Awesome schools for economics??

College Search & Selection
81

<p>The PhD rankings are a measure of a lot of things:</p>

<p>a) type of student body, in terms of percentage interested in hard-core academics. No large public university is going to ever do well on a per capita index because the bulk of their students aren't really hand selected for, or have any particular aptitude for, academics. It's like comparing college rates between a private prep school and a public high school. </p>

<p>b) type of career path, PhDs. imply reasearch, academic, teaching, type jobs. </p>

<p>c) quality of the program, which includes research an/or teaching measures. A program can be excellent because it has a lot of reknowned researchers. Or, it can be excellent because of the quality of the teaching, professor/student mentoring, etc. These lists consistently mimic the "best" colleges and universities. In this case, note how closely the raw numbers and/or the per capita PhD. numbers echo Alexandre's recommendations for great schools in his field.</p>

<p>d) Size of the department at a particular school. A useful measure. Obviously, if you want a school with a "strong economics department", you expect that a sizeable percentage of students enjoy the department sufficiently to become majors.</p>

<p>e) Overall, "feel" of the university. As I look at these charts, they remain remarkable consistent across various departments. To me, they indicate a school that, as a whole, is academically focused. Conversely, these lists also tend to be revealing about some "well-known" private universities that aren't all that academically inclined as well -- particularly when you see the same rankings across many departments. </p>

<p>Would I choose a college based solely on any of these lists? Heck, no. Nor would I choose a college based on the "strength" of a single department -- unless it were in a niche field where the typical school simply doesn't offer much.</p>

<p>Like any other measure (SATs, graduation rates, binge drinking rates, percentage of varsity athletes, percentage of frats, diversity, percentage on financial aid, etc.), it's just a data point. It takes many data points to get a sense of an institution.</p>

82

<p>Agree with lots of this, my main point is adjust the denominators to include only the liberal arts colleges of these universities, and not their colleges of engineering, agriculture. conservatory,etc. and you'll get a more revealing datapoint for valid comparison. IMO. Apples to apples.</p>

<p>Cornell is not a worse place to study economics simply because they have a large engineering school there as well. This in no way impairs one's ability to study economics there, or the quality of the scholarship in their economics department. Oberlin is not a worse place to study economics than some others simply because it has a lage conservatory in addition to its liberal arts college. If you don't make these adjustments you are prone to drawing false conclusions.</p>

83

<p>Conversely, if you make these adjusments, then you are prone to make a different set of false conclusions. </p>

<p>For example, you might overlook the fact that Swarthmore also has a "large" (the term has to be used loosely when talking about Swarthmore!) engineering program as well. By pulling that out, you miss the fact that Swat produces 35 future Engineering doctorates per 1000 undergrads (compared to 36 per 1000 at Georgia Tech).</p>

<p>Or, by disregarding the conservatory at Oberlin, you would fail to account for the significant "share of mind" that the music program occupies in terms of OVERALL student interest and institutional resources at Oberlin. A better way, IMO, to account for those differences is to look at these kinds of departmental lists across a wide range of departments. I haven't done the "music and arts" llst yet, but Oberlin produces 66 doctorates per 1000 undergrads in those fields compared to 27 at Swarthmore, 22 at Yale, and 18 each at Smith, Carelton, and Wellesley, 17 at Amherst, and 15 each at Harvard and Williams. If we pulled the Conservatory out of the picture, we would miss the overall emphasis on music at Oberlin -- one of its defining characteristics. Those points of emphasis cut both directions: they boost the numbers in those areas and divert interest/focus away from other areas.</p>

<p>I have seen a study done by a Williams professor that actually calculated PhDs as a ratio of number of majors at top LACs in the three broad academic divisions. That is a serious amount of work, but it wouldn't be that hard to do, even on a department by department basis. Just use the ten-year totals and a ten-year average for number of majors at each school. I'll be glad to e-mail you raw total spreadsheets if you want to get started!</p>

84

<p>The adjustments that are appropriate depend upon the question you are adressing. </p>

<p>For example, this thread is entitled "awesome schools for economics".</p>

<p>You presented your data, with ranking on a % of students, to address the question of this thread.</p>

