<p>For those who are interested, you might want to read about how Columbia vaulted back into the top ten -- and possibly the top six -- in a burst of hiring this year and last:</p>
<p>First off, how does this relate to undergrad? Because we're interested in the marginal benefit, so i'd rather compare apples to apples ie what was the state of the econ dept for the undergrad level and how its impacted now. </p>
<p>Second, it's great to see an uptrend but people usually like to hop on after acceleration phase.</p>
<p>Good questions. For one, you have a lot more availability now, and for another, a lot more stimulation and excitement. The department was always strong; now it's brilliant, as it was till the late 60s, when due to the riots at Columbia and the general decline of New York, it lost faculty and students. Anyway, I personally find the distinction between grad and undergrad irrelevant; and particularly so at Columbia, where the two in fact can and do mingle quite a bit (to the benefit of both).</p>
<p>I think the trend is right now in the acceleration phase. In the few years before, the department recruited a couple of big names -- Sachs and Stiglitz -- but in the last two years, it recruited fourteen people; and it seems several more are to follow. Further, many of these new scholars know each and work together, which should add to the cohesiveness of the department.</p>
<p>A rising elevator is always more fun than a still one, and Columbia is one rising elevator.</p>
<p>In very practical terms it will mean smaller class size for undergrads, and the possibility of more opportunities to get involved in research. Every hire IS expected to do some undergraduate teaching.</p>
<p>Columbia's econ department has been swamped in recent years by a tidal wave of undergrad majors. Class size has been a real problem, and with it the difficulty of interacting enough with faculty to get recommendations for grad school. The departmental web page has acknowledged these problems.</p>
<p>A rising department also has the ability to attract the best grad students. This, in turn, has an impact on the undergrads because grad students serve as TAs in the introductory classes.</p>
<p>So there are real potential benefits to undergrads apart from the buzz of being at a place where things are really happening in the field. The question, of course. is how long will everyone stay. The fact that Columbia got such a large percentage of its first picks means that economists recognize the ambitions of the department and want to be part of it.</p>
<p>It is great that Columbia's Econ department is heading back towards the preeminence it had before the 1960s student riots. They are certainly building on a strong base of faculty luminaries, including Glenn Hubbard (strictly speaking in the Business School, but close enough both intellectually and physically), Jagdish Bhagwati, and Xavier Sala-i-Martin, besides the cantakerous Joe Stiglitz. </p>
<p>What do people think, though, about the Jeffrey Sachs hire? It was certainly an expensive one for Columbia, and appeared to be a brilliant move at the time; do people still think Columbia got the right bang for the buck?</p>
<p>It is worth noting that over the same period, NYU downtown snagged Tom Sargent and Bob Engel.</p>
<p>It is great to see the department improving, but I second the sentiment that this won't really have a huge impact on the undergrad program. The key to a better undergrad experience is professors who are great teachers, go above and beyond their obligation to the undergrads (always being available to chat vs. having 1 stinky hour of office hours), and actually try to get undergrads involved in research.</p>
<p>Having more warm bodies on the department roster is not enough, if these new hires are primarily interested in their research and don't care much about the undergrads. As we all know, these people are hired based on their scholarship, not their teaching ability and their love of undergrads.</p>
<p>A smaller class size isn't going to do much good if the prof is mediocre. I'm sure most of us would rather have a 250-person lecture with a great prof than be divided into two 125-person lectures with mediocre profs.</p>
<p>That, of course, is the classic decision a student makes when choosing a research university. Appointments and promotions are based on research, not on teaching ability, and many of these new hires will be unknown quantities as teachers. However, there is some evidence that the economics department at Columbia does care about teaching. For example, unlike other departments, it chooses to publish online the results of the student surveys for each prof's course. (I'm not talking about the student reviews on Culpa, but the survey that the department itself takes at the end of each course.) You can look and see what percentage of students thought the class was harder or easier than other classes, what percentage thought the exams reflected the material taught, etc., and what percentage of students thought the course was good, very good, etc. This sends a message to the professors that what the students think of them is important -- or at least very public.</p>
<p>I agree 110% about choosing a lecture class with a great teacher over a small class with a mediocre prof. Xavier Sala-i-Martin is both a big name and a "fantastic lecturer", according to my son. The intro class with Sunil Gulati is also hugely popular because of his abilities as a lecturer. The significance of small classes, or of doing research, is having a prof who knows your work well enough to write a personal recommendation come time to apply to grad schools -- as well as the chance to get some mentoring in a broader sense. And, if you get a small class with a great teacher, that is the best of all possible worlds. In the Spectator article on the new hires, the undergrad advisor in the department mentioned that one of the goals of expanding the department was to involve more undergrads in research as well as to lower class size. So, the declaration is there, and I hope they follow through.</p>
<p>There are universities that hire new departments by cutting deals with the star professors that they don't have to teach undergrads. As far as I know Columbia does not do this. (Joseph Stiglitz is co-teaching the introductory econ class this year and, according to the Spectator, is not exactly captivating.) Jeffrey Sachs is also teaching a lecture class and, when it was so crowded that the university wanted to not allow first years in, he used his clout to get it moved to another room instead.</p>
<p>In addition to the economics department at Columbia finally being able to compete with the likes of Berkeley, I'd also like to add that Columbia University is just up and coming in general. Columbia is able to attract star faculty in many other disciplines other than economics. A great example of this was the hire of Madeleine Albright for the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). Former Secretary of State Albright earned her PhD at Columbia and chose to return to Columbia as faculty.</p>
<p>In regards to 4th Floor's question/comment, I think that the hiring of Sachs was great considering what he does for the Earth Institute and recent activity on campus (i.e. the talk with Angelina Jolie). </p>
<p>I tend to agree more with Stiglitz and regard his work higher than Baghwati from reading both of their works but overall, these <em>star</em> professors are in fact, famous for their findings and researches, not for their style of teaching. Therefore, I feel that this adds to the experience for undergrads but it's not necessarily a very influential factor for undergrad experience in a department as big as economics.</p>
<p>Indeed.. I have a friend who hopefully will soon receive an acceptance at Columbia.. Two year ago I spent 3 weeks during a HS program there, and absolutely loved it... out of all the Ivies its the one I resepct the most, and the one which, if I had to attend one of the 8, I'd go to. Good luck to all of you who are still waiting for decisions!!</p>