Best colleges for math and economics

College Search & Selection
81

<p>Joshua, even though you are responding to someone else's post that I am not familiar with, it again seems like you are confusing grad strength and undergrad strength, even though you think you are not.</p>

<p>Most of your arguments consist of "Well, this isn't a good measure" when someone points out that Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth, etc. have better professor/student ratios, higher test scores across the board, smaller classes...etc....while you provide no actual evidence yourself. </p>

<p>It get annoying to read after a while, because every other poster on this board is offering plenty of evidence to support their claims, regardless of what side of the debate they are on.</p>

<p>Of course, Mich and Berkeley undergrads, as I've said before, are top 20 schools and are comparable to Emory, Vandy, Lehigh, Rice, and BC.</p>

82

<p>Can you just STOP comparing UM and UCB to the likes of Lehigh and BC? Those two schools aren't even in the same league as UM and UCB. Jeez!!</p>

83

<p>Joshua, again, you are misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that random Academic Deans from over 200 colleges do not have intimate knowledge of every one of those 200 colleges and therefore go by graduate strength. </p>

<p>I mean, how can the Dean of Bucknell be familiar with the undergrad strength of Rice, or how can a Dean at Boston University be familiar with how strong the undergrad programs at Duke are compared to Columbia? I doubt they would waste their time and conduct their own research, so instead they go by graduate reputation.</p>

<p>Also, note that US News uses Peer Assesment as one part of its assesment - yet you ignore the entire assesment, and only focus on the part that favors your argument.</p>

<p>However, you aren't even doing that, considering Columbia's PA score is higher than Michigans. Wow.</p>

<p>Btw, There have been extensive threads on this board about the validity of Peer Assessment. Maybe read up on them. This is certainly atleast the 50th time its been debated on a thread in the last year.</p>

84

<p>Joshua - no, I don't say I can. Instead, I look at holistic factors that ARE objective, such as SAT scores, national merit scholars, feeder rankings into top professional schools, etc. Again, please try and follow along better.</p>

<p>Mighty Nick, why would you say that?</p>

<p>The students who go to Mich, Berkeley, BC, Lehigh, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt aren't all that different in quality and strength.</p>

<p>Joshua, the fact that you assume undergrad and grad strength are pretty parallel proves you don't understand this discussion.</p>

85

<p>Lehigh and Boston College are vastly overrated. They're not even in the top 25 schools, and its considerably easier to get into those universities than UM or UCB (especially UCB). I haven't heard of anyone who has chosen Lehigh or BC over UM or UCB - and you claim that those universities are relatively the same in quality. </p>

<p>Lehigh and BC are good schools. Don't get me wrong. But they're vastly overrated because they're private schools, and UM/UCB are not.</p>

86

<p>Joshua</p>

<p>I didn't realize professor/student ratios was based on the students that go there, same with smaller classes.</p>

<p>The school's quality reflects the quality of the students who go there, and vice versa - I thought this was one of the basic tenets of colleges that I assumed everyone was familiar with. </p>

<p>The students who go there are the ones who set the curves in the classes, run extracurriculars, make up the social scene, contribute after graduation, are the face of the university, etc.</p>

<p>Rather than just looking at student strength - maybe a better gauge would be the number of professors there are compared to number of students, the average class size, and the number of resources available to the University per student...oh wait, thats the US News rankings. Looks like Mich and Berk fall pretty short there too of the top 10.</p>

<p>Joshua, I don't think there should be any Peer Assesment score at all - I'm not saying I could do a better job, I'm saying that there is objective, empirical data that can do a better job showing how good a school is, rather than the opinions of people who don't really know about every school. I thought my point of view was obvious, please don't skim posts if you are debating something.</p>

87

<p>Wow josh...do Berk and Mich have labs and libraries that are several times as big? Because they have several times as many grad students.</p>

<p>If you look at endowment per capita you'll see Mich is outside the top 25.</p>

<p>Very high rating in peer assesment? Why do you keep mentioning this when Michigan is not in the top 10 for this.</p>

<p>Internationally renown - THES doesn't even pretend to be an undergraduate ranking. But I'm fairly sure that atleast Columbia, Duke, and Cornell are ahead of Michigan on it. </p>

