<p>What are undergrad schools with a strong and notable Economics program?</p>
<p>I'm looking at schools that are more intellectually and theoretically oriented, without much focus (if any) on business finance, MBA pursuits, or guaranteed vocations. I'm interested in economics strictly in a sense of how it can solve social sciences such as urban development, world aid, human life and on and on.</p>
<p>It doesn't have to be a LAC, and the college doesn't have to be of an unconventional atmosphere on the whole.</p>
<p>So far:
-University of Chicago (Would be first choice but might be too much of a reach)
-Beloit College (that's what it says in Fiske)
-Claremont McKenna (personally not too interested in applying)
-Grinnell College</p>
<p>CMC is a great school for econ, but it really doesn’t emphasize the “intellectual and theoretical” approach that you’re looking for. There are exceptions to this generalization, but there’s a pretty strong emphasis on pre-professionalism, MBA/law-bound students, i-banking and other careers in finance, etc. (evident both inside and outside the classroom).</p>
<p>If you’re still interested in the consortium, Pomona or Pitzer (and perhaps Scripps, if you’re female) might be of more interest. Pomona also has an excellent econ department, but is said to take a more theoretical approach. There are still many students with specific professional, often business finance goals, but from your description, you might be more comfortable in the department + the college as a whole (while still being able to access CMC’s courses). If UChicago might be too much of a reach, though, Pomona is likely the same. Both Pitzer and Scripps would allow you to take econ courses at CMC and Pomona (as well as on campus, where offered)–there would be no shortage of strong academics–but you’d be farther away from the pre-professional atmosphere, and in very service-oriented environments. Pitzer is often listed among quirky/unconventional colleges.</p>
<p>Frankly, any university that has a business school separate from the economics department takes a theoretical approach to most of its courses, although there are upper level courses that apply the theory to particular subdivisions of economic theory, e.g., labor economics, international trade, game theory, etc. Still, they are not business-oriented.</p>
<p>Included in the group I just described are many large public universities. Most of them have business schools for undergraduates interested in business careers. Many of those students end up taking econ. courses in economics departments (arts and sciences) if they are interested in obtaining a better theoretical base, but that doesn’t mean the courses are geared toward them.</p>
<p>I had that sort of feeling about CMC, thanks for clarifying.</p>
<p>Schools like Hamilton, Colby, or Colgate are perfect descriptions of LAC’s that are more like rival comparisons to conventional business programs. On the flipside, a school like Hampshire seems too open ended and not sufficiently focused on economics.</p>
<p>List updated:
-University of Chicago
-Beloit College (that’s what it says in Fiske)
-Berkeley
-Grinnell College
-Swarthmore College</p>
<p>i would say, given what you want, top economics programs to avoid (although they also send tons of kids to top programs, but probably have a higher proportional amount of pre-professional kids) are:</p>
<p>Penn
Northwestern
Duke
Cornell
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
Michigan</p>
<p>again, i’m generalizing, many of these schools are large with a huge mix of people, but i think in general they are more pre-professional than many of the schools you’re listing.</p>
<p>have you considered washington and lee, columbia, middlebury, haverford?</p>
<p>I’m a little surprised at some of the schools on your “avoid” list. My husband used to teach econ at one of them (as a prof), collaborates with current profs at several others, and good friends of ours, theoretical types all, have undergrad. degrees from still others.</p>
<p>The ultimate interests of the undergraduates in the classes is quite irrelevant to whether or not the course work is theoretical in nature. Whether a student intends ultimately to make a bundle establishing an investment firm or, rather, wishes to use the principles of economic analysis to suggest ways to reform public education just doesn’t matter at the level of undergraduate education, as long as the course work is taught in the economics department, rather than the business school.</p>
<p>I think some econ. professors at Michigan would have a heart attack if they knew it had been suggested that they fell short in the teaching of theoretical economics!</p>
<p>Also, as far as Beloit goes - that seemed a bit off to me, so I ran a check…they don’t make Rugg’s LAC list for econ, nor the Gourman Report list for econ. They actually don’t seem to show up in rankings at all. </p>
<p>The best LACs for the field actually appear to be places like the Claremont Colleges, Hamilton, Washington & Lee, Swarthmore, Rhodes, Grinnell, Haverford, Bucknell, Occidental, Saint Mary’s MD, etc.</p>
<p>midmo: I don’t think that the issue is just (or even primarily) teaching, but also the interests of other students, and the campus climate as a whole. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t imagine that it much matters within the classroom, but it could be very relevant from a social perspective. It could also bear some influence on students’ opportunities for department research, internships, career placement, guest speakers and department events, etc. Just my assumption/observation.</p>
<p>CMC, to go with the best example I can give, is reputed to have a wonderful econ program. I imagine there are professors who teach very theoretically, at CMC itself and at other Claremont schools. But a student who describes himself like the OP–uninterested in MBA or business finance, looking for a primarily intellectual/theoretical (and not pre-professional) environment, interested in econ as a tool to explore social concerns–would be a fish out of water. This isn’t to say that the program isn’t wonderful in its own way, or that the OP couldn’t get anything out of it…just that it doesn’t really fit *my interpretation<a href=“that%20should%20always%20be%20the%20disclaimer!”>/i</a> of what he’s looking for.</p>
<p>So OP, you may want to clarify whether your original description referred strictly to teaching, or to “atmosphere” as a whole. And I certainly encourage you to do some of your own research on any schools mentioned here before either adding them to or cutting them from your list.</p>
<p>It’s sickeningly difficult to get into but Brown is worth a look. Very eccentric in a lot of ways and I’ve heard great things about their economics program. </p>
<p>If you’re into smaller liberal arts colleges, definitely take a look at Hampshire, Bard, Wesleyan and Swarthmore. </p>
<p>Someone uptheread suggested Occidental and I definitely second that if Cali’s your thing. It’s not insanely hard to get into and I think it definitely meets your definition of eccentric. Plus, it’s a very respected school and IMO, very underrated.</p>