I am interested in learning more about both schools, and given the qualities of both I believe they should be fairly similar in terms of academics. However, I understand that Haverford is a lot smaller than WashU, and therefore is different in that case compared to WashU. If one were to study Economics, which school would be better for grad. school outcomes or a better education? Any advice/input would be greatly helpful. Thank you!
They both are good. It pretty much comes down to whether you’d prefer small or larger, mid-west or east coast. And then, which of the two offers you a spot (with enough aid, if needed, to afford without too much debt.)
These analyses should offer you a sense for these schools’ economics programs:
https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.uslacecon.html
https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.usecondept.html
Yours might be a case for which I’d recommend you explore a wider variety of colleges, however.
Thank you guys for the input. On the link you sent me with the economics department ranking, Haverford is listen at 31 (pretty low) although its faculty in the econ department seems to be filled with professors who have excellent qualifications from great schools. What does this ranking go by?
Haverford has a very strong and popular Economics Department. Grads do very well. Don’t let one list based on one single measurement influence you.
The links offer an indication of scholarly contributions to the field of economics as measured by faculty publishing. Since the rankings have not been normalized for department size, smaller departments, such as Haverford’s, may place somewhat lower than would otherwise be expected. Larger departments, particularly Williams’ (which includes a graduate program), benefit from the methodology.
I believe there are many rankings that are skewed towards one specific attribute of the particular school, and the economics department ranking list that you linked most likely has this quality. When I visited Haverford, I loved the environment and vibe of the campus, similar to WashU. However, whether we like it or not, I think that rankings have a fairly significant affect on students’ choices of schools (correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t understand why there cannot be a universal, reputable ranking of all colleges in the US since rankings are highly regarded among future undergrads.
As rankings specific to economics programs go, however, those in the linked analyses may be more substantive than they initially appear. The authors of an older study on the same topic, for example, expressed the opinion that faculty research contributes meaningfully to the undergraduate experience:
(Hartley and Robinson; Economics Research at National Liberal Arts Colleges: School Rankings.)
these are 2 amazing places and you should choose based on which one you like better. period. haverford is very small, but close to a big city. very intellectual, self-selected serious student body. wash u is bigger, maybe more pre-professional. reputation-wise, both are great to anyone who will matter in your life.
I think Haverford grads are very successful but not always in the ways we think of- they get to the places they want to but sometimes those places are less financially rewarding than the typical Wash U grad might be looking for.
I would suggest you look at the requirements for a degree in economics at each. I think you may find that one aligns better with what you’re looking for. Among things to consider are how much math and CS you want to take.
WUSTL offers a BSBA, so while there are students who are studying economics as a pre business path, Economics is not the only option at WUSTL.
You should also consider what appeals to you outside your major and how you will be able to pursue those interests, especially after meeting core requirements.
Overall, both are excellent schools and both will prepare you well for whatever you want to do next. WUSTL leans more toward pre-professional whereas Haverford leans more toward intellectual. The social vibe is different at both. Some students could be happy at either, but I can imagine quite a few who would greatly prefer one over the other.
I agree with most of your post - both excellent schools and wonderful learning experiences, different vibes for sure. However, Haverford grads do quite well financially, despite not having engineering and other preprofessional majors. They are #21 on this list:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/16/cnbc-make-it-the-top-50-us-colleges-that-pay-off-the-most-2019.html
Most major undergraduate program rankings compare entire colleges, not individual departments. Ranking undergraduate departments is very challenging, especially for LACs. Possible metrics might include faculty publication rates or alumni PhD completion rates, neither of which necessarily reflects all undergraduate needs equally well. If we measure faculty research production, do we count publications, or do we count citations? In what journals? Or should we look at something else such as grant funding? If we measure PhD production, do we use raw numbers, or do we normalize by institution size, or by program size? Do we count students who minored in econ? What counts as “econ”, anyway? Or suppose we try to measure alumni salaries. At what point(s) in the career cycle do we measure? Do we include or exclude students who went on to earn graduate degrees? Etc. Etc. Etc. For LACs, we’re usually talking about rather small sample sizes, too. You could simply do a “peer” survey (as USNWR does for colleges overall) but among ~1000 respondents, the level of familiarity with any given LAC department might be quite low or out-of-date.
Both excellent schools. I would go for fit, relative cost, and graduation outcomes.
Yes. Either. Both incredibly excellent.
And both will be confused by people as to what school it is (those on the periphery, not those who need to know) for years to come. Lol.
Haverford, did you say Harvard?
Wash U. Did you like Seattle? I hope they beat UCLA this weekend.
For a pre-PhD economics major, one measure is to look at how math-intensive the intermediate economics, econometrics, and other upper level economics courses are. More math = better for pre-PhD purposes (not always for other purposes, although it cannot hurt for students who like and are good in math). Of course, pre-PhD students should take additional advanced math and statistics) beyond that required for the economics major (e.g. real analysis, probability theory).
High math: multivariable calculus and/or linear algebra required
Medium math: single variable calculus required
Low math: calculus not required
Pre-PhD students may not be served well in undergraduate at low math economics departments. Some economics departments offer more than one track, based on math intensity.