You apparently have accessed graduate department rankings, which have been designed for a purpose different from your own.
1 Like
No, they shouldnât take out a second or divest from long-held accruing investments for retirement or anything like that. That slashing of the price tag by ~ 1/2 seems to make a difference.
I wouldnât judge on whether your cursory experience of classes would help you conclude that you will always like Calâs classes better. UCLA is on the quarter and Cal on the semester system, and UCLA may at the beginning seem to be rushed for those who are accustoming themselves to college. But it will enable you to take a wider array of classes, attach minors better, and maybe even another major. That will help you with your interdisciplinary dual math and econ major, even though there is a so-titled major at UCLA and Cal, and evidently the other two. You might find quarters more invigorating.
And as others have stated, ranking is less important to undergrad students. Youâd be in more of an applied setting for math besides and take weird classes like econometrics â I took that unfortunately, so I donât think youâd be interfacing with Terrence Tao or any other genius faculty because youâre an undergrad, besides the fact that theyâd probably be way above an undergradâs comprehension.
Anyway, you sound like youâll do well at any of the universities from which you are choosing. Best of luck.
@merc81 Yes. I couldnât find undergraduate rankings; Iâm not sure if they do publish undergraduate rankings. Feel free to point me towards those. Do you know if there would be a distinct difference in the quality of the undergraduate economics programs at Cal and UCLA?
For the benefit for future prospective students:
Salary Data (from the NY Times): Median Individual Income at Age 34
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/duke-university (Duke - $87,500)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/northwestern-university (NU - $72,600)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-berkeley
(UCB - $67,900)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/university-of-california-los-angeles (UCLA - $65,800)
Regarding analyses of economics departments on the undergraduate level, you might want to consider those that consider faculty scholarship in the field:
https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.usecondept.html
https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.uslacecon.html
I included one for LACs to offer one indication as to why I think graduate department rankings can lead prospective students astray.
Based on your interest in environmental economics, I might place the most weight on this more specific analysis:
Iâd regard them as having somewhat different, but largely overlapping, emphases. I think you could find your place academically within either program. However, I would recommend that you continue to place reasonable weight on your positive classroom experience at UCB.
For future prospective students of the future.
The average income figures presented above are interesting but are very career path dependent.
If you want to be involved in not for profits, education, fbi or state department, research or nursing etc - a large university with all of those disciplines being addressed, in larger percentages, than perhaps a private college being considered it can have a large impact on the averages.
The data beneath these numbers are very important too.
But I do find them interesting. But for a different reason.
The highest listed above is Duke at 87,500.
Thatâs pre tax. After tax assuming a 25 percent federal and state blended rate. Which may be low. That leaves you with 65,626 per year.
So 12 years after graduating a super elite like Duke, you can expect on average to earn less than the cost of one year at the school.
That, in and of itself, is no big deal.
Caveat.
Unless you are borrowing money and emptying your parents bank accounts with the hope of paying it back easily.
Because that 65k has to pay for a lot of other stuff in life and it can get tight quick.
And the other schools mentioned would be even more difficult, on average.
Be careful with your college choices. And be financially smart from an early age.
No one on cc who tells you go to x, itâs a âno brainerâ etc will be writing these checks. Or your friends in the lunch room or Aunt Becky. And none will be helping you save for the future at that time either.
And believe it or not if you get married at 25 and have a child at 28. When you are 34, the age used in the data aboveâyouâll be 12 years away from paying for college yourself!
And no aid will be forthcoming on that income trajectory. Just a random thought.
If costs are covered with great fin aid or parent - go anywhere you like best.
@JenniferClint . . . Thank you for not referencing the faulty WSJ study done over a decade ago concerning placement into top-tier grad schools.
With respect to your reference of the NYTâs salary study, there are a few factors working for Duke and then Northwestern over Cal and then UCLA:
- Job placement in the northeast where I'm sure Duke places a lot of its graduates (and Northwestern secondarily) has a higher COL adjustment upward to similar employment positions than in California. This is why one sees Villanova as being pretty highly ranked with respect to median salary.
â Cal is in NorCal, where the COL is higher than in SoCal . . . UCLA. This is why one sees Santa Clara College highly ranked for salary over a lot of the SoCal and LoCal (San Diego) colleges.
- Both UCLA, primarily, and Cal, secondarily, as public institutions are beholden to take students from disadvantaged background -- these students are poorer, which means they attend underperforming high schools -- which means that they are more likely to seek steady employment with just a baccalaureate degree. (They're looking draw a respectable income and generally don't have aspirations,e.g., to go to med school or law school in the same numbers). In other words, they're just looking to join the middle class. UCLA does well with the mobility index within the NYT study, with its poorer students ascending at least two tiers of quartile income, which is better than just about any college in the nation. In other words, UCLA primarily and Cal secondarily, (actually UCSD is up there also), are doing excellent work in bringing up the poor within the state.