<p>Very selective - are you kidding? You are comparing Mich and Berk to Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth, Penn. I thought you have been arguing AGAINST selectivity, not for it. Otherwise you are going the wrong side of this debate.</p>

<p>My argument is that Mich and Berk are not top 10 schools - please keep this in mind when posting things. I do believe Mich and Berk are excellent schools - just not top 10.</p>

88

<p>Joshua, I was saying that Mich and Cal ought to have several times the amount of libs and labs because they have several times the number of grad students. Its not the amount of resources - its the ratio of resources to students that matters.</p>

<p>All I have said so far was...the students at Columbia are significantly stronger, the resources per student at Columbia are higher, the ratio of professors to students is smaller, etc. etc. Thats plenty to think about right there. </p>

<p>Its better than your argument of: Mich and Berk have more labs and libraries, which is why they are better. .</p>

<p>Olin has 1/14 (about 90 a year) the number of students as Columbia, 100% of which are in engineering program. Its average SAT scores are still only about 20 points higher, despite having no sports teams and all its students in engineering. It is not ranked on US News, by WSJ, and doesn't have any National Merit Scholars because it is two years old.</p>

<p>Columbia has several different programs, like Michigan. It has average SAT scores about a 110 points higher than Michigan. It also has a full sports program.</p>

<p>You tell me if thats a fair comparison - comparing a speciality engineering school to Columbia. Meanwhile, Columbia and Michigan are similar in the sense that they non-engineering programs, sports teams, etc.</p>

89

<p>Things like libraries and specialized labs do not need to be evalauted on a per student basis. A larger library is better, period. All students have about the same access to all the materials and nobody is taking more than a few of the millions of books at any one time. Now Columbia happens to have a fine large library but if we were talking about Brown or Dartmouth it might matter. Same for specialized labs etc. Not that many people need them but if it is in your area it could be important. For example UM has one of the biggest and best wind tunnels for engineering. It is very important for aero engineering studies. I don't know whether Columbia has one or not.</p>

90

<p>
[quote]
It’s because you have no basis for it other than it is just your personal opinion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I just gave you four reasons.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I would make a bold claim that Michigan-Ross is better than USC-Marshal and I can prove it you that this statement of mine in true

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That wouldn't really be a bold claim though.</p>

<p>While you focus on my use of the word "personally" indicating it is an opinion:</p>

<p>Posted by Joshua -</p>

<p>
[quote]
I don’t think that would be a good criterion for ranking schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I know Ross and Haas undergrads are highly employable. Haas grads are the most employable according to Businessweek’s survey.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ross and Haas are not for math or economics though.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have read somewhere here in CC that there are more than 3,800(?) students at Berkeley who have perfect/near perfect SATs scores, or the biggest single gathering of any school in the whole United States.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's nice, though in a school with some 40k students you are far less likely to be constantly surrounded by top students than at Columbia, where nearly every student is top notch.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley and Columbia are just about equal for undergrad reputation

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In your famous words, this is your personal opinion. You want my support: go look at any undergrad ranking and you will find that Columbia tops Berkeley. </p>

<p>
[quote]
then the burden to prove that beyond reasonable doubt is on you, not on me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh no, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. If you want to refute my statements, some of which you have agreed with and others of which have grounding in data, have at it. ;) It is a fallacy to assume that the burden of proof is on me simply because I made the claim first; you are making quite a few claims yourself.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Very selective (everyone is in the top 10% of his high school)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is a reason top Cali and Mich applicants use Cal/UMich as their safeties when applying to Columbia and the likes.</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
For example UM has one of the biggest and best wind tunnels for engineering. It is very important for aero engineering studies

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it’s very very very important for aeronautical engineering. Without it, no aero plane design can be verified. Don’t forget to check out Professor Friedmann, </p>

<p><a href="http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/aero/people/faculty/friedmann/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/aero/people/faculty/friedmann/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>;)</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
I want to double major in math and economics in college. I was wondering which schools besides Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and U-Chicago are good for that combination?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You should check out Berkeley’s Economics dept (math-track). Non-math track econ might be ok if you plan to get into business/financial world.</p>

93

<p>Uh, personal biases against state U's? I mean, the average person you meet from Mich or UBerk is not as strong academically as the average person from Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, Penn, etc. if thats what you mean. </p>

