<p>OK, here's the top-25 and ties in Production of PhDs in Economics from 1994-2003, per 1000 undergrads of enrollment. </p>
<p>Enrollment figures are from the 2003-2004 Common Data Set info provided to USNEWS by each school. Number of Economics PhDs is from the latest NSF database. </p>
<p>Total Econ PhDs from 1994-2003, divided by current enrollment times 1000:</p>
<p>1 Swarthmore College 38
2 Harvard University 17
3 Williams College 17
4 Carleton College 16
5 Grinnell College 16
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14
7 Yale University 12
8 Princeton University 11
9 Stanford University 10
10 Oberlin College 10
11 Pomona College 10
12 Macalester College 10
13 Wellesley College 10
14 University of Chicago 9
15 Amherst College 7
16 Wesleyan University 7
17 Bowdoin College 7
18 University of Pennsylvania 6
19 Smith College 6
20 College of William and Mary 6
21 Georgetown University 6
22 Dartmouth College 5
23 Brown University 5
24 Cornell University, All Campuses 5
25 Columbia University in the City of New York 5
26 Duke University 5</p>
<p>For top schools, lists like that are going to be much more representative of the # of people interested in pursuing PhDs in econ, than the quality of those students or the program. Mostly, I'd expect that schools like Williams and Harvard would have a similar per capita number of econ majors but a far greater per capita number of econ majors going straight to wall-street/ibanking. I'd be very surprised if there were significantly varried acceptance and placement rates among the top couple schools in the country (Swat, Harvard, Williams, and Carleton probably all get a similar %age of their interested undergrads into top PhD econ programs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
For top schools, lists like that are going to be much more representative of the # of people interested in pursuing PhDs in econ, than the quality of those students or the program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. Students who are academically inclined (top high school transcripts, etc.) tend to select the top academic colleges. I mean, you aren't going to get a lot of kids going to these top schools to play football! That's why you see only the very top schools on these top-25 lists. </p>
<p>Like anything else, you can see some trends. For example, Harvard and Duke are the same size, but Harvard is consistently much higher in PhD production across many fields. If I were comparing the two schools, that would be a data point that tells me something about the focus of the students who attend. Even among highly-rated schools, there are shadings of interest between academic/intellectual pursuits and vocational training.</p>
<p>Another useful data point is looking at the relative percentages of students who pursue PhDs, MDs, Law, and MBA degrees. This also tells you a lot about the character of a school. For example, Law and MBA big at Amherst. Swarthmore is more heavily oriented towards PhD and MD, with MBA in fourth place. </p>
<p>I do think it's very valuable for kids considering top LACs to look these lists in a variety of fields. These lists clearly show the powerhouse academic quality at many of the LACs, even in areas that you might not intuitively expect. A perfect example is the U Chicago comparison. Here's a school that is famous for its theoretical economics. Yet, it is producing economics academics and theorists at a much lower rate than the top LACs.</p>
<p>A more striking example: Swarthmore produces 35 future doctorates in Engineering per 1000 undergrads. Georgia Tech produces 36 per 1000. That is an eye-opening statistic.</p>
<p>These can be important numbers if one wants to be a Ph.D. economist (as are most of the Ph.D. numbers) - but what it tells one is that many students who go to Swarthmore want to be college teachers (which is where the bulk of Ph.Ds in most fields end up.) Of course, relative to other things, there aren't that many Ph.D.s in the world. I might be just as interested in terminal degrees in the social service fields - MSWs, MAs in counseling psychology, etc., where there are a lot more jobs and, perhaps, more interesting careers to pursue, for the vast majority of students. </p>
<p>Ph.D productivity is a good thing, but it is far from the only thing.</p>
<p>Absolutely right. If it were of interest, looking at other terminal degrees would be equally valuable. </p>
<p>Perhaps not quite as convenient. The National Science Foundation has a readily accessible database for all doctorate recepients by undergrad college that they have maintained since 1920. It makes doing the PhD lists a fairly easy task.</p>
