<p>Just one of the rankings out there:
<a href="http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/ranking.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/ranking.html</a></p>
<p>Like I said, for the standard run of the mill majors like economics, math, history, philosophy, English…. You can get a good solid education in any good university like ivies, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, NU, Duke and many excellent state universities (Berkeley, UCLA, UMich, Wisconsin, UVA, W&M….) & LAC’s (AWS..). SO students should look for the other non-academic factors like size (small LACish/Big Univ), location (city/urban/suburban), and political preference (liberal/very liberal), and male/female ratio….etc. The real difference comes into play after your BA (or AB) degree: Where you got your post-bachelor degree (preferably PhD) and with whom you studied (Advisor)</p>
<p>That said, I’d suggest some Great Graduate Program in Economics: Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Chicago, MIT, Princeton & Rhode-Scholarship-Tuition-Paid LSE-Cambridge-Oxford. </p>
<p>One more thing… for students looking for jobs immediately after his/her undergrad, Business or OR degree will open more doors for them than economics’ degree.</p>
<p>It's worth repeating: For most jobs and application to law school, the general reputation of the school is possibly more relevant than the quality of the economics faculty. Being a good student in an Ivy will get you into a top Law School even if your econ program wasn't very rigorous.</p>
<p>For someone planning to go to grad school (PhD) in economics, it is likely that a Math or Physics degree with an Econ minor from a strong technical program is better than going to ANY econ department and not taking enough advanced math. </p>
<p>[i.e. if you graduate with a 3.85 from a top ranked econ undergrad program and only do the minimum math required to graduate, odds are you'll be rejected by most of the top Phd programs. If you get a 3.5 from a first rate, super hard program in Applied Math at a lower ranked school, with courses in advanced topology, real and complex analysis, and probability, and only took one or two econ courses on the side, you're going to beat out a lot of honors econ graduates when applying to grad school.]</p>
<p>^^ Agreed with 200%.</p>
<p>This is for serious economics majors: Ive seen many PhD graduate students struggling with not adequate math background. Repeat- Math is very very very important for a higher level economics.</p>
<p>one more thing...</p>
<p>Did you skate through and get an economic degree from a prestigious school without taking rigorous math courses (in some ivies, yes you can do this) ?</p>
<p>I have a bad news for you…. For few years, you may just get by, but you will never ever rise to the top (like become a chief economist or whatnot) without solid graduate degree (without solid math background)!</p>
<p>I'd say University of Chicago, Harvard, and MIT are the big three. Order can be argued, but I'd say these three seperate themselves from the rest. Personal preference is the main distinguisher between 'em.</p>
<p>Then (in no order), Princeton, Yale, Northwestern, Columbia, Stanford, UC Berkeley, maybe NYU</p>
<p>Best public school with econ. is definitely UC Berkeley. UCLA and UCSD are both great too. Wisconsin and Michigan are good also, but I'll always hate Michigan. :)</p>
<p>How's CalTech's econ program? I've good heard things...hardcore quant, good profs etc. How does Cambridge's econ program stack up to top US schools like Chicago and MIT?</p>
<p>Caltech has a very strong undergraduate econ program.</p>
<p>The issue is: How likely are you to want to pursue graduate studies leading to a PhD or go into a quant job? From that standpoint, Caltech's high math requirements are a big plus.</p>
<p>For example, even at Chicago, there is no serious linear algebra requirement, and the official catalog merely encourages those econ majors planning to get a PhD to take courses "to acquire knowledge of linear algebra." Ditto for differential equations. In contrast, all Caltech students (including lit and history majors) would be required to take advanced calc plus linear algebra and some diff. eqns. Most students take some real and complex analysis. </p>
<p>Of course, anyone can fashion a graduate prep program at any decent college. But because so much math, taught rigorously (proof based) is common at Caltech, it prepares you for research early and makes it easier to collaborate with professors. Ask Ben Golub. By now he should be able to compare undergrad training with his fellow PhD students at Stanford.</p>
<p>For business or law, it's overkill. For PhD grad school, it's a minimum. And I'm surprised how many econ majors at top schools don't figure it out till very late.</p>
<p>I went to Caltech years ago as a physics major, got average grades and took very few econ courses, yet got into many top grad programs -- often with very generous fellowships. </p>
