<p>While I agree that MIT, Harvard, Chicago, Princeton and UCB all have top econ programs...I have to disagree with Duke. It's a great school, but I've never really heard it associated with economics. Northwestern, on the other hand, has a great underpublicized econ program.</p>
<p>Duke, like HYPS Georgetown, UCB, U Mich, Cornell, Emory, UNC CH, MIT.......... is a top school. Econ is a super-popular major, and you would be hard-pressed to find an econ major from any of those schools who wished he had attended one of the others.</p>
<p>It seems this differs for grad school, as newmassdad posited. But just for example, guess where Friedman went for undergrad? Edward Prescott, who split the Nobel Prize in econ last year, "only" attended Case Western Reserve for his econ degree. The days when education was limited to a small cadre of elite schools are over, and knowledge is everywhere to be had. Do what you want, but I plan to save my money.</p>
<p>That was a little defensive.</p>
<p>I know Duke is a great school. But unlike other schools of its calibre--Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Chicago, Northwestern, Princeton and UCB--it's not really known for econ. It's not any type of disadvantage, but it's not considered a top econ school.</p>
<p>" It's not any type of disadvantage, but it's not considered a top econ school."</p>
<p>By whom? Grad or undergrad? So what?</p>
<p>Many of you here are asking the wrong questions, except perhaps j10cpc5000, who joked that prestige was a factor. Otherwise, you should ask:</p>
<ul>
<li> what is the department/school's track record in grad school placement</li>
<li> what is the track record in job placement.</li>
</ul>
<p>Long term, those things are what matter, not "prestige". You can't take prestige to the bank.</p>
<p>Those two things are usually corollaries of prestige...</p>
<p>"Those two things are usually corollaries of prestige..."</p>
<p>maybe on your planet, but not the one the rest of us are on. </p>
<p>No, prestige is, to a great extent, derived from PR efforts of the faculty, their research, congressional testamony, press releases and so forth. And none of these have the slightest thing to do with effective undergraduate teaching. To some degree, they're probably negatively correlated, after all, classes get in the way of press conferences.</p>
<p>If you really believe this statement, you have a LOT to learn.</p>
<p>That makes no sense. If it did, then WUSTL would be considered prestigious. If you believe prestige comes from press conferences and fancy packets, then you are sadly mistaken.</p>
<p>Prestige comes from having a distinguished faculty and demanding courses. Why do you think Chicago is so prestigious? After all, they do not publicize themselves that well.</p>
<p>I just reread your post, actually...it seems you don't even understand what "corollary" means. "Corollary" means result--as in job placement and grad school placement rates being a RESULT OF a school's prestige. You seem to have it backwards.</p>
<p>And you say I have a lot to learn--you're an adult, posting on what is essentially a board meant for teens (as most of the topics you are posting in are for future Chicago students and their opinions)...and you still make a fool of yourself.</p>
<p>Hm. Track record, I must say, tends to be based on prestige. So I agree with jpps1. If there are two equal college graduates competing for a single spot at, say, Harvard Law, and the only difference is in the college attended, the one that went to HYPS will almost certainly get the spot over a state school graduate. I've seen figures to this effect.</p>
<p>My argument is this: that acceptance is unfair.</p>
<p>Also, prestige is derived from more than PR and news media. In fact, I argue that a school's prestige is most prominently the corollary of the quality of its former graduates. After this prestige exists, it reinforces itself as top students are drawn to HYPS etc.</p>
<p>What I'm getting at (well, newmassdad said it) is that prestige does not equal quality in education. I believe that I would learn just as much at Harvard as I would at Duke, or UMBC, or Chicago. So my top concerns are: money, quality of life, weather, social scence (I prefer minimal partying), food, etc. If I were worried about the quality of a particular school's econ program, I would certainly consider it. But I'm just not worried.</p>
<p>""Corollary" means result"</p>
<p>Oh my. You may note I did not use the word "corollary", but rather "correlated". I will leave it to one of your colleagues with a better understanding of statistics than you obviously have to point out the error in your logic.</p>
<p>jpps1, your final sentence is an honest statement, I guess. If you really think the best way to learn is to learn from your fellow teens, more power to you. Why bother with college then? You won't have teens teaching there. I've always prefered to learn from folks who actually have knowledge and experience. I guess some others here don't feel that way. To each his/her own. .</p>
<p>I do prefer to learn from adults...however, the adults I learn from do not have an elitist stick up their ass. They don't come on a message board telling people what's what without knowing what they're even saying.</p>
<p>All you've done in your posts here is thumb your nose at people and schools that do not fit your lofty mold of "academic excellence..." When in truth, if they did, they'd be bookworms and shut-ins.</p>
<p>jpps1,</p>
<p>hit a nerve? just because someone disagreed with your notion of prestige?</p>
<p>Look, I don't ask that you agree, I do ask that you think a bit before you blindly charge into a prestigious institution that may not meet your needs. </p>
<p>It is your life, not mine. Good luck.</p>
<p>Can we come to a conclusion of some sort?</p>
<p>State schools are not bad. They are what you make of them. Of course, coming from a reputable school with decent grades helps with the whole job search thing.</p>
<p>Take Carnegie-Mellon for instance. It has a great mechanical engineering program. All kinds of companies come there to recruit students.</p>
<p>A school has a reputation for a reason.</p>
<p>But a state school won't leave you jobless. And after a few years at your job, I doubt what college you went to will make much difference.</p>
<p>My #1 concern is getting an education. And my point is, state schools are perfectly fine for that. What needs to be understood is that good performance at a state school will get you into a top-notch grad school. </p>
<p>My cousin, who had a 1600 and a 4.0, attended UMBC for undergrad. She loved it, and was wildly successful. Now she is going for a PhD at Caltech, and something tells me she won't have any trouble finding a job in her field, environmental engineering. She (like me) got a full ride, so I'd say she did pretty well for herself. She doesn't get to say, "I went to Harvard," but who cares?</p>
<p>Conclusion, as some have pointed out, is that success, in my definition, depends on what you accomplish, not where you do it. Yes, some places make it easier than others, but even that depends on the individual. There are so many nuances to this stuff, that I think the best you could do would be to identify a big block of schools that are good, mabe good enough. Then focus on finding the environment (yes, all the soft factors) that will help you thrive and perform at your best. </p>
<p>you are much better off being upwardly mobile - be the star at a (slightly) lesser place and you'll do better than being downwardly mobile - one of the also rans at a top program. For many kids, Chicago may be too tough a nut to crack. How many kids, out of the dozens of econ majors, will stand out to the point where a faculty member will go to bat for them? Not many.</p>
<p>WOW, I actually agree with Newmassdad. If your end goal is to do well in business or even go to grad school, any of the top schools will put you in a position to do that. Both Duke and Chicago fall into this category. If this were not true the liberal arts colleges would not do as well as they do in placement. </p>
<p>In fact the difference between getting into a certain grad program might come down to a thesis or a research project, and these opportunities are available anywhere. I had a friend at Dartmouth (currently at Harvard med), who only has a 32MCAT and a 3.6 but he managed to form a strong relationship with the ex-surgeon general and he started a science magazine, in addition to his published thesis. He took advantage of his opportunities. THAT makes a difference.</p>
<p>You want to be in the consideration set of schools, and I would draw that line to strongly include both Chicago and Duke.</p>
<p>newmassdad has it right. You can be a star at a state school, and that's just as good or better than being another A- at Chicago. The "soft" factors are also very important.</p>