<p>I do think the doctoral lists are a decent measure of hard-core academic interest at a school. In most fields, you have to be pretty hard-core (perhaps even nuts) to even consider a doctoral degree. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is a value judgement in the eye of the beholder, just like binge drinking rates! Some folks wouldn't think of going to a school without an above average rate of binge drinking. The data is just data.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I understand where you are coming from. But isn't getting a Phd or other terminal degrees a function of your experience after the 4-year college experience? For example, my son is considering a PhD but doesn't know for sure. A lot of Swatties, when they come into the college are like that. I don't know what he will do....perhaps go for a PhD, but on the other hand, give it up if it isn't very interesting or if he doesn't have the patience. It is hard to tell. I know very few people who can tell deterministically that they will be getting a Phd when they are 18 years old. Or even 19-20 years old. But of course, there must be something to the statistics you put out.</p>
<p>Also, isn't it also a function of the orientation of the programs rather than the student? For example, if you are going to Wharton, it is pretty unlikely that you want to get a PhD. It is very likely that you want to be a manager, I-banker etc.</p>
<p>I don't know what I'm trying to say - just that I don't know why Swarthmore's culture should get so much credit for it. Except that, statistics are statistics and there must be something to it. Maybe the courses taught are theoretical rather than practical at Swat.</p>
<p>I think choosing a college based on a 17 year old's theoretical vocational training plans is a huge mistake in the first place. To me, the point of college is to sample and figure out what excites you as a career path.</p>
<p>I don't look at these lists from a vocational standpoint. I think it's stupid to choose a college because you think you want to get a PhD in Economics. I think it's stupid to choose a college because you think you want to get an MBA.</p>
<p>I look at it more from the standpoint that the things that allow you to become a viable PhD candidate (reading, analyzing, researching, writing, presenting, being mentored, etc.) just coincidentally happen to be the hallmarks of a really strong academic department. The value from that kind of strong undergrad academic experience wouldn't be diminished for a student who went on to any career: undertaker, insurance adjuster, investment banker, taxi driver, whatever.</p>
<p>I don't think an elite undergrad school can be too theoretical. The vast majority of the 4000 undergrad colleges and universities provide excellent vocational training and there would be no need to duplicate that at the hundred or so top academic institutions.</p>
<p>The whole point of these schools is to train world leaders to think, analyze, and communicate ideas effectively, no matter the career they ultimately choose.</p>
<p>IMO, there is far too much vocational-training focus by high school students in their college selection today. I don't think enough students really understand the concept of a liberal arts education (whether it is at a small undergrad college, a mid-size private university, or a large public university).</p>
<p>If I collect enough APs, I'll get into a highly ranked college, get a prestigious MBA degree, and make a lot of money. Seems like a sad outlook for a wide-eyed 17 year old kid full of zest for life and just ready to embark on adult exploration. But, it's all too common.</p>
<p>I think that, as adults, its important to give them the confidence that, if they learn to think and communicate and follow their interests, career will take care of itself.</p>
<p>There is a lot of discussion (some of which I don't have time to read) where there is a debate going on among academia about practical/theoretical education and the relevance of each.</p>
<p>U of C footnote. I think there is a flaw in your numbers for Chicago. Chicago's undergraduate enrollment is now over 4,000 but in the mid to late 80's the enrollment was in the 2,500 to 2,700 range. Those smaller number of graduates were the ones that earned PhDs in the last 10 years. Likewise, the school's philosophy from the 30's on was to emphasize graduate school work and at various times 70% of the student body was graduate students. The graduate school has been recruiting worldwide for 70 years. During the late 80 and 90's the school made a conscious decision to bump the numbers in undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Finally, Swat has always had a reputation as a school for college professors kids. If such a relationship exists, perhaps it would explain the higher PhD numbers. Likewise, if a school's parents are disproportionately plumbers, lawyers, police officers, doctors or whatever perhaps the numbers would change. I don't think a school should be discounted for recruiting outside the academy. Diversity is good. Food for thought.</p>
