<p>Chicago is likely to have better name recognition. If you plan on going into business then this might make it worth the difference. I would also suggest the University of Chicago because they have the best economics staff in the world (and have for quite some time.) Levitt is amazing from all of the class reviews and how he applies economics to different fields. I would go to U of Chicago because the teaching staff will be better (not to say Pomona won't be good) and it will have more name recognition and immediate job opportunities. To boot, Chicago is quite an exciting place (it is also a larger financial market than Claremont).</p>
<p>"I'd like to know what people think about Harvard Econ vs Chicago Econ. I've seen some non-US News rankings that put Harvard on top, but I'm wondering if the level of teaching is better at Chicago or what."
I will grant that I am biased, however, I think Chicago is superior. They have had more Nobel Laureates in economics than Harvard. The late Milton Friedman changed economics profoundly and was a professor and graduate of that university's economics department. Harvard econ has had no equal to Friedman in that regard. Mankiw of Harvard is an excellent writer but Levitt is as well. I would give a slight edge to Levitt simply because he has done more to develop the use of economics in crime (although both are excellent professors). Beyond just looking at the current staff Harvard hasn't had the same impact on economics as UChicago. The "Chicago style" for developing worlds has helped countries transition into free-markets and has provided a contrasting approach to economic gradualism. I believe it is safe to say that Chicago economics has had a more profound impact than Harvard. Both are excellent programs,however.</p>
<p>Thanks, Milton. I suppose Pomona was a bad example - how about Claremont McKenna or Williams? From what I understand, they're top-flight economics schools. I mean, I know they don't have the name recognition of a Berkeley or a Stanford, but would they still me get into a top-tier MBA program or Masters in Economics programs?</p>
<p>And, in general, what are the two best LAC's for Economics? I'm still applying to all the "brand-name" schools - I just generally find that LAC's are a better fit for me.</p>
<p>Interesting. My counselor told me that Pomona was strong in both Econ and Biology. Is that not true [for econ]?</p>
<p>*I know they don't have the name recognition of a Berkeley or a Stanford, but would they still me get into a top-tier MBA program or Masters in Economics programs?
*
You can still get into a top level masters econ program without going to UChicago. If you do well in the economics classes there and in some of the math courses then you'll be in the running for spots at masters economics programs (granted you get to know your professors well). The top MBA programs will base your admission more off of your work experience than on which school you got your economics degree from.
The two best LAC's for economics are
1. Amherst
2. Carleton or Claremont McKenna College
This is more of a repost and others on this forum might be able to give you more detailed information. I wouldn't shy away from an LAC like these because of name recognition. You'll get to work with excellent professors and you won't have to compete for their time with graduate students and you'll have smaller classes with them. For some people a place like Amherst might be better than a program like UChicago (although it all depends on that individual.
Pomona has a strong economics program. I am just asserting that UChicago is better in some senses. You may be able to receive more specialized attention at Pomona, however.</p>
<p>Agree with the specialized attention one can get at Pomona. There's 25-30 kids in Pomona's Intro to Macroeconomics course. Compare that to Intro to Macroeconomics at UChicago, which according to a CC poster has 150. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=4657754&highlight=economics#post4657754%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=4657754&highlight=economics#post4657754</a></p>
<p>Both Pomona and UChicago send a high percentage of kids to top MBA, Law, and Med schools. If you believe the (much maligned) WSJ ranking of top feeder schools, Pomona is ranked #13, just above #14 UChicago. <a href="http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf</a></p>
<p>How would Tufts fall into this list?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Agree with the specialized attention one can get at Pomona. There's 25-30 kids in Pomona's Intro to Macroeconomics course. Compare that to Intro to Macroeconomics at UChicago, which according to a CC poster has 150.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a bad example. At Chicago, microeconomics and macroeconomics are treated as prerequisite courses, and it is largely believed that real economics starts with "Elements of Economic Analysis". You can find the number of students per class here:</p>
<p>Most class sizes are probably very similar at Pomona. I can almost guarantee that you will get as much individual attention at Chicago than at Pomona. The faculty here is truly excellent, not just in the sense that they're experts in their fields but also in that they're very involved with their students. When I went on a tour at Chicago, the tour guide said that once, the Econ department chair came down and basically took over the entire tour simply because she was so enthused to be meeting prospective students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Both Pomona and UChicago send a high percentage of kids to top MBA, Law, and Med schools. If you believe the (much maligned) WSJ ranking of top feeder schools, Pomona is ranked #13, just above #14 UChicago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is incredibly irrelevant. If you'll look at statistics for how many students certain colleges send to grad school to eventually attain PhDs, you'll see that schools like Reed have a much higher rate than Harvard and Princeton. This doesn't mean that Reed students have an easier time at getting into top programs; it's just that Harvard and Princeton grads get recruited at a much higher rate coming out of their undergraduate studies and thus many don't make it to graduate school (of course, a humongous percentage would get into their top choice grad school).</p>
<p>From what I've heard, many Chicago econ grads go immediately to places like New York to earn $100k+/year positions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's just that Harvard and Princeton grads get recruited at a much higher rate coming out of their undergraduate studies
[/quote]
The PhD data say that Princeton does very well at preparing grads for advanced degrees.
[quote]
From what I've heard, many Chicago econ grads go immediately to places like New York to earn $100k+/year positions.
[/quote]
Careful, you make it sound like they cannot get into grad school to land the more common $200k+/year New York positions. The PhD data say that U Chicago does very well at preparing grads for advanced degrees.</p>
<p>PhD data? You mean the report (forgot its name) showing % grads doing PhD? That doesn't say how well colleges prepare you for advanced degrees. It tells just what it is--fraction of grads doing PhDs. LACs, even the ones not very well-known, are doing "well" on that list because LACs kids tend to be less preprofessional. If anything, it reflects career preference more than anything else. It doesn't tell you where the grads do their PhDs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It tells just what it is--fraction of grads doing PhDs.
