<p>How would you rank these schools for economics (assuming the best undergrad education)?</p>
<p>Dartmouth
Brown
Penn
NW'ern
Wash U
Haverford
UCLA
Cal
Bowdoin
Claremont McKenna
Bucknell
Boston U</p>
<p>Kind of a lot of schools, but any help is appreciated. Thanks!</p>
<p>Based on graduate ranking, it goes like this:</p>
<p>Cal (3rd)
Northwestern (8th)
Penn (9th)
UCLA (11th)
Brown (21st)
Boston U (25th)
Wash U (36th)</p>
<p>Obviously there's no graduate ranking for LACs. I took 3 econ classes at Northwestern and the classes/professors were all pretty good. Can't speak how graduate ranking correlates undergrad education at others schools.</p>
<p>Every ranking I've seen of the LACs has Claremont McKenna #1 in economics.</p>
<p>Most undergrad econ rankings I've seen have Northwestern #2 in econ (U Chicago #1).</p>
<p>Northwestern #2? Don't get me wrong, Northwestern is a fine school for economics, but I'm not entirely sure that it's better than places like MIT, Stanford, or Harvard. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.litzusa.com/econo_right.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.litzusa.com/econo_right.html</a></p>
<h1>9 Dartmouth</h1>
<h1>4 Brown</h1>
<h1>1 Penn</h1>
<h1>3 NW'ern</h1>
<h1>7 Wash U</h1>
<h1>10 Haverford</h1>
<h1>4 UCLA</h1>
<h1>2 Cal Berkeley</h1>
<h1>11 Bowdoin</h1>
<h1>8 Claremont McKenna</h1>
<h1>12 Bucknell</h1>
<h1>6 Boston U</h1>
<p><a href="http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x7097.xml%5B/url%5D">http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x7097.xml</a></p>
<p>"Further evidence of UCLA Anderson facultys intellectual capital strength comes from a 2003 citation study conducted by Academic Assessment Services, which found that UCLA Anderson School of Management was among five U.S. universities whose faculties ranked among the top 30 in all eight academic disciplines. These schools were, in alphabetical order, Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Stanford and UCLA. UCLA Anderson ranked in the Top 10 in five of the eight academic areas:"</p>
<p>2nd in Management Science
4th in Economics
4th in Finance
8th in Information Systems
10th in Strategy</p>
<p>ucla's econ dept does a comprehensive internal review every 8 years. The last one is around 5 years old, but things don't change that quick in a big U so it probably still has a lot of validity. You can read it at <a href="http://www.econ.ucla.edu/8threview/8yrreview.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.econ.ucla.edu/8threview/8yrreview.pdf</a> They don't seem to think too highly of the undergrad program</p>
<p>Flopsy, I think we're talking about undergrad econ here. Anderson is strictly a graduate business school.</p>
<p>I guess there are quite a few different rankings out there. The one I used was from US News. I do second with sakky that the link put out by flopsy is for business school. The "4th in econ" refers to some "intellectual rank" of Anderson's faculty based on 2003 citation study. It probably got nothing to do with even the econ graduate program in their school of letters and science.</p>
<p>I'm at bucknell right now doing econ, and I love the school and the teacher's I've had so far but I've heard some of the econ teachers suck.</p>
<p>I can't imagine we're worse than boston U.</p>
<p>I'm just trying to get a feel for these school's econ departments. It's hard to compare a big U's (like Cal) econ program to a small LAC (like McKenna, which I've heard and read is top notch). Most of the rankings out there are based off of graduate programs, which can shed some light on the undergrad program, but falls short in evaluating LAC's with no grad program.</p>
<p>Just based on my knowledge for economics departments, I'd rank my preferences on where i'd want to go like this:</p>
<ol>
<li>Brown University</li>
<li>UC-Berkeley</li>
<li>Northwestern Univ.</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna</li>
<li>Univ. of Pennsylvania</li>
<li>Bowdoin College</li>
<li>UC- Los Angeles</li>
<li>Haverford College</li>
<li>Washington Univ.</li>
<li>Bucknell Univ.</li>
<li>Boston Univ</li>
</ol>
<p>Quagmire, do a search on CC and read past threads. You will see that it is virtually impossible to find a consensus on the applicability or even integrity of the rankings. For some reason, the absence of a "definitive" ranking a la USNews throws people into a specultaive frenzy. However, the order of a ranking is insignificant ... what matters are the underlying criteria. Some find the production of future PHD an important element to establish the academic strength of a program; some find the production of quality pages in academic journals a better measure. </p>
<p>Personally, I would recommend to spend some time checking the faculty background and research, as well as the political preferences of the department. Also, try to ascertain the school commitment to its economic program. Despite the great reputation of some schools for academic rigor and depth, the economic departments are not always considered important enough to hire tenured faculty of a certain calibre. </p>
