<p>so whats the deal with the economics department....is it really as good as i have heard it is</p>
<p>from what i've heard, chicago's undergrad econ department is second in the nation after Harvard. I'm not sure about graduate.</p>
<p>brand, what was your source for this information?</p>
<p>From what I have heard, U. of C.'s econ department is the best in the country. It perhaps is even more well known at the graduate school level, as it attracts students from across the world, including the "Chicago Boys" from Chile (Chileans trained at the U. of C. basically to run Chile after they recieve their degrees).</p>
<p>Chicago's econ department is second to none. From the WSJ:</p>
<p>"(...Of the 55 economists awarded the Nobel Prize since 1969, when economics was added to the roster, 10 have taught at Chicago and an additional 13 either trained at Chicago or had previously taught there. Harvard, by contrast, has had four faculty winners.) </p>
<p>For those who like numeric rankings (I don't), from USNWR:</p>
<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</li>
<li>University of Chicago</li>
<li>Harvard University (MA)</li>
<li>Princeton University (NJ)</li>
<li>Stanford University (CA)</li>
<li>University of California–Berkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>The economics program at Chicago is generally considered to be the strongest in the nation because of how much the major demands of its students. Contrary to popular belief, the faculty does NOT indoctrinate its undergraduate students with the Chicago school of thought; instead, it instills in them the fundamental (and, admittedly, not so fundamental) tools of economics, expecting them to apply these tools to every aspect of their lives. Ever heard of Freakonomics? That's what Chicago has been famous for doing for, oh, the last couple of decades or so.</p>
<p>The department's reputation for being so strong also makes Chicago a recruiter's paradise. The fact that Chicago needs to do almost nothing at all to secure good starting salaries (not to mention bonuses) for its Economics majors is a testament to the outcome of Chicago's curriculum. In my opinion, there is no better place in the world to get a more complete and thorough economics education, as only an undergraduate, than at Chicago.</p>
<p>felipecocco - search the archives on this site and there is a thread that has a guy posting the best undergrad econ programs - he linked it some ranking. rankings are overrated though. either way chicago is great, if not the best, but i'd heard Harvard is considered better at the undergrad level. nothing to be ashamed about.</p>
<p>But yeah I've heard chicago econ grads make a TON of money, and though I'm sure Harvard grads do as well, it seems like those from Chicago made more.</p>
<p>I think that graduate rankings can certainly shed a good light on how the undergrad deal goes, but to an extent. I think that the most important thing to consider is the strength of the graduate program, and then, how much of that you have access to as an undegrad. At Chicago, I feel that this is unparalleled. The strength of our graduate program is certainly unmatched, so thats good. Consider, though, that through the school's policies, the guys teaching the grad students are also those in the undergrad classrooms. Levitt, Lucas, Fogel, Becker... if you want, you'll have contact with these guys as undergrads. Plus, I have visited and talked to a couple, and it was amazing to see that they do take a lot of interest in undergrads. Research opportunities advertised many times are for work with these notable faculty members... as personal RAs or for work in specific projects.</p>
<p>well brand, I would respectfully disagree with the guy whose rankings you cited... I would say that the strongest undergraduate econ departments are Chicago and Princeton.... far from any other ones.</p>
<p>I agree with felipecocco on how to use graduate rankings to help judge undergrad programs. While UChicago and Harvard obviously have two of the greatest Econ grad programs in the country, it would seem that at UChicago, you get more of the graduate experience and exposure than at Harvard. Compare the class sizes at Chicago and Harvard, and add in Harvard's reputation for not exactly throwing it's star Profs at undergrads, and you arrive at the conclusion. One can reasonably disagree, of course, but this is my take.</p>
<p>I mean, Steven Levitt is prob. the most "famous" economist today... when I attended one of his lectures while visiting Chicago, I was waiting to see a couple hundred kids... I mean, this is a guy who'll charge you a good 100k to speak at an event... and so I walk into the classroom and I am met by no more than 35 or so kids... pretty much what my HS class is now.</p>
<p>well felipecocco i would say i certainly would enjoy it if you were correct since my chances of getting into chicago are nearly 3 times as good as my chances of getting into harvard, and I'm not even applying to Harvard. I love Chicago. :)</p>
<p>This is all a misunderstanding. Brand read a thread where another poster implicitly misrepresented his source. </p>
<p>I found the ranking Brand's referring to (he posted in the thread). The guy who posted the ranking was responding to a question about undergrad but it's actually about grad school faculty and isn't even a ranking of grad program quality. (The quality ranking of the period to which the ranking applies, the National Research Council survey, gave both schools a 4.77 out of 5.00, tied for first). The ranking is a faculty publishing ranking in the top thirty economics journals as determined by the authors of the ranking. The poster (not referring to Brand here) just looked up an econ ranking and posted it wihout regard to what was being ranked. Let's not get worked up about this.</p>
<p>Also, it's hard to get a sense of Harvard undergrad. I've heard some somewhat compelling attacks on it but I think it draws some bitterness simply for being super famous. I don't think one could possibly go wrong at either school. If there's a difference, it'd probably be in access to faculty, class sizes, etc. Anyone have info on this?</p>
<p>And on a random note about Levitt: I know he wrote Freakonomics, which is hugely popular among the general populous, but something grinds me wrong when people (not you felipe) talk about him as an example of the most prestigious economist they know. Levitt is obviously very smart, and one of the best economists in the world. But at Chicago, don't you think the Nobel laureates deserve higher praise and exposure? Gary Becker in particular, as he may be the most cited and influential economist in the world in academic/economic journals, even though he doesn't have a popular book out falsely characterizing himself as "rogue" and turning him into a pop star. I don't mean to sound like I have anything against Levitt, I just think Fogel, Becker, etc. are underappreciated.</p>
<p>Oh I'm worked up alright...it's gonna take some time for me to cool down.
:)</p>
<p>But thank you daniel for clarifying.</p>
<p>drummerdude, I totally agree... do check the "econ-harder to get into?" thread, 'cause I wrote extensively about that on there....</p>
<p>IMO, James Heckman is DA MAN... followed closely by Robert Lucas... how awesome would it be to do something with those guys, huh?</p>
<p>daniel: regarding class sizes, Chicago has the second lowest student/faculty ratio in the country: 4:1, we just lose to CalTech. Further, I think that my anecdotal evidence is quite telling.</p>
<p>Becker rocks. You can get him for price theory in year 4 right?</p>
<p>The anecdote was impressive and I think you're much better informed about this than I am. Despite our faculty ratio, though, don't we have a relatively low percentage of classes under 20 in comparison to schools right around us in USNews?</p>
<p>I'm sorry, Harvard and Chicago tied with 4.95 in economics, not 4.77. The 4.77 was from Chicago's 1st place anthro tie with Michigan.</p>
<p>Those "X% of classes under 20" stats are such crap though. It makes you think that your probability of getting smalelr classes is much higher than it is. If you have a class of 15 and a class of 60, the chances aren't 50% that you are going to be in the smaller class, it's actually 15/75= 20%. Everyone should realize this when looking at college class sizes.</p>
<p>I hadn't thought of that. Does Chicago have relatively small class sizes that are somehow hidden by the under 20 data (i.e. a bunch of 25 person classes or something)?</p>