Best colleges for math and economics

College Search & Selection
61

<p>I agree acceptance rate is not a good measure (being in NYC gives it a boost probably). I think stats like SATs are extremely good measures.</p>

<p>If we can't measure based on students, I guess we should measure undergrad strength solely by how many nobel prizes the school's faculty has. I'm sure that'll be better...</p>

<p>Anyways, if the strength of the students didn't matter, I guess Harvard or Columbia would accept everyone - after all, they already have great faculty, whats to gain from having great students?</p>

62

<p>Columbia has about 90 NAS members. Cal has over 200 and UM has about 80. UCB has 10,000,000 library volumes, Columbia has 9.5 million and Um has 8.4 million. UCB gets more journals by about a few thousand over Columbia. But Um gets over 25,000 more than both of them. I'd bet a few bucks that Cal and UM have more and better science and engineering labs and facilities than Columbia.</p>

63

<p>It's the elite school circlejerk. We have higher SAT scores therefore we must be better than XYZ.</p>

64

<p>That's difficult to do Joshua, for either of us. Reasons I would personally pick Columbia undergrad over Berkeley/Michigan:</p>

<p>1) Much smaller student body = more personal attention
2) Strong economics/math program with stellar placement
3) Stronger students overall
4) More prestige and stronger reputation</p>

<p>If you'd like to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt how Cal or Mich is stronger than Columbia at math/econ, go right ahead.</p>

65

<p>Ditto to Brand, at the non-HYPSM Ivies and other similar elite schools, the students you are around are stronger, the overall reputation is better, the professional placement is better, you are in a smaller student body with more focused attention, etc. etc. I've been repeating this for a while and laugh when people argue against the obvious. </p>

<p>Cal and Mich are good schools, but there really isn't anyway the students are on par with those at the schools I named. they are certainly top 25, similar in quality to Boston College, Lehigh, and Bucknell. </p>

<p>Joshua, obviously everything I'm saying is my opinion - but I like to back it up with facts, which I've done thoroughly - I've pointed out that Columbia, Penn, Brown, Duke, Dartmouth, etc. all have stronger students, better professional school placement, higher median stats, better faculty/student ratios, and just better reputation overall (and yeah, I don't buy the peer assessment garbage, there are plenty of threads on why its a bad measure, but people who like state schools tend to live by it while denouncing every other measure of the US News, which are all unfavorable to state schools). </p>

<p>You, on the other hand, seem to think Cal and Mich are top 10 schools with no evidence to prove it, but instead you just say that everything I say doesn't count. Nice argument. </p>

<p>Again, everything I say is my opinion. I obviously went the private school route and all my peers did as well - so I'm biased in the view that schools like Cal and Mich are simply not on par with Ivy schools. Not only do stats prove me correct, but the students I know who go to actual top 10 schools are of a much higher caliber than those admitted to Mich and other top schools but not top 10, like BC or Lehigh (I don't know anyone who applied to Cal since I'm from the Northeast, but BC and Lehigh undergrads are just as strong as Mich and Cal).</p>

66

<p>BC is DEFINATELY NOT comparable to Mich or Cal B in quality (I live on the East coast btw). UM and UCB are more respected and more prestigious in the US and abroad. How many qualified international students do you see going to Boston College, compared to UM and UCB? And how many of BC's individual programs are ranked in the top 10 or top 20? </p>

<p>IMO, UM and UCB are definately top 10 schools. The fact that they're state universities makes them go down in rankings. If you compare the top students at UCB and UM with students at Columbia, NU, Duke etc, they are of the same calibre.</p>

67

<p>Uh, I'm not sure why BC is not comparable to Mich or Cal in quality? Same with Lehigh, which is a peer school of BC.</p>

<p>Ok, this is a fair statement - the top students at UCB and UM are on par with the average students at Columbia, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, etc.</p>

68

<p>LMAO^^^</p>

<p>Lehigh and BC? Give me a break. They don't compare to UM and UCB. Please.</p>

<p>I think your second statement sounds fair.</p>

69

<p>I'll have to agree with Mighty Nick on this one. The students at UMich/UCB may be pretty similar to those at BC/Lehigh but I think the opportunities and overall strengths of UMich/Cal are considerably better.</p>

70

<p>Barrons - the center report seems to focus heavily on research and $$$$. how again is that extremely relevant to an undergraduate education? no mention of even the top LACs obviously...if this discussion is about which college is best for math/econ undergrad, I'm not sure how that's helpful.</p>

71

<p>
[quote]
I'll have to agree with Mighty Nick on this one. The students at UMich/UCB may be pretty similar to those at BC/Lehigh but I think the opportunities and overall strengths of UMich/Cal are considerably better.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I got accepted at Lehigh but waitlisted by UM when i applied in high school.</p>

72

<p>Research money is typically awarded to the best people in that field. To get lots of money you have to have lots of people doing very good work. It would not apply to LACs which are harder to judge on this type of criteria. The average prof teaches 6 hours of class a week. That's it. They have plenty of time to do classes and research if the work a little bit harder. Will a top research prof take the time to make you dinner--not too likely. But if you show real interest and dedication they will spend enough time with you to matter.</p>

73

<p>thethoughtprocess, if you are talking about selectivity, I agree that Michigan, and to a lesser extent, Cal, are not exactly the most selective. So yes, I agree with you, Cal and Michigan are not top 10 selective universities. </p>