<p>In the end, it is up to you to establish the criteria that are important. This is a lot more important than picking a school that enjoy a "great" reputation. This is especially true since a quick review of past posts on CC amply demonstrate that most discussions on this precise subject include recommendations that range from highly dubious to plain silly.</p>
<p>MIT, Chicago, Michigan, Berkeley, Claremont, and Princeton are among the top.</p>
[quote]
EVANSTON, Ill. --- For the second year in a row, Northwestern University won the College Fed Challenge at the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D.C. Winning this competition brought the students and Northwestern University a prize of $25,000 from the Moodys, Inc. </p>
<p>Sixty schools prepared teams, including Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Columbia, Cornell, Boston College, Rutgers, Harvard, Lafayette, and finalists Mount St. Marys College and SUNY-Geneseo.</p>
<p>By winning the Illinois and then the Midwest Regional Championships, Northwesterns team advanced to the finals Nov. 29. The team went before Chairman Alan Greenspan and a panel of judges chosen from Federal Reserve economists to make a presentation about what the Feds monetary policy should be, given the state of the economy, and then answer questions about the Federal Reserve, the state of the economy, and macroeconomic theory. </p>
<p>Northwesterns team was made up of five students: </p>
<p>Aditya Damani of Mumbai, India (senior, McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, economics and electrical engineering, a member of the 2004 championship team)</p>
<p>Derek Moeller of Wakarusa, Kan. (senior, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, economics, a member of the 2004 championship team)</p>
<p>Kevin Rodrigues of Nairobi, Kenya (senior, Weinberg College, economics, also transportation and logistics)</p>
<p>Jeanne Ruan of Carmel, Ind. (sophomore, Weinberg College, economics and mathematical methods in the social sciences)</p>
<p>Reed Van Gorden of Boulder, Col. (senior, Weinberg College, economics and chemistry)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quagmire, I'd say Cal, Northwestern and Penn would be at the top of your list.</p>
<p>I would follow those with Brown, Claremont McKenna and UCLA.</p>
<p>Next would be Bowdoin, Dartmouth, Haverford and Washington U.</p>
<p>BU and Bucknell would come in last.</p>
<p>All of those schools are excellent.</p>
<p>don't choose the school based on its department rankings alone. have you actually visited each school? you HAVE to like/love your school in order to do well. the difference in general school atmosphere between Upenn and Cal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the difference in econ department.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Xiggi wrote: In the end, it is up to you to establish the criteria that are important. This is a lot more important than picking a school that enjoy a "great" reputation. This is especially true since a quick review of past posts on CC amply demonstrate that most discussions on this precise subject include recommendations that range from highly dubious to plain silly.
[/quote]
This is probably the best advice you're going to get, and ought to be a footnote on every thread.</p>
<p>For example, Alexandre puts ucla in his 2nd rank. Why, one might ask? Will you get a satisfying education there? Take a look at the ucla econ department's own review at the link I gave earlier. Here's a few sample quotes <a href="and%20remember%20this%20is%20from%20ucla%20econ%20itself!">b</a>**
[quote]
Over the past decade the University suffered through a difficult contraction and then began the process of recovery. The Economics Department was hit particularly hard by this crisis, and the undergraduate program bore the brunt of our internal adjustments.</p>
<p>Obviously, with upper-division class sizes averaging 100, few students develop either the skills or the contact with faculty required for them to contemplate devoting time to independent research. Ladder faculty are few in number relative to the volume of students served, and as a result classes are large and the requirements for graduation limited.</p>
<p>Relative to most other majors at UCLA, however, economics undergraduates must contend with a dearth of ladder faculty, a lack of diversity in the courses offered, and limited student-faculty interaction. Our honors program is moribund, with less than 1 percent of our students completing senior theses. Students can easily choose a course of study that will excuse them from having to write a term paper or from having to make a significant oral presentation during their undergraduate years, despite the fact that we know that writing and communication skills are the cornerstones of successful careers.
[/quote]
</p>