<p>Ideally, you would like to use a ten year average undergrad enrollment offset by five years before the PhD attainment. Feel free to undertake such a task if you like.</p>
<p>I used the only consistently available number -- the listed undergrad enrollment in the most recent USNEWS. Some schools benefit from that; some suffer. </p>
<p>Swarthmore joins Chicago in the list that suffers as Swat has grown from 1100 students in 1970. The number I used from last year (1500) was the all-time record enrollment, higher than the year before and higher than this year. A bit of an aberration. But, that's the breaks, I guess.</p>
<p>BTW, I do think it's important to keep in mind that future PhDs are a small fraction of the students, even at the top schools on these lists. For example, Swat produced 500+ PhD.s over this ten year period per 1000 undergrads of current enrollment. That's 500 out of 2500 graduating seniors over a comparable ten year period -- about 20%. Caltech was the only school with a higher percentage, 32%.</p>
<p>Where I think these numbers are useful is in judging the academic intensity of schools and departments. It seems to me that these PhD. "wonks" are going to set a tone of fairly heavy engagement with their professors and, to the degree that you have a lot of them, you'll have departments where academics are taken pretty seriously and classroom discussions occur at a reasonably well-prepared level. I, personally, think that's a good thing for $40,000 a year, whether the student goes on to a career as a college professor, an investment banker, a social worker, or running daddy's car dealerships back home.</p>
<p>I think it would be a pleasure to teach the students at the schools that consistently show up on these lists.</p>
<p>I think the enrollment has grown at several of the schools in recent years, but the approach you've used is reasonable.</p>
<p>Your point about how to interpret these numbers makes great sense to me -- as descriptive of the general learning environment. That said, to me the 20% going on to PhD's is a remarkably high number.</p>
<p>No question. 20% is a big number. On their common data set filing, Swat said that 89% of their graduates go on to additional schooling in the six years after graduation.</p>
<p>Of those, 46% are in arts and sciences (masters, PhDs, etc.), 20% med school, 15% law school, 8% MBA, 5% engineering, and a smattering of theology and others.</p>
<p>It definitely tilts towards academics and away from MBAs. Medical is quite high -- enough so that it would be considered an MD factory. Law is pretty high as well.</p>
<p>I have no idea where those numbers come from -- presumably the career counseling or alumni offices. I know that the trend these days is to NOT go immediately into grad schools, which is a healthy trend, IMO.</p>
<p>After talking to my son who took an introductory course in Economics this semester: Swarthmore courses are definitely as Interesteddad describes. The Econ. final had general questions that required you to read widely outside the class. They were not just "technical" questions that one could answer by paying attention in class. It requires you to have a broad as well as detailed knowledge of economics - or at least as much and more than a typical 18-19 year old can muster. The courses are at a different level than those typically taught at many colleges elsewhere. They are aimed at turning the students into sharp critical thinkers!!</p>
<p>And that is the hallmark of a Swarthmore education and something Swarthmore should be able to articulate well to the prospective students.</p>
<p>Webcaspar will also give you the number of bachelors degrees granted by each institution over any time period you choose. No need to guess at the number of graduates.</p>
<p>"1 Swarthmore College 38
2 Harvard University 17
3 Williams College 17
4 Carleton College 16
5 Grinnell College 16
6 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14
7 Yale University 12
8 Princeton University 11
9 Stanford University 10
10 Oberlin College 10"</p>
<p>A further analysis of the above list would quickly demonstrate that it accounts for one thing and ONE thing solely: the number of PhD who happen to have attended a particular undergraduate institution. A quick look at the schools listed at number 4,5 and 10 (Carleton, Grinnell, and Oberlin) should be sufficient for anyone to realize that there is no correlation whatsoever with reputation, quality, size, or resources of the economics department. </p>
<p>The correlation exercise produced by Interesteddad MIGHT have some validity for a few departments, but the application to the field of economics made its limitation painfully apparent to anyone armed with more than a extremely rudimentary knowledge of undergraduate economics.</p>