<p>In the context of this thread, given the question at hand, I respectfully submit that your methodology is to an extent flawed, for the reasons I've stated above. It implies false preferences to certain institutions over others, for reasons that are not gemane to the point at all. Your method is perhaps valid or even preferable to address other questions in other hypothetical threads, other than this one.</p>

<p>You are free to disagree. I've said enough.</p>

85

<p>It's more a matter of practicality than anything else. If you pull the music and engineering students out of one school, you have to go school by school by school and pull those fields out of the data to get an apples to apples comparison. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that it wouldn't be worth looking at. I am saying that the amount of work involved in that exercise is hefty.</p>

<p>It would be easy to do for a limited number of schools by simply starting with the raw totals and researching each school to find out how many majors there are, on average, in that field. It's not something that I find sufficiently interesting to bother with; I don't even believe in the concept of choosing an undergrad college based on a specific department. But, somebody else could do the tabulation and post it.</p>

86

<p>I think the info is very handy for comparing similar schools--Cal, Mich, Wisconsin as group vs. other large schools and LAC's as another group with Swat an obviously outstanding program.</p>

87

<p>Regardless of what schools create future PhD's, schools like Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, and MIT are known for their econ departments. We can manipulate numbers all we want but at the end of the day those schools I mentioned (and quite a few others of course) are known for having the strongest econ departments. If someone doesnt like those schools there is nothing wrong with that. Just dont attend/recomend any of them. Still, we cannot take away the greatness of widly recognized incredible econ departments.</p>

88

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>" A great department does not necessarily produce many PhDs. Many top Econ programs send many of their students to industry and eventually, on to get MBAs or Law degrees."</p>

<p>I agree completely. The number of future PhDs has nothing at all to do with the original question. The OP was asking about undergraduate programs in economics. Many students that pursue an undergraduate degree in economics have no interest at all in pursuing a PhD. These same students could also be the best and brightest undergraduate economics students!</p>

89

<p>Can anyone tell me about the econ program at Yale? How does it compare to Harvard's program in terms of student teacher interaction, philosophy (Keynesian vs. Classical) and in terms of practicality (theory vs. case studies and real applications)?</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
I think the info is very handy for comparing similar schools--Cal, Mich, Wisconsin as group vs. other large schools and LAC's as another group with Swat an obviously outstanding program.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely. I think the entire college section process has to be based around groupings of schools.</p>

<p>To me, the absolute most fundamental step in choosing a college is to visit and investigate the strengths and weaknesses of three different size schools: large state universities, mid-size private universities, and small undergrad colleges.</p>

<p>Clearly the strength of the small undergrad colleges is the sheer concentration of academically-inclined students. The student bodies at many of these schools look like the honors colleges at larger schools (very distilled academic quality) and that shows up in things like PhD production.</p>

<p>Conversely, the strength of the large schools is the sheer breadth and depth of offerings.</p>

<p>Each type of school has its dinstinct disadvantages. As parents, I think our role is to present the strengths and weaknesses of all three types of schools, make sure our kids visit all three types, and support them in any preference they express. Sometimes, that requires playing "devil's advocate". For example, I was the proponent of large state universities in our household, despite the fact that I don't think they necessarily provide the best overall undergrad education. Didn't stop me from pointing out the very real pluses these top state universities offer, just to make sure they got a fair shake. There are clearly things a kid can get at UVa that he can't get at a small liberal arts college -- and conversely.</p>

91

<p>If the original poster is talking about undergraduate economics, the poster should look at:</p>

<ol>
<li>The ranking of the faculty of the department</li>
<li>The requirements of the major (make sure econometrics is required)</li>
<li>The professors of the classes (make sure the most well known professors actually teach undergraduate classes)</li>
<li>The requirements for a bachelors degree in general (your major is only 1/3 of the classes you take)</li>
<li>Econ/Math or Econ/International Studies or Econ/Politics/Philisophy options</li>
</ol>

<p>Basically, Econ PHD rankings aren't too relevant unless you want to do an Econ PhD, which most Econ majors don't want to do. More important is the overall undergraduate reputation, along with the size and the reputation of the econ department.</p>

