<p>I'm really interested in Reed, Oberlin, Wesleyan, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Vassar, and Middlebury. I'd like to major in economics, or a program like Wesleyan's College of Social Studies or Middlebury's International Politics & Economics. I'm quite intellectual, and I want to go to a predominately liberal college which will challenge me, but not completely kill me as I'd like to join some clubs and become active on campus. I'm looking for a good economics department which will prepare me for a good Econ PhD program (so nothing too pre-professional meant for Wall St. i-bankers). Which of these schools come to mind?</p>
<p>I think they could all be made to fit the bill academically. Socially, you would probably have to become extremely adept at time management at Swarthmore and, I’d say the same thing is true of Wesleyan’s College of Social Studies (CSS).</p>
<p>Fewest future I-bankers? Probably Reed, Swarthmore and Oberlin. Most future I-bankers? Bowdoin. But that’s based entirely on relative preppiness (which Wall Street loves). Doesn’t mean you can’t go the future Econ PhD route at any of these schools.</p>
<p>I think you’d be making a mistake to eliminate Williams on the perception that the focus is exclusively Wall Street. Actually, the public policy focus is equally strong if not more prevalent. The economics department is one of the largest among similarly academically rigorous LACs. The PhD placement is excellent.
(Look at [Economics</a> Alumni in Grad School](<a href=“http://econ.williams.edu/students/grad-student-list]Economics”>http://econ.williams.edu/students/grad-student-list)). </p>
<p>The Center for Development Economics is an international thinktank for third world public policy and influences the interdisciplinary program on political economy.</p>
<p>For preparation for graduate study, you likely want a school with strong math and statistics as well as economics; intermediate microeconomics courses using multivariable calculus are typically favored.</p>
<p>You can check each school’s course catalog to see if it has equivalent courses to the suggested ones (in general, they should, if they have worthy degree programs in math, statistics, and economics).</p>
There’s some truth to the stereotype. On the Reed website there’s an oft-cited spreadsheet listing the top ten Ph.d producers on a per capita basis for twelve different academic categories. Only Reed appears in all twelve categories (naturally), followed by Carleton (7), Swarthmore (6), Wesleyan (4), Oberlin (4) and two each for Amherst and Williams. </p>
<p>^^Agreed. For example, languages are missing entirely which is presumably to Middlebury’s detriment. And, intriguingly, Economics is not bracketed out from The Social Sciences even though there was no problem in separating Physics and Chemistry from The Physical Sciences. These are obviously Reed strong points.</p>
<p>You’re overlooking Bryn Mawr with 7 appearances on Reed’s lists, Harvey Mudd with 6, and Grinnell and Pomona with 5 apiece. I know the OP isn’t considering these schools, but your post misleadingly suggests Wesleyan is in 4th place among LACs on Reed’s lists. It’s not. </p>
<p>I’m skeptical of some of these Ph.D. productivity per capita numbers, though. If you look at Interesteddad’s table for economics, for example, we’re talking about really small numbers. The #7 school is actually a 6-way tie, with 5 per 1,000. The #18 school is a 14-way tie, with 3 per 1,000. To my mind, the difference between 5 per 1,000 and 3 per 1,000 is just not that great, especially at some of the smaller LACs where 3 per thousand would represent on average about 1 student per year going on to get a Ph.D. in econ. Granted, that’s no small accomplishment. But a school like tiny Earlham (undergrad enrollment 1,322, so about 330 graduates per year, or 3,300 graduates per 10 years) would have produced 10 econ Ph.D.s in a decade to earn its place in the spotlight as one of the schools tied for #18 in econ Ph.D. production. A couple of dry years where it produces no econ majors who go on to earn Ph.D.s (instead of the usual 1) and it’s bounced from the top 30. A few flush years where it produces 2 instead of 1, and its average rounds to 4 per thousand, and suddenly it’s in a tie for #13. And not to knock Earlham which I think has a very strong academic culture, but we don’t know where that one Earlham grad per year is going to get that Ph.D. My guess is that although Columbia is producing econ Ph.D.s at the same rate per 1,000 as Earlham, a higher percentage of the Columbia grads who go on to pursue Ph.D.s are doing so in top grad programs. Or not; these tables just don’t tell us anything about that, and because they don’t, they’re no so terribly meaningful.</p>
<p>I was responding to the OP’s “quirkiness” and “preppiness” hypothesis. If I’d the slightest idea where those other schools fit on that continuum I probably would have included them, too. In any event, the URL address was included just so people could do their own analyses.</p>
<p>^^Williams goes from #3 on the econ PhD ranking to #16 on the overall list; Bowdoin goes from #18 to #32; and Columbia disappears from the list entirely.</p>