<p>“PS Some of the Ivy’s have been ranking lower as their competition is rising. There is a reason that UChicago is ranked higher”</p>
<p>The problem is that you never specified which rankings, I assumed U.S. News and you have yet to refute that. My stance is that UofChicago is a great school and great for Econ and that if that school is a fit for you than please GO there! I agree with you that Brown has been lesser known worldwide than HYPS. It’s fine if the general consensus is that UofChi of the best place for Econ, and it has gained a reputation for being a good place for that subject. My initial problem, again, was with this statement, “There is a reason that UChicago is ranked higher”.</p>
<p>My problem is not with UofChicago as it is with people who post and cite rankings as proof one school is better than another, or use anecdotal evidence as factual proof.</p>
<p>“again it is ranking higher in certain circles”</p>
<p>Would you care to elaborate on how “rankings” work in “circles”?</p>
<p>“assume only your rankings i/e cross admit percentages count for anything”</p>
<p>Actually I don’t, but there is data on which schools we lose students to which goes against your initial postulation that Brown loses “many” students to UofChi. However, the things you are claiming to “count” for anything haven’t even been cited at this point. It seemed you were using arbitrary rankings and anecdotal evidence only, and those don’t count for much around here. If you say something like, “UofChi has a reputation of having a top econ department” this is fine, but saying that they rank higher - somewhere - because of this, is a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>I’m sure SoWhat decided months ago what school to attend, so I’m not addressing that. I do have a question about economics departments.</p>
<p>University of Chicago is well-known to be the home of monetary policy and free-market theory, rejecting Keynesian theory. If one is not a follower of Milton Friedman, et. al., is Chicago still considered the premier college for economics? </p>
<p>I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, but there are the “freshwater” and the “salt water” schools of economic theory, and if one is more interested in the “salt water” approach (government intervention and fiscal policy), is Chicago still the top economics department?</p>
<p>One might not like the theory that UChicago uses when teaching Econ, but regardless, it’s regarded as one of the best programs in the world. I agree that if one does not like Milton Friedman or does not believe in those theory’s than one may want to find another school more to their liking. </p>
<p>But, as far as prestige and title. UChicago has the superior program for Econ.</p>
<p>FYI Wolfmanjack: I base much of what I write, not only on what I read and have taken in, but also on life experience. Not sure how old you are or what your background is or has been in, but I would have to say that I do have some qualifications in this department. My responses are not emotional as I am in no way connected to either school. Sometimes it helps to have no ties to what is being discussed as one can be more objective.</p>
<p>"PS Some of the Ivy’s have been ranking lower as their competition is rising. There is a reason that UChicago is ranked higher and it’s every bit as good as those schools. It’s not easy getting those rankings "</p>
<p>This is what I was debating, not whether uchicago has a good or better Econ department. I questioned your use of rankings as a source of proof. </p>
<p>A few of us also refuted your statement about cross admits.</p>
<p>You may be qualified on this matter but it doesn’t really apply when you use arbitrary rankings to support your opinion, and make statements about cross admit data that is not only unfounded - it’s wrong. It turns from an opinion post to an opinion post with a bad source and shaky reasoning, putting the whole argument in jeopardy. I’m questioning your logic and sources more than your ability.</p>
<p>D’sMom, I stand by what I’ve said. Is Chicago better known for Economics than Brown? Yes. However, Chicago’s anti-Keynes Economic philosophy is a detriment for people looking at Economic theory from a non-Milton Friedman perspective. MIT, Berkeley, Harvard, and many others would be a much better choice for a more holistic approach to Economic theory if Economics is something one is passionate about. And, as I said before, at the undergraduate level, if you do well at Brown, it places you in a competitive position for graduate Economics programs at some of the finest schools in the nation.</p>
<p>Look, as people have attempted to inform you, but you obstinately refuse to consider, most people consider Brown to be far more prestigious than Chicago. The fact you know a few people who’ve chosen Chicago over Brown is really immaterial. I know people who chose Brown over Harvard, but I have no problem saying that Havard handily wins the cross-admit battle with Brown and is considered to be a more prestigious admissions prize for most students. Your refusal to acknowledge that most students prefer Brown to Chicago approximates trolldom. Are you a Chicago ■■■■■?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I have no opinion on rankings or prestige. You say tom-ay-to; I say to-mah-to. (I also say that such conversations descend into bizarre measuring contests that I thought were reserved for men’s locker rooms.)</p></li>
<li><p>The one thing my all my friends at Chicago say about the undergraduate economics program? It’s a lot of math. Looking at the course catalog offerings in econ, I don’t see any courses labeled “Mandatory Free Market Indoctrination 101.” I am not an econ major, but I don’t think there is a way to make math political. And if you happen to think that free market stuff isn’t practical, doesn’t work, etc. you’ll be FAR from alone.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If you read Naomi Klein’s book Shock Doctrine, you will find that the Chicago School of Economics has traditionally had a very laissez-faire, free market orientation that, yes, is heavy on the math, but also has a political dimension. I think Chicago’s reputation for quality is based on its historical influence in spreading this free market ideology around the world, particularly in Latin America. Influential political people have provided it its cache and academic prestige rather than any transcendent quality of the program. What I was attempting to say is that if you do well in Brown’s undergraduate Economics program, you will be competititive for admission to graduate programs in Economics at places like MIT, Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, Columbia, as well as Chicago. I also believe you will have a better holistic undergraduate experience at Brown than either Chicago or UCLA, or any other undergraduate school in the country for that matter. My .02.</p>
<p>I don’t know which school is “better” overall, as it would be pointless to say one is entirely better than the other. However, it is funny how when someone goes to another school’s forum and says X school is better than that school, the people in that forum absolutely refuse to accept the opinions of any outsiders, immediately labeling them as ignorant or un-informed for not conforming to their point of view.</p>