â UCLA has a greater âburdenâ than Cal in this regard, because there are more underperforming high schools in its geographic locale, than Cal has in its in the Bay Area.
Edit: Neither Duke nor Nortwestern as private colleges are beholden to state; rather a lot of the elite colleges fight over top-tier students of various background to cover any diversity index.
As suggested above, I think it becomes problematic to compare salary data across schools with different inherent attributes (e.g., large publics versus smaller privates).
@merc81. . . in addition to geographic COL factors.
@merc81 . . . additionally â not completing my thought â a public university administrator will explain it thusly, âThere are more top-tier graduates at our college than one would call an âelite,â itâs just that there is an added element of the University educating those that are of underrepresented background, as it is needful to do (because they pay taxes too).â Maybe my wording is suspect, and he or she would ameliorate some of my description.
There are rankings for undergraduate economics. Just use google. For example, Niche 2019 ranks Duke #5, Northwestern #6, Berkeley #20 & UCLA #33. But this doesnât mean much as any undergrad program ranked in the top 100 is fine. Big difference might be class size.
For the price difference, focus on the California publics.
@firmament2x I am familiar with the âFeeder Schoolsâ ranking you are referring to (WSJ 2005). Curious as to what makes you think it is faulty? Needless to say, Duke performs exceptionally (6th behind HYPS and Williams).
OP good luck.
Go to UCLA. Congratulations!
âAlso, I prefer the weather in NorCal because itâs really hot in SoCal,â
Really? I have lived in Los Angeles County for over 20 years and have never come across a single person that says they donât like living in Westwood (UCLA) because itâs too hotâŠ
In addition, the warmest months are June, July, and August when most kids are not even in school.
Lastly, I would choose the college that is the closest proximity to where you want to find a job and live after college. If itâs east coast, Duke or Northwestern, if itâs west coast, UCB or UCLA. Assuming cost is not an issue.
@JenniferClint . . .
- It was a snapshot, and people on this message board have been using it since the one time that WSJ published its findings. You don't see anything wrong with people reciting the same numbers over 13+ years? I don't doubt that the most elite colleges in the nation would place highly into many of their own elite grad schools, e.g., Harvard placing the most students into its own and Yale's L-school, but would you still hold to its relevance if Duke dropped to, say, 25th?
- It has a heavily geographic bias. Perhaps you can tell me why; I'd like to see you attempt to answer this.
- There's a bias against public universities. This year, almost 500 UCLA baccalaureates went to medical school > 2% of all available seats in the nation; most of them looking for the cheapest alternatives. How many of these admits would the WSJ have considered elite grad admittances? 15 maybe? UCLA grads often seek the most cost-effective grad school in general; some need to work concurrently while attending night L-school at Southwestern or Loyola. Therefore, UCLA bac-degree holders are in general more California-centric in grad attendance. This is a large hint to point 2.
- I rather doubt if the WSJ was able to determine if the admittances related to that current year or past cycles, yet they divided the admittances to "elite grad schools" by the number who received their bac degrees from 2005.
1). Yes, the elite undergraduate institutions have elite professional schools. That isnât surprising. If Duke fell to 25th, I would be disappointed and would probably be calling for heads to roll. I wouldnât have a problem with the ranking though. 13 years is definitely too long ago. Iâd love for them to do a new version.
2). Doesnât matter to me. If the elite graduate schools are on the East Coast then so be it. A ranking of tech placement would have a heavy West Coast bias.
3). Speculation. Youâre assuming they are choosing the cheaper/less prestigious alternative. Iâd argue they couldnât get into the more elite schools. The best universities now have the resources to subsidize the cost of attendance (see NYU/Columbia/Mayo med school, etc.). Admittedly, this might not have been possible (to the same degree) 13 years ago. Still, youâre not citing any data.
4). Would still (likely) be the same proportion either way.
Thanks for providing a thoughtful and considered response. I just happen to disagree. No hard feelings 
@JenniferClint . . .
I just cited to you that nearly 500 UCLA bacs received acceptances to med school.
It would not be statistically correct. If the WSJ was citing the no. of graduates in 2005, then it should seek placement numbers for those particular students in that particular year. Everyoneâs would drop, certainly. But what relevance does a graduate from 2000 have to do with the class graduating of 2005?
Actually, it was debunked by many on cc when the article first came out (search the archives), Any high schooler who has taken AP Stats can see the poor quality of the survey.
For example,
Hmmm, the WSJ excluded Stanford Law (#2), Stanford Biz, (#1), & Stanford Med (#3), UCSF Med (#5), Boalt (#8)âŠbtw, Cal has as many/more top ranked grad programs than Harvard, depending on the year.