<p>But I thought we were discussing academic quality and reputation (where it matters, in the eyes of academe and the corporate World, not in the eyes of high school students and their generally not too educated parents). In that case, Cal and Michigan are top 10 universities. And I include more than 15 universities in my list of "top 10" universities because I don't believe there is a way one can truly differentiate between those 15+ universities...not without ignoraing certain facts or making gross generalizations.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
I got accepted at Lehigh but waitlisted by UM when i applied in high school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OOS?</p>

<p>Barrons, I understand the importance of research and having great professors around, but seeing as that ranking focuses on these things almost exclusively, I don't think it is an accurate representation of the best school for undergraduate students.</p>

75

<p>Yes I am out of state for both.</p>

76

<p>What you consider "gross generalizations" I consider "looking at the obvious"</p>

<p>To each his own, I still believe Mich and Cal aren't significantly better than Lehigh, BC, or similar private schools -smaller classes, similar student bodies in strength, and lots of opportunities for undergrads.</p>

<p>I'm talking about undergrad for everything btw.</p>

77

<p>I guess that's why Bain, BCS, Booz Allen, McKinsey, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lazard, Morgan Stanley, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin and several other exclusive companies all list Michigan as one of the 10 or so campuses where they recruit undergrads the hardest. </p>

<p>Yes, you are right, it is obvious that Michigan and Cal are not a top 10 universities. But you know what, as long as the aforementioned companies and the entire academic World think that Michigan and Cal are top 10 universities, your "obvious" conclusion is yours to cherish!</p>

78

<p>I agree that they are top 10 schools for grad work - which is probably what the academic world pays attention to. So I don't think they disagree with me there. I'm glad me and the academic world agree on something. I doubt most elite academics pay any attention to undergrad in the first place. </p>

<p>I'm guessing the students who choose Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, Duke, Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Georgetown, etc. over Michigan or Berkeley agree with me too. So I guess I'm in good company.</p>

<p>In fact, the best students who don't get into HYPSM aim for the rest of the Ivy-plus, or even other top privates like Emory or Vandy. Michigan is just too impersonal a school and too unselective (lets lots of in-state kids in, even though really competetive for OOS) for plenty of kids who would rather go to a similar quality yet smaller private school than Michigan. Thats not to say there aren't people who would love to go to Michigan over similar private schools either, but I'd think the number would be smaller.</p>

79

<p>thethoughtprocess, you would be surprised at the number of students at Michigan and Cal who turn down the Ivies and the likes of Duke or NU or Chicago to attend Cal or Michigan. I turned down 4 Ivies (including Columbia, my mother's alma matter) as well as Chicago, Duke, Georgetown (my father's alma matter) and NU to attend Michigan. </p>

<p>At any point in time, there are thousands of students on either campus that turned down those universities to attend Cal and Michigan, and many of them, myself included, didn't do so for financial reasons. But I agree that the average teenager will probably pick an Ivy League over Michigan or Cal. I never said Cal and Michigan were winning the cross-admit battle. </p>

<p>As for Michigan being impersonal, don't knock it until you see it. Michigan is not impersonal. It is large, and it is overwhelming, but those who attend it grow accustomed to its size and eventually love it like no other. </p>

<p>But we are now discussing preferences. Preferences, like selectivity are important factors to explore to be sure, but they do not determine an undergraduate institution's quality or reputation. </p>

<p>"I agree that they are top 10 schools for grad work - which is probably what the academic world pays attention to. So I don't think they disagree with me there. I'm glad me and the academic world agree on something."</p>

<p>The Peer Assessment Score is pretty clear on where the academic world stands on Cal and Michigan as undergraduate institutions. Afterall, the PA asks high ranking university officials to rate the quality of undergraduate education at universities in their peer group. Cal is tied with Caltech and Columbia at #6 and Michigan is tied with Duke and Penn at #12. So no, I do not think that the academic world agrees with your assessment.</p>

<p>Gerhard Casper (a Yale educated scholar, at one time the dean of the Chicago Law School and ultimately, the President of Stanford University throughout the 90s) spells it out very nicely in paragraph 4 of the article linked below. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Cal and Michigan are his "prima facie". The crux of his entire argument as it were! Trust me, if he made those two schools the central part of his argument, it is because it is common knowledge in academic circles that Cal and Michigan are top 10 universities.</p>

<p>"I'm guessing the students who choose Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, Duke, Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Georgetown, etc. over Michigan or Berkeley agree with me too. So I guess I'm in good company."</p>

<p>Yes, you are in good company...but I much prefer the company of the world's leading intellectuals (who collectively seem to think Cal and Michigan are top 10 universities) and exclusive companies (who recreuit very heavily at Cal and Michigan).</p>

80

<p>Alexandre, I've always questioned the Peer Assessment score - how can a academic dean at one school be able to rate every other undergraduate school objectively? They can't. They just look at grad school strength and overall prestige and assign a ranking of that nature. </p>

<p>However, I agree acceptance rate and selectivity is a bad measure - Michigan's location probably hurts it a great deal since its away from the Northeast.</p>

<p>When I chose schools, I valued size, strength of my fellow students, and opportunities. Empirically, strength of student and size favor the private schools - the students at Dartmouth, Duke, Penn, Columbia, etc. are, without any doubt, empirically stronger than those at Michigan. In terms of opportunities - you make your opportunities yourself, but again, at a smaller school you will have more individual attention.</p>

<p>I believe, of course, that top companies will recruit at Michigan. Its one of the best schools in the nation, and one of the best in the region, and has a huge student body as well as top professional programs. That doesn't make Michigan on par with Dartmouth, Columbia, Penn, Duke, etc. </p>

<p>I mean, all of those companies recruit at dozens of schools - I am arguing that Michigan is not a top 10 school, not a non-top 25 school.</p>