Best Politics Program!?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Well I'm really interested in Politics and Economics, so I found some schools that are great but i'd like some other options!</p>

<p>Schools to consider for politics:
Claremont Mckenna
Princeton
Northwestern
Harvard
Whitman
Dartmouth
Macalester</p>

<p>However I'm not considering Harvard, or Macalester.</p>

<p>Some schools that I am considering that do not have the best politics department include Pomona and Stanford.</p>

<p>First question: Which of these is BEST?
Second Question: Is there a huge difference between Pomona and Claremont Mckenna, because I like Pomona more, but Claremont's program is better.
Third Question: How is Stanford's Politics Department?</p>

<p>Also... do connections (political connections) play a role in what college i should choose, ex. Kerry and Bush went to Yale, better connections when it comes time to look for a job ... despite the fact that i would rather clean sidewalks with my face than work for bush.. but I digress.</p>

2

<p>i would imagine stanford has a good poli sci program, although i am not certain as to their respective ranking in the department. if you are looking at california schools, uc berkeley is ranked 5th, ucsd 7th, and ucla 8th in political science. all three of those schools have top 10 poli programs. stanford should also be quite good. of course harvard government department is top notch, and northwestern is ranked around 10 or so for poli i believe, although again i am not certain.</p>

3

<p>I don't think there is any such thing as a "best" political science or econ department. Many schools are strong in these areas. If anything, these two departments are so consistently popular these days that most schools are struggling with too much student demand, i.e. rapid increases in the number of Econ majors, etc.</p>

<p>One school that you may add to to list to consider is Swarthmore College. They produce more future Political Science PhDs and more Economics PhDs per graduate than any other college or university in the country. There is also a Public Policy concentration with a curriculum drawn from the Political Science, Economics, and Engineering departments.</p>

<p>Their two best known grads in contemporary political circles are Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan (Class of '56) and losing Democratic Presidential candidate Gov. Michael Dukakis (Highest Honors grad, Class of '55). A very high percentage of grads are involved in public policy careers, both here and abroad.</p>

<p>But honestly, it would be hard to find a good college or university that doesn't have solid poli sci and econ departments. It's kind of like trying to find a grocery store that doesn't have a good selection of milk, eggs, and bread.</p>

4

<p>Others to think about: Hamilton, Colgate, Dickinson, JHU, Georgetown, Lafayette, Villanova. Also, Chicago.</p>

5

<p>BTW, to answer your question about Pomona and Claremont-McKenna.</p>

<p>Pomona is a classic liberal arts college -- one of the very best in the country. It is a full-service college covering the entire range of humanities, social sciences, and sciences. Think Amherst, Williams, Swathmore on the West Coast.</p>

<p>Claremont-McKenna is a specialty school that focuses almost entirely on social science related fields: poli sci, econ, history, etc. It doesn't even have its own science departments.</p>

<p>Since virtually all CMC students major in the specialty departments, the poli sci and econ departments are the size of the departments at a much larger university. You won't get the same experience you would at Pomona where you are living with students from a wide range of departments.</p>

<p>Arguments could be made both ways for which is "better". They are very different, so a lot depends on what you are looking for.</p>

6

<p>That makes sense, i like the feel of Pomona and personality of it a bit better than Claremont, but I may just have to apply to both and see..</p>

<p>Swarthmore would be a good school to consider!</p>

<p>I forgot to mention Georgetown! All good schools, thank you! How would these compare to a state U, like UO?</p>

7

<p>Personally, I would choose Pomona over Claremont if I got into both. For two main reasons:</p>

<p>a) You really don't know what you will end up majoring in until you take some college courses. Pomona has great departments across the board, plus there are some benefits to hanging out with students majoring in all those areas: sciences, arts, languages, poli sci, and on and on.</p>

<p>b) Pomona has one of the largest per student endowments in the country. That financial strength translates into a lot of good things. Claremont has a nice endowment, but it's only about a third of Pomona's.</p>

<p>Having said that, Claremont is incredible in poli sci, econ, history, pre-business, pre-law, etc.</p>

8

<p>If you want Political Science and Economics rolled together in one major, then look at UC Berkeley's PEIS Major (Political Economies of Industrial Societies). You basically take courses from Berkeley's Highly Ranked Poli Sci and Econ Departments for your degree. However, I'm thinking you aren't as interested in a big school, however you should definitely come visit especially if you want to visit that Junior College across the bay (Stanfurd).</p>

9

<p>You'll find that most states have one college that produces an inordinate % of politicians in that state. If you attend that school, you will have the inside track in getting internships (in that state and in DC), and entry-level political jobs. In Massachusetts that college is Boston College (Tip O'Neill and his son the ex- Lt. Governor went there as an undergrads, John Kerry and a ton of other Mass. politicos graduated from the law school).</p>

