needs to decide what they want their college experience to be like. I'm not intending to bash ucla or any other school; I could probably have written the same about any large public U had I found an internal dept. review on the web. Clearly you're happy with your experience; others, I'm sure you'll agree, may have different preferences regarding class size, who teaches the class, and so on.</p>
<p>For the OP and other HS students who may be confused by "dept faculty" and "ladder faculty" references, and also wonder why should they care, a bit of info. At college your classes may be taught by TA's who are graduate students, by lecturers, by adjunct professors, and by those on tenure track (or with tenure). Colleges run on an "up-or-out" system. If you are hired in a position that could get tenure you have a fixed number of years to gain tenure or you must leave. Tenure is a lifetime appointment. </p>
<p>Many colleges (including ucla) limit the number of years someone not on tenure may teach at the school. See <a href="http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=18160%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=18160</a> for an interesting article about a lecturer who won the UCLA Distinguished Faculty award and still had to leave. </p>
<p>Not only does the time limit contribute to churn, but the schools themselves often hire faculty members part-time in order to avoid paying benefits. At many schools the lecturers hold down jobs at 2 or 3 colleges, racing between them in order to work enough hours to earn a living. At UCLA, BTW, its not just the dept of Economics; compared to the rest of the UC schools, the UCLA Faculty Senate notes UCLA has the lowest ratio of primary undergraduate courses offered by regular rank ladder faculty. See <a href="http://www.senate.ucla.edu/SenateVoice/Issue5/emailnov06.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.senate.ucla.edu/SenateVoice/Issue5/emailnov06.htm</a> </p>
<p>I didn't use the term ladder previously since I didn't think most HS students would know what it meant, but the ladder faculty are those I would consider the dept faculty since they are the ones designing the curriculum and providing the continuity of the program. Everyone else is the hired help. And at UCLA only 1/4 of those teaching the econ classes are ladder faculty.</p>
<p>Bottom line, though, shyboy13 -- your dispute is not with me. The paragraph from which you are extracting and disputing sentences were not my words; it was pasted directly from the report written by the UCLA economics department!! Better to go and tell them their own report is wrong.</p>
<p>To those who have pointed out Univ. of Chicago as having a small size, they of course are right. My original posting was somewhat poorly written; I didn't mean to say that all the schools listed by mackinaw were large, just that the ones that are large are not good choices in my opinion. Stanford was mentioned, and it has only about 6,000 undergrads.</p>
<p>However mackinaw again goes astray in the 2nd post suggesting that honors colleges are a panacea at larger U's. At ucla and most other larger schools, the academic part of the college honors program mostly consists of classes and seminars the 1st two years in college. For the economic dept specifically, the ucla econ honor program basically consists of writing a thesis under the guidance of a faculty member. No small classes, no ladder faculty. You take the same classes as everyone else. See <a href="http://www.econ.ucla.edu/undergrad/honors.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.econ.ucla.edu/undergrad/honors.html</a></p>
<p>I think you are "going astray" here by taking what you think is true about UCLA and generalizing to all the large research universities that I listed (with Chicago and Stanford excepted). What UCLA may or may not do for honors students has no bearing on what other schools may do.</p>
<p>I referred to residential and honors college type programs that exist at many universities. And I can assure you that at the two that I have worked at, and a third that I studied for the PhD at, honors classes ARE small and exist at all levels of the undergraduate program (and across departments) and they are not limited to senior honors classes or theses.</p>
<p>I'll come back to my main point, which is that if you want to find out what the "average class size" is likely to be for someone like yourself, you need to ask the right questions about each college you're investigating.</p>
<p>Mikemac, are you and fastracer the same person? That was a bit confusing for a second. Seriously, I know you clearly stated that it was your opinion a few times so my post was literally meant to give another point of view. And no, I will not dispute the paper we are referring to. Because we are in understanding, I see no reason to argue with you. I will say that the link you posted about the UCLA econ department honors program does not really give the whole truth of the honors courses. These courses are specific courses that limit the number of people who can enroll. While many are still large compared to classes at other schools, they are nevertheless smaller in comparison to other UCLA econ classes. These classes are supposed to be a bit more challenging than other classes as well. Some classes are not designated for honors credit but one can still earn honors credit for them if the professor allows. For example, I attended a non-honors class but the professor offered an honors component so that those in the honors program could receive honors credit. We all had to do a research paper and present it to the rest of the honors students. Generally, if a student asks the professor, he/she will work with him/her so they can get honors credit for non-honors courses. The point is that honors classes ARE supposed to be more challenging than non-honors classes. Although these classes have limited enrollment, they still can be taken by non-honors students though. </p>
<p>I just thought Id clear that up.</p>
<p>If your looking for LACs, Colgate is the place to go for economics.</p>
<p>Williams > Colgate.</p>
<p>Colgate>Ivy league</p>
<p>For proof:</p>
<p>Here is some more.
<a href="http://athletics.colgate.edu/MHockey/release.asp?id=3071%5B/url%5D">http://athletics.colgate.edu/MHockey/release.asp?id=3071</a>
<a href="http://athletics.colgate.edu/MHockey/release.asp?id=3064%5B/url%5D">http://athletics.colgate.edu/MHockey/release.asp?id=3064</a></p>
<p>I'm a Junior as well and I'm interested in Economists. From what I have found the following U.'s have very good programs (please correct me if I'm wrong):</p>
<p>U. Chicago (modern econ is based on Chicago school of thought), UPenn, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, MIT, Princeton, Berkley, and Stanford.</p>
<p>I would say I'm personally most interested with U.Chicago, UPenn, and Columbia (probably has worst department of the bunch, but the best location).</p>