<p>The big drawback for many students is that even econ majors must pass the Core which includes 5 quarters of rigorous physics as well as courses in biology and chemistry. While these can hurt your GPA, I assure you that grad schools in econ look favorably on such coursework.</p>
<p>how's rice's econ program?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The big drawback for many students is that even econ majors must pass the Core which includes 5 quarters of rigorous physics as well as courses in biology and chemistry. While these can hurt your GPA, I assure you that grad schools in econ look favorably on such coursework.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think there is the problem. Not to sound like a broken record (because I actually like Caltech overall) but, like I've always said, Caltech is a great school for those students who do well, or who at least are able to pass. But what if you don't do well? What if you don't pass? You say that econ grad programs look favorably on difficult Caltech science coursework, and I agree...as long as you pass. What if you don't? </p>
<p>Let's be perfectly honest. Even from the perspective of what it takes to get admitted to econ grad programs, it's far better to not have taken any difficult quantitative coursework at all than to have taken them and flunked. In the former case, the econ grad programs will suspect that perhaps you can't handle quantitative rigor. But in the latter case, they know so for sure. Like I've always said, the sad truth is that, for the purposes of grad school admissions, it's better to not take a difficult class at all than to take it and get a poor grade. </p>
<p>Like my brother (a Caltech alum) always said, Caltech is a great school for those who do well. But for those who do poorly, it's a pretty rough place.</p>
<p>Well, if you have ambitions to do grad school in econ, you'll be the sort who'll pass. If you can't do this sort of work, it's unlikely you'll get into econ grad school. And even if by some stretch of the imagination, you got in you'll have a miserable time.</p>
<p>Believe me, I was unprepared for Caltech and only did a little better than average yet did well in another tough grad program. Further, things have improved a lot. Most Caltech students now graduate. Compared to 30 years ago, almost everyone passes the basic classes and most can get a B average with requisite effort. And this effort is a good indicator of what grad school is like. Furthermore, even a few C's from Caltech is better than not having had those courses at all.</p>
<p>So put it this way, if you haven't had the right quant courses -- barring publications in major journals as an undergrad -- your chances of getting into top grad schools are slim. Don't believe me? Look up Mankiw's post on his website about a Harvard econ grad with honors who was rejected by all the top grad schools for lack of math but who got into top law schools. I know of more than a few undergrads at top places who took math too late or not at all to be able to get into a good grad school.</p>
<p>For good or for ill, Caltech probably has the best undergrad program for training students for top grad programs in technical subjects in general regardless of the ranking of its specific department.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>Let me go one step further. Your argument works for weak students going to Caltech in general -- not for ambitious students likely to want to go to grad school.</p>
<p>But this is also why Caltech is so careful picking undergrads. It does not practice AA or legacy or athletic admits for these reasons. Moreover, passing is much easier today than in the past. Most admits could manage a B average with requisite effort and careful selection of majors.</p>
<p>There is still some risk, but that's part of what makes Caltech unique. There are always tradeoffs. Indeed, that same argument should rule out Chicago or MIT for many since Chicago and MIT have tougher grading standards and tougher requirements than most other colleges. Interestingly enough, both Chicago and MIT are two of the best places to do econ as an undergrad.</p>
<p>Rice has a great program, too.</p>
<p>Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, MIT, Princeton, Yale, Columbia -- in hat order.</p>
<p>MIT/Harvard/Chicago. The order varies depending on who you ask.</p>
<p>Beyond that, you can name a whole bunch that are excellent, but the three above are the best in the world.</p>
<p>nauru and powergrid1990,</p>
<p>I don't know that I agree that those are the best schools for undergrads. Look at the PhD candidates at top econ PhD programs, and you'll find that LACs are far better represented than you'd maybe think. </p>
<p>It all depends on what you want in an education.</p>
<p>What if I know I want to eventually get an MBA? I know I don't want to go graduate with econ. What schools would ya'lls suggest then?</p>
<p>Just go to the best ranked school with the best fit. After that, work experience matters more than undergrad program name.</p>
<p>As I said UCLAri, there are a lot of schools that are excellent for undergraduate economics. That includes LACs.</p>