10

<p>princeton's woodrow wilson school is amazing. it will allow you to submit laws and stuff to local, national, and international governments. you can have an affect on law making without being elected to a position. the only down side is first you have to get into princeton, then beat out kids in princeton to get into the school. i would say georgetown puts you in the best location for poly sci internships and stuff of that sort. if law school is your thing you have to look at grade inflation/deflation because GPA and LSAT are the two big things for law school.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
In Massachusetts that college is Boston College (Tip O'Neill and his son the ex- Lt. Governor went there as an undergrads, John Kerry and a ton of other Mass. politicos graduated from the law school).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That has more to do with the strong Irish Catholic influence in Massachusetts politics than any special qualities of the political science program at BC!</p>

<p>In Massachusetts politics, blue-bloods go to Harvard. Working class precinct pols go to BC. See Billy Bulger.</p>

12

<p>You might want to consider George Washington University in D.C., they have a very good political program as well... and like Georgetown you have access to a lot of amazing internships.</p>

13

<p>Considering how DC = politics I would highly recommend Georgetown, George Washington, and American.</p>

14

<p>There are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose Pomona over Claremont McKenna--the chief one being fit. Whatever school you think you'll be happier at is the one you should go to. I have to disagree, however, with some of the reasons listed by interesteddad. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Since virtually all CMC students major in the specialty departments, the poli sci and econ departments are the size of the departments at a much larger university. You won't get the same experience you would at Pomona where you are living with students from a wide range of departments.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, the departments are larger, but there are also many more resources allocated to them. The classes are still very small, which is really the important part. Because the departments are larger, however, there are higher profile professors, and more opportunities, such as the special program where students intern for a semester in Washington D.C. I really don't see the larger departments as a disadvantage. It's still a small liberal arts college with a highly personalized education.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Claremont-McKenna is a specialty school that focuses almost entirely on social science related fields: poli sci, econ, history, etc. It doesn't even have its own science departments.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
a) You really don't know what you will end up majoring in until you take some college courses. Pomona has great departments across the board, plus there are some benefits to hanging out with students majoring in all those areas: sciences, arts, languages, poli sci, and on and on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>OK. . . so what about all those kids at MIT or caltech? Is it a bad idea for them to attend these specialty schools with reputations in math and science because of the chance they might switch majors? Yes, most people at McKenna have an interest in politics and current events, but people do actually major in a variety of fields. Pre-meds have over a 70% acceptance rate to medical school-- pretty impressive for a school that "doesn't even have it's own science departments." The truth is that in order to have the best facilities possible, CMC shares the resources for its science programs with Scripps and Pitzer. This is the whole point of the consortium. The schools combine resources and facilities to provide a better education than they could on their own.</p>

<p>
[quote]
b) Pomona has one of the largest per student endowments in the country. That financial strength translates into a lot of good things. Claremont has a nice endowment, but it's only about a third of Pomona's

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes Pomona does have one of the largest per student endowments in the country. But so does McKenna. I believe it is ranked somewhere in the top ten among liberal arts colleges for endowment per student. You switch from talking about per student endowment to overall endowment. CMC is also a good deal smaller than Pomona. Both schools have more than enough money. The difference is really pretty negligible when you consider all the other factors that impact your college experience.</p>

15

<p>
[quote]
OK. . . so what about all those kids at MIT or caltech? Is it a bad idea for them to attend these specialty schools with reputations in math and science because of the chance they might switch majors?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely. I think that is an issue that every potential MIT or CalTech or Harvey Mudd applicant must consider very carefully. If you get to any of the tech schools and find out that college level math and science isn't your thing, then you are in a real mess. It's a lot harder to transfer to a different college than it is to say, "OK, I'll just major is something else."</p>

<p>If I were advising a son or daughter, I would want them to absolutely, positively, 100% in love with math/science before going to a tech school.</p>

<p>I think it's somewhat less of an issue at CMC because they have pretty good departments across the social sciences. But, given the rate at which college students change their minds about majors after taking actual courses, I lean towards "full-service" liberal arts colleges unless there is a well-defined, pressing reason to commit to a specialized school before graduating from high school.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. I really like CMC's (and Harvey Mudd's) rather unique approach -- specialization in the context of a consortium -- and I know it's a great school. But, speaking for myself only, I would go to Pomona if I got into both schools. Your mileage may vary!</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
You'll find that most states have one college that produces an inordinate % of politicians in that state. If you attend that school, you will have the inside track in getting internships (in that state and in DC), and entry-level political jobs. In Massachusetts that college is Boston College (Tip O'Neill and his son the ex- Lt. Governor went there as an undergrads, John Kerry and a ton of other Mass. politicos graduated from the law school).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
That has more to do with the strong Irish Catholic influence in Massachusetts politics than any special qualities of the political science program at BC!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think I have to agree with interesteddad in saying that I think if you're talking about Massachusetts, then I think it's fairly clear it's Harvard, not BC. Not that BC is a bad school, but just look at the history. The current Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, has a JD/MBA from Harvard. The Lieutenant Governor and Republican nominee to replace Romney, Kerry Healey, did undergrad at Harvard. Deval Patrick, who is running for the Democratic nomination to replace Romney and trying to become the first black Governor of Massachusetts, went to undergrad and law school at Harvard. One of Patrick's main opponents for the nomination is Chris Gabrieli, also a Harvard graduate. Former Governors Christian Herter, Endicott Peabody, William Weld and Michael Dukakis went to Harvard . Senator Ted Kennedy went to Harvard. Congressman Barney Frank went to Harvard Law. </p>

