<p>Right, but I don't know that the three you mentioned are the best for undergrads, per se. They're certainly strong, but the best for undergrads? I don't know.</p>
<p>nauru,</p>
<p>If MIT/Chicago/Harvard are clearly better than others for undergrads, then how come Northwestern College Fed Challenge team just beat UChicago team 4 times in a row in the midwest regional (NU is a 3-time and the defending national champ)? I don't know if the competition result is a good guage or not, but if one is clearly better, then I'd expect the team from the <em>supposedly</em> superior program would win at least once regardless if the competition is a joke or not (it probably isn't from what I read).</p>
<p>to reiterate what others are saying, MIT/Harvard and Chicago have the most respected graduate economics programs, not undergraduate.</p>
<p>Penn is not all business economics. The presence of the wharton school surely helps in recruiting bright applied economists. The department itself is surely as good as columbia (though it could stand to earn a few more Nobels...)</p>
<p>That's assuming, of course, that the Nobel should be the focus of a good department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me put it this way. I believe that the number of students who aren't superstars are admitted to Caltech is vanishingly close to zero. Virtually everybody who gets into Caltech is a star, and hence is likely to be a serious candidate for a PhD program.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, as I'm sure you would agree, and as my brother (a Caltech alum) has confirmed, some of those superstar students nevertheless do poorly, and some do so poorly that they land in academic probation. These students, frankly, would have been better off if they had simply chosen to go to an easier school. Like I said before, whether we like it or not, the fact is, it's better to not take difficult coursework at all than to take it and get poor grades. </p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And it is precisely for the same reasons that I don't particularly recommend Chicago or MIT for undergrad econ either. The same arguments apply: it's just too hard and therefore too risky. Sure, all of these programs are fantastic programs if you do well. But what if you don't? What if you do poorly? At all of these schools, there are some students who do poorly and hence would have been much better off if they had gone to another school. None of these schools will offer much mercy to students who are doing poorly. </p>
<p>Hence, from an ex-ante risk standpoint, I think I have to come back to the 'usual suspects' as the best undergrad econ programs, that being schools like HYPS. Even those students there who don't do that well won't be 'exposed' by getting tagged with truly terrible grades. These schools also have the giant advantage of offering a huge grad admissions backdoor: if you can hook onto a prominent prof at those schools for a strong research project that may ultimately result in some important publications, then that prof will surely vouch for you when it comes to admission to the grad program because he wants to be able to continue the project. That voucher is a tremendously strong boost to your admissions standard. </p>
<p>Frankly, that's why a lot of former Harvard undergrads are able to get into Harvard Phd programs. I know quite a few of them who feel that they didn't really do exceptionally well academically, but were just able to backdoor their way in because of their continuing research project. I know a number of Harvard students who didn't even get into any other PhD program at any other school. I'm sure the same thing happens at schools like YPS.</p>
<p>Of these schools, what would y'all say has the best econ program.</p>
<p>Michigan State University, American University, Indiana University-Bloomington, Syracuse University.</p>
<p>I don't know about those but I do know that MIT and UChicago have amazing econ programs</p>
<p>^^ amazing graduate programs, this thread is asking about undergraduate</p>
<p>the most highly recruited econ programs in the country (i don't know if this necessarily means they are better academically, but finance firms seem to think so) are:</p>
<p>Harvard
Yale
Stanford
Penn
Northwestern
Dartmouth
Princeton</p>
<p>MIT is a close second to these schools in terms of recruitment; uchicago is much further down the list</p>
<p>How is Northwestern ABOVE UChicago on that list? Both in business and economics.</p>
<p>How is Fordham's economics program?</p>
<p>I'm not sure I'd agree with elsijfdl's assessment. If we're talking about business recruiting, U-Chicago is one of the only colleges (with Harvard, Yale, Stanford I want to say?) that gets attention from all of the top 5 consulting firms. MIT gets 4/5.</p>