<p>
[quote]
Currently, 4 Nobel Prize laurautes teach Economics there (Gary Becker, Robert Fogel, James Heckman, Milton Friedman; wow just listen to these names).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can check the online catalog to see how many undergrad courses these four taught this year.</p>
<p>By my quick count, the answer is none, although Fogel is listed for three graduate-level courses that may be open to some undergrads.</p>
<p>Chicago is a great undergrad program. But, as you look at colleges and universities, make sure that you are focusing on the undergrad part. You can focus on the grad schools in about four years.</p>
<p>By year three (often sooner) many of the courses at Chicago are populated by graduate and undergraduate students and are taught by top faculty making grad versus undergad less a consideration.</p>
<p>Chicago's undergrad economics is excellent. Fogel does teach three joint undergrad/grad courses, and Lima and Levitt are both future Nobel Prize winners. You know, Friedman didn't win a Nobel Prize until he had worked at Chicago for many years--did that make him any less of a teacher? The point is that the professors teaching undergrad econ at Chicago are still excellent, Nobel or not.</p>
<p>Yeah, jpps1 that's the point. UChicago playing the Nobel Winners/Laureates card is extremely tiring. Why is UChicago better than other colleges if not having a Nobel Prize doesn't make them less of a teacher?</p>
<p>Reminds me of those college tour info sessions. At every stop, at least one father would stand up and ask, "How many Nobel Prize winners are on the faculty?" while his poor kid was cringing in the next seat....</p>
<p>I'm a junior from and IB school in India. I'm planning on taking Economics and Math as my Higher Levels. I'm interested in a college with a very strong undergrad economics programme, where there is alot of student-faculty discussion, and , has great placements. I've heard Amherst is the best.</p>
<p>UChicago didn't really produce "many". Whatever the number Chicago counts is way more than it actually deserves since it includes even people that had taught there for just one year. The work that got some of these people Nobel may or may not have anything to do with UChicago. You can look up the list at
<a href="http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/nobel/%5B/url%5D">http://www-news.uchicago.edu/resources/nobel/</a> and google each of those individuals and find out.</p>
<p>Econ is a lot like Biology, its a very popular major, and any school worth its salt is going to have a good econ program. If you're looking to do business after you graduate, look at the overall reputation of the college. Despite Chicago having a better undergrad econ, I'm willing to bet people graduating from Harvard Econ are still better off.</p>
<p>As I'm sure you know, business is very much about contacts, and almost nothing can beat the prestige of a school like harvard's alumni.</p>
<p>For once, I agree with you. The Chicago Nobel Laureate thing is so, so, so, so, so overplayed. I have to be honest... most of us at the school do not care that T.S. Eliot, who was an honorary member of a committee that, as far as I'm concerned, does nothing, is NOT going to affect your college experience one way or another. It does underscore that Chicago's a top research institution. But that's not being contested.</p>
<p>Anyway, I would not advise somebody to choose Chicago solely on the strength of its econ program. I say this because you're signing on for more than just a degree in econ when you choose Chicago. You're agreeing to complete an extensive core curriculum, you're agreeing to writing an "uncommon" essay, you're agreeing to living the next four years of your life with people who my Cornellian older brother thinks belong at a casting call for Beauty and the Geek.</p>
<p>Econ programs are strong almost anywhere. I challenge posters to come up with a top school that has a weak econ major.</p>