<p>Granted, BC can claim Senator John Kerry, former governors Paul Celucci and Edward King, and Congressmen Lynch, Capuano, Delahunt and Markey. But it seems to me that Harvard has had more success in state politics, especially now, especially now. For example, just by virtue of simple probability, odds are the new Governor will be a Harvard graduate. </p>

<p>{Interestingly, MIT can claim some power in state politics also, with Congressman John Olver holding a PhD in chemistry from MIT, and former Governor Francis Sargent having studied there for undergrad}.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
Absolutely. I think that is an issue that every potential MIT or CalTech or Harvey Mudd applicant must consider very carefully. If you get to any of the tech schools and find out that college level math and science isn't your thing, then you are in a real mess. It's a lot harder to transfer to a different college than it is to say, "OK, I'll just major is something else."</p>

<p>If I were advising a son or daughter, I would want them to absolutely, positively, 100% in love with math/science before going to a tech school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think that's a bit too strong when you're talking about MIT. MIT does actually have a fairly decent variety of majors, including a quite impressive selection of strong social sciences. For example, MIT's economics department is world-class (ranked #1 in graduate departments by USNews), and the political science department is also extremely strong, perhaps surprisingly so (ranked #10 by USNews graduate survey). The Sloan School of Management is a well respected business school that attracts plenty of undergrads, as management is now the 4th most popular undergrad major on campus. MIT also offers extremely well regarded linguistics, psychology, and philosophy programs. MIT calls its psychology program the "Brain and Cognitive Sciences" program, but really, it's basically a psychology program. </p>

<p>Furthermore, MIT students are able to cross-reg at Harvard. Through cross-reg, you are able to get all of the arts stuff that you could ever want.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. You still have to fulill the GIR's, which means that you still have to be decent at math/science. So if you loathe math/science, I agree that MIT is a poor choice. But I don't think you have to be 100% in love with math/science either to perform decently at MIT. Maybe 75% in love.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
Well I'm really interested in Politics and Economics, so I found some schools that are great but i'd like some other options!</p>

<p>Schools to consider for politics:
Claremont Mckenna
Princeton
Northwestern
Harvard
Whitman
Dartmouth
Macalester

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Since you asked for more options, I'll throw one out there - MIT. Don't laugh. MIT has arguably the best graduate economics department in the country and a highly regarded political science department (ranked #10 in USNews). </p>

<p>I do agree that you have to be good at tech subjects to survive MIT. But like I said above, I don't think you have to be totally in love with them.</p>

<p>Other places to consider would be the typical LAC's - Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Brown (which is basically a LAC). Also Columbia and Chicago.</p>

19

<p>sakky, you left out a few BC grads who dabbled in Mass. politics. Robert Drinan, Kevin White, John McLaughlin, Nicholas Burns, and Thomas Reilly come to mind.</p>

<p>And, ah, if you have to resort to mentioning Barney "How'd this manwhore get in my house?" Frank and Teddy "Wheah ah my pants?" Kennedy....</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
I think that's a bit too strong when you're talking about MIT. MIT does actually have a fairly decent variety of majors, including a quite impressive selection of strong social sciences. For example, MIT's economics department is world-class (ranked #1 in graduate departments by USNews), and the political science department is also extremely strong, perhaps surprisingly so (ranked #10 by USNews graduate survey).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know. But, you'll still flunk out if you aren't really good at college level math and science. No "rocks for jocks" courses to fulfill the distribution requirements.</p>

<p>And, even if you do survive that, you are still majoring in economics at a school that is 95% science majors. No knock on MIT, but there are probably places where majoring in poli sci or non-math oriented economics would be more fun.</p>

<p>On Mass. politics: The Hahvaaad contingent is the blue-blood Brahmin pols. There is a strong tradition of Democratic-machine pols from Irish Catholic neighborhoods going to BC. That group has controlled the state house for a very long time.</p>

<p>BTW, Michael Dukakis was a Swarthmore grad. Highest Honors in Poli Sci, Class of '55. Highest Honors at Swarthmore is some kind of crazy smart. Just a handful each year. He and Sen. Carl Levin ('56) were activists in the anti-McCarthy movement of the time. Levin was photographed delivering petitions to the Pennsylvania congressional delegation at the Capital. It was probably while they were in school that Swarthmore pulled out of the Federal student aid program when McCarthy passed legislation requiring loyalty oaths as a condition receiving student aid. The Swat board voted to replace the Federal dollars with funding from the endowment.</p>