<p>Does Uchic have the 'best' economics department for undergrads in America? I couldn't find any specific data that ranked economic departments like they would engineering or business...have any of you? I know that for every 5 economics Nobel award given, 1 has went to UCHIC alumni/faculty, but thats about all I know...also the fact that they revolutionized economics (supposedly) and have a specific school of thought tat has changed over the years....so If you guys have any other information please share :) I'm also interested in other universities that have elite economics programs.
Thanks</p>
<p>Yeah, MIT's and Chicago's economics programs are generally considered the best.</p>
<p>the chicago school of thought is really milton friedman's. there isn't just one form of thinking at chicago.</p>
<p>astrix is correct</p>
<p>If you go to Paris, you visit the Louvre. If you go to Chicago, you take Econ.</p>
<p>Someone working at the UoC won the Bank of Sweden Prize (the "Nobel Prize in Economics") 5 years in a row in the early 1990s.</p>
<p>Cassiodorus:</p>
<p>Not just one.
Try</a> 23 of them. (a total of 78 Nobel Laureates)</p>
<p>Chicago has one of the most famous economics department, but it is very right wing though (i.e. Milton Friedman, ties to the Chicago Boyz).</p>
<p>I was refering to the string of victories 1989 to 1993. That is more impressive then the number of victories, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Chicago is awesome for most everything, but it's especially awesome for all the social sciences (and languages--check out the crazy selection).
<a href="http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=397%5B/url%5D">http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level3.asp?id=397</a></p>
<p>It's not a right-wing department so much as it is a free market faculty...I don't believe that Friedman supported supply-side economics.</p>
<p>his a monetarist so you go figure it out.</p>
<p>I basically wrote in my essays that I wanted to go to Chicago because it had a legendary econ program. However, Chicago's grad program and research is perhaps the dominant figure - not the undergrad program. Certainly UChicago has the lions share of Nobel Prizes and luminaries such as Friedman - but that doesn't necessarily translate into the best econ program for the College.</p>
<p>So which econ program would you suggest is the best?</p>
<p>Honestly, at a school of that caliber you can't go wrong for economics. However, each school offers different professors (Krugman at Princeton-- YES!) that might pique your respective interests. As a potential economics major, I'm making my decision based on issues like $. However, I'm heavily leaning toward Duke.</p>
<p>why Duke? when it comes to economics, my intended major, nothing comes close to chicago in my mind.</p>
<p>A large percentage of the people who post on this site don't seem to understand that a good education comes with a student's effort to exploit the resources offered her. At any of these large, high-caliber schools, the resources available in popular majors are more than any student will ever be able to take advantage of. And in the Information Age, one could conceivably get a college education just browsing the internet for four years.</p>
<p>I don't believe it makes sense to choose Chicago out of, say, Duke, Chicago, and Harvard just because Chicago has a legacy of Nobel winners in econ. If you have the heart, you'll be completely satisfied at any of them. The notion that Chicago's program is somehow "better" than Duke's or Princeton's or Berkeley's is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Indeed, I am strongly considering UMBC over Duke and Chicago because I got a full ride. I know the economics department is well-developed there, and I know the resources are infinite as far as I'm concerned. If I REALLY want to see an original copy of An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, I'll take a trip to Ithaca, NY.</p>
<p>Your education comes from your own work, not from being in a place with a good reputation. Honestly, the most important reason Duke is my #1 at this point is because of the weather.</p>
<p>I agree that a good education has a lot to do with the student's effort to use the resources they have, but if there are more resources or oppurtunities offered at college A than college B, academically, shouldn't college A be superior? </p>
<p>"If you have the heart, you'll be completely satisfied at any of them. The notion that Chicago's program is somehow "better" than Duke's or Princeton's or Berkeley's is ridiculous."</p>
<p>What you have in your heart and what you would be satisfied with doesn't make a college better or worse academically...that has to do with the individual and has no relation to the education that is being provided to you. </p>
<p>Of course most of your education comes from your own work and not from being in a place with a good reputation, or else that would mean your college education would determine your whole life, but it doesnt becasue its up to you; however, all things being equel (lol), your more likely to have the upper hand by majoring in economics in chicago rather than most other institutions...</p>
<p>Jaco speaks with wisdom. While jacknjill raises the usual, common argument, this argument is arguably (repetition deliberate..) truer for graduate school than for undergrad.</p>
<p>I am always humored by posts on these boards regarding the "best" programs. Come on - this is not grad school we're talking about. And many folks change majors anyway. You all would be much better served discussing what programs are "good" and why, their strengths and weaknesses, rather than sweeping rankings. </p>
<ul>
<li> unless all you want are bragging rights about attending the "best" of something.</li>
</ul>
<p>i think we all want that bragging right.</p>