<p>Apparently, my biases are the same ones as US News rankings, the Wall Street Journal, and all the students who attend Ivies, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Chicago, etc. over Berkeley and Michigan. So, if that means biased, so be it - I'm biased towards the colleges I find better.</p>

<p>Olin has 90 people in a class, and only one major - engineering. I'm not distraught pointing this out, I'm just stating the obvious. </p>

<p>If you wanted to come up with an actual example that isn't a inequitable comparison, I would bring up Rice - which is usually ranked outside of the top 10 but has students almost as strong as Columbia. For Rice, I can't give you a good explanation.</p>

<p>For Olin, its because theres 90 people a class and one major - engineering.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
Hell-0o?? I was giving you one of the strengths of Berkeley and Michigan.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In that case, let me throw in Columbia Law and Business schools. The original discussion was a/b what would be best for math and econ undergrad. Haas and Ross are not math or econ.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Berkeley and Michigan have "some 40k" undergrad students on each campus? Please check your facts

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Michigan has 25k undergrads and another 15k grad students. My figure was off as I haven't looked at it in awhile and was thinking of the entire school (Ann Arbor). Either way, 25k students is a LOT more than 4k (Columbia).</p>

<p>Berkeley has 24k undergrads.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The PEER ASSESSMENT of Berkeley is higher than Columbia and was only .2 point below Harvard's.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Last I looked, PA score does not count for 100% of the grade on US News.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I sighted a ranking where Berkeley came out on the very top for both Econ and Math

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's graduate. Since we are using USNews, let me cite my source and remind you that Columbia is top 10 on that ranking, whereas Cal may be top 20 and Michigan is outside of that group.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You need to do a lot of convincing to prove that YOU and YOUR PERSONAL opinion is correct and that the US News' survey was just bogus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, you're picking and choosing as you see fit. What makes the PA score worth 100% of the ranking to you but only 25% of the ranking to the people that actually created the report? There are other factors that reflect the quality of undergrad, and when all of those are factored in, using the same report you keep referring to, Columbia comes out on top.</p>

95

<p>
[quote]
THAT's what the college presidents think

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't base undergraduate quality on the opinion of college presidents alone.</p>

<p>I agree that difference in faculty/student ratio is pretty negligible at that point, but other areas that Columbia wins in are important.</p>

96

<p>Joshua, though I may be advocating Columbia's superiority for undergrad over Berkeley/Mich, I'm not blinded by prestige totally. I see the PA score as nothing more than a "who's in" score that, for the most part, keeps the pecking order in the college world. Why else would 25% of the score go towards PA? Without it, the unassailable fortress that is HYP would be threatened by other schools that are just as good which don't have the same "awe" power. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But that was how US News report has derived its overall ranking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's one small factor in the overall formula.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Like what?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Endowment per student, student placement rates (for grad/prof school as well as jobs), % of classes with fewer students. Alumni giving rate is also relective, IMO, of the quality of education students felt they received, including how much they liked the school overall. There's a reason NYU, a good private school, has an alum giving rate of 11%. ;)</p>

97

<p>Joshua, please do not respond to each sentence in a separate post. </p>

<p>My top 10 schools are HYPSM, Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth, Penn, and Brown.</p>

<p>You'd be hard pressed to find any schools up to par with those for undergrad (aside from Northwestern, Chicago, Cornell, or JHU, which may feel shorted...)</p>

<p>Coincidentally, I'd recommend all of those schools except maybe JHU for a double major in math and econ - great students, great rates into top professional schools, excellent recruitment, and lots of campus resources and individual attention.</p>

<p>Some LAC's include Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore that would be excellent for both.</p>

98

<p>Those are your top schools thethoughtprocess, and they are certainly worthy of such a distinction. Your list closely mirrors mine, except I would add three schools; Cal, Caltech and Michigan. The vast majority of the academic world and the corporate world ranks those three universities among the top 10 and to dismiss their collective rating of those universities does not spirit their excellence or reputation away.</p>

99

<p>Joshua - please don't go back and add a lot to your post if you want me to reply to it. I often end up missing it and we never get to address those things.</p>

100

<p>Alexandre - I always enjoy debating these things with you, you bring a great and experienced perspective to every discussion - and of course, I respect your opinion a great deal as you attended Michigan over Columbia, Duke, and other private schools.</p>