[/quote]
This is true, but inferences can be made, and I admit to making assumptions: For the most part, high school graduates are not prepared to enter PhD programs, and it is the undergrad schools which transform students into viable PhD candidates. Now if the backward-looking statistics show which undergrad schools produce the highest percentages of future PhD earners, these schools are necessarily "doing well" at preparing their graduates for that end. I also assume that it's "easier" to earn a master's than it is to earn a PhD in the same field, such that if a school does well at preparing students for PhDs, those same students would have good preparation for earning a master's in the same field (but, hey, maybe I'm wrong about that). Master's origin data is not collected like it is for PhD origins, so similar comparisons cannot be made.</p>
<p>The claim that LAC grads earn their PhDs from second-rate institutions is made from time to time, and I assume that such data could be culled from the IPEDS/NSF/HEDS data, though it may be tedious to do so.</p>
<p>FWIW,</p>
<p>Undergraduate Origin of PhD degrees, 1994-2003, Universities+LACs, all (non-professional) majors <a href="http://www.pomona.edu/institutionalresearch/ResearchReports/DoctoratesEarnedByRace-Ethnicity.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.pomona.edu/institutionalresearch/ResearchReports/DoctoratesEarnedByRace-Ethnicity.pdf</a></p>
<p>1.Swarthmore
2.Carleton
3.Oberlin
4.Pomona **
5.Amherst
6.Williams
7.Wellesley
8.Princeton
9.Mount Holyoke
10.Bryn Mawr
11.Wesleyan
12.MIT
13.Rice
14.Barnard
15.Smith
16.Yale
17.Dartmouth
18.Cornell
19.Brown
20.Stanford
21.Trinity
22.Harvard
23.Rochester
24.Duke
25.Chicago**
26.Penn
27.Washington Univ StL
28.Northwestern
29.Johns Hopkins
30.Georgetown
31.Columbia</p>
<p>Undergraduate origin of PhD degrees, Economics, 1986-1995, Universities
<a href="http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/CollegeRelations/BacOrigins/BacOrg98.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/CollegeRelations/BacOrigins/BacOrg98.pdf</a></p>
<p>1 Harvard U (MA) 113
2 Yale U (CT) 77
3 U of Pennsylvania (PA)
4 Princeton U (NJ) 54
4 **U of Chicago<a href="IL">/b</a> 54
6 Massachusetts Inst of Tech (MA) 46
7 Cornell U (NY) 45
7 Georgetown U (DC) 45
7 Stanford U (CA) 45 16</p>
<p>Undergraduate origin of PhD degrees, Economics, 1986-1995, LACs</p>
<p>1 Swarthmore Coll (PA) 54
2 Williams Coll (MA) 37
3 Oberlin Coll (OH) 28
4 Wellesley Coll (MA) 22
5 Carleton Coll (MN) 21
6 Wesleyan U (CT) 18
7 **Pomona Coll<a href="CA">/b</a> 16
7 Vassar Coll (NY) 16
9 Colgate U (NY) 15
10 Smith Coll (MA) 14</p>
<p>The HEDS data show raw numbers, which mostly reflects the size of the undergrad schools. Scaling the data to the school sizes is worth more, IMHO (courtesy of interesteddad). Note that undergrad majors are not considered.</p>
<p>Number of PhDs per 1000 grads
Academic field: Economics </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees:
ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database</p>
<p>Number of Undergraduates:
ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>1 Swarthmore College 16
2 Grinnell College 7
3 Williams College 7
4 Carleton College 7
5 Harvard University 6
6 Agnes Scott College 6
7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5
8 University of Chicago 5
9 Yale University 5
10 California Institute of Technology 5
11 Princeton University 5
12 Macalester College 5
13 Stanford University 4
14 Pomona College 4
15 Oberlin College 4
16 Wellesley College 4
17 Trinity University 4
18 Bowdoin College 3
19 Earlham College 3
20 Berea College 3
21 Amherst College 3
22 Wabash College 3
23 Bard College 3
24 Rocky Mountain College 3
25 Coe College 3
26 Wesleyan University 3
27 College of William and Mary 3
28 Colby College 3
29 Columbia University 3
30 Hillsdale College 3</p>
<p>
[quote]
Most schools that have good Business programs have solid Econ departments. But it does not hold true the other way around. </p>
<p>At any rate, if I had to "group" Econ programs, I would go with 5 groups. Even schools in the fifth group have awesome Econ programs mind you. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would rank Columbia higher, probably in Group I. What are your criteria to place it in Group III ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
what about harvard econ v. princeton econ for someone who wants to go into business?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wharton ;)</p>
<p>Shouldn't Columbia's econ program be in the top tier? I mean it's so very hot right now, like that Hansel.</p>
<p>Wharton may very well have an excellent business program, however, it certainly does not have a superior economics program even in terms of job placement. An individual who graduates from either the economics program at Harvard or Princeton will be (marginally) better off than the candidate who graduates from Wharton. In the grand scheme of things, all three schools have excellent placement and excellent overall programs. In response to the original question of Princeton Econ v. Harvard Econ, they are both exceptional programs. I would look into which university in general has the best qualities for you personally. I believe Princeton might have a slightly better student to faculty ratio and Harvard has slightly better placement. The faculty of Harvard might be slightly better. It would be a rather small difference at best.</p>
<p>How is Tufts' economics program?</p>
<p>What about Emory University? How is there economics program? I heard it's a KICK ASS SCHOOL!</p>
<p>What is the program at Reed College like?</p>