92

<p>Prauger- I'm a Yale econ major. The first thing you should go is go to the online blue book and look at the courses available:</p>

<p><a href="http://students.yale.edu/oci/ycps/ycpsProgramCourses.jsp?subject=ECON&dept=Economics%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://students.yale.edu/oci/ycps/ycpsProgramCourses.jsp?subject=ECON&dept=Economics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Most introductory classes are taught in large lectures by pretty good professors. Teaching assistants then hold smaller "sections" to go over lectures and problem sets. You can meet with professors during their designated office ours for help, and you can meet with TAs. Also, some introductory classes are taught in small lectures where you interact with the prof in class (Econ 110-111). Later, in the required seminars, teacher/student interaction is close, obviously because professors teach 15 person classes. Overall, teacher/student interaction is what you make of it.</p>

<p>Both Kenysian and Classical Economics are presented, but which one the class slants to depends entirely on whose teaching any particular class.</p>

<p>Introductary and intermediate classes are mostly theory based. Most other classes are half or mostly theory, and some case studies / applications. The seminars tend to be more application.</p>

<p>Basically econ is a great, solid major here with a large infrastructure and some world famous scholars, almost all of whom teach and undergraduate course or two. Also, if you are more math inclined, Yale offers an Economics and Mathematics major.</p>

93

<p>Man those courses look good.</p>

94

<p>Idad: enrollment data of majors within particular colleges : impossible to gather & deal with, I quite agree.</p>

<p>Enrollment data for students in completely different colleges within a university, eg College of Arts & Sciences, vs. completely separate College of Engineering, having separate admissions, etc: readily available.</p>

<p>Strip out specialized schools with separate admissions and then, for the most part, just left with comparing Arts & Sciences vs. LAC arts & sciences; much closer to "Apples to Apples"; though not perfect.</p>

<p>I'll admit I'm not going to do the work, though.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
Enrollment data for students in completely different colleges within a university, eg College of Arts & Sciences, vs. completely separate College of Engineering, having separate admissions, etc: readily available.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alas, the distinction between "schools" and "departments" is often one one of semantics or adminstration convenience. For example, within the context of the size of a place like Swarthmore, the Engineering department is every bit as independent as the "Engineering School" at a larger place. It doesn't even award the same degree as the rest of the students receive. It doesn't have its own dean because, simply put, how many deans do you need for 1500 students?</p>

<p>I understand and agree with your point. I just don't know how to deal with it from a practical standpoint.</p>

96

<p>From a practical standpoint I suggest you deal with it by eliminating the special-purpose college enrollment from a university's student population in the denominator. Since these are separate colleges with separate admissions standards and practices, it's evident in most cases that these are clearly more than "administrative" distinctions. </p>

<p>An applicant can only apply to one of the colleges at a university in any event, and there are not many economics phD hopefuls in, eg, a university's College of Architecture.</p>

<p>That's how I would try to deal with it from a practical standpoint.</p>

<p>Failing that, just recognize that the data without adjustment is of limited utility in making meaningful distinctions among institutions. And don't present the analysis without the requisite caveats about its applicability.</p>

97

<p>the flaw in those PhD rankings is that they dont factor in class sizes. princetons graduating classes are significantly smaller than those of harvard, yale, and stanford, and then of course the LACs are even smaller than that.</p>

98

<p>
[quote]
And don't present the analysis without the requisite caveats about its applicability.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sounds like people would prefer that I not post the data. That's cool; it's kind of a pain the butt to do, anyway.</p>

99

<p>Thanks YaleSocietyMember! Can you give me any recommendations of professors or tell me where to look to find course evaluations? </p>

<p>What is the work load of a econ major? a math/econ major?</p>

100

<p>
[quote]
By pulling that out, you miss the fact that Swat produces 35 future Engineering doctorates per 1000 undergrads (compared to 36 per 1000 at Georgia Tech).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>interestedadd,</p>

<p>How could you present the stats when you didn't even understand what exactly those numbers are? LOL! The number "35" is NOT 35 per 1000 undergrads. 35 is the total FROM TEN YEARS! Hope you see the huge difference.</p>