<p>Hi, I am another Swarthmore hopeful and I am very interested in Economics. I also am very interested in graduate school in Economics, specifically a PhD program in Economics. I was wondering how Swarthmore stacks up against other top tier Economics programs in terms of: 1. Preparation for graduate school in economics & 2. Admission to top tier graduate schools in economics.</p>
<p>When I refer to other reputable economics programs I mean (namely a few I applied to): UPenn CAS, Duke, Cornell (Arts and Sciences), UChicago, UC Berkeley, and maybe even Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>You see, I heard grad school is extremely demanding on the quantitative, formal proofs, model-building/analysis side of economics. I was wondering how much preparation Swarthmore Economics (and maybe math) majors get in this respect.</p>
<p>Would there be any specific advantage Swarthmore has against the other reputable economics programs I mentioned? Is the teaching different? Is the curriculum different?</p>
<p>OP, you are absolutely right about the amount of math that is used. In order to prepare yourself for grad school and make yourself as competitive as possible, you will want to have multivariable calculus and linear algebra as a bare minimum, and then add real analysis, differential equations, and courses in the probability and statistics area. It is common for applicants to Ph.D. programs to have at least a math minor if not a major. Many are not even econ majors (I wasn’t). Having said all this, the field has become slightly less “formal” since experimental economics and behavioral economics entered the mainstream. </p>
<p>At this point, I would be thinking about which college is the best fit. All of the programs that you mention can provide you with everything you need to get into a top Ph.D. program.</p>
<p>Swarthmore produces more PhDs in Economics per 100 graduates than any other college or university in the United States and second place isn’t even close. The same is true of Political Science and of all social sciences combined. For someone thinking about a PhD track in Economics, Swarthmore is a powerhouse.</p>
<p>This data is a couple of years old, but here was the per graduate rate of Econ PhD for the 30 highest producer schools:</p>
<p>Number of PhDs per 1000 grads<br>
Academic field: Economics </p>
<p>PhDs and Doctoral Degrees: ten years (1994 to 2003) from NSF database<br>
Number of Undergraduates: ten years (1989 to 1998) from IPEDS database<br>
Formula: Total PhDs divided by Total Grads, multiplied by 1000 </p>
<p>Note: Does not include colleges with less than 1000 graduates over the ten year period </p>
<p>
1 Swarthmore College 16
2 Grinnell College 7
3 Williams College 7
4 Carleton College 7
5 Harvard University 6
6 Agnes Scott College 6
7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5
8 University of Chicago 5
9 Yale University 5
10 California Institute of Technology 5
11 Princeton University 5
12 Macalester College 5
13 Stanford University 4
14 Pomona College 4
15 Oberlin College 4
16 Wellesley College 4
17 Trinity University 4
18 Bowdoin College 3
19 Earlham College 3
20 Berea College 3
21 Amherst College 3
22 Wabash College 3
23 Bard College 3
24 Rocky Mountain College 3
25 Coe College 3
26 Wesleyan University 3
27 College of William and Mary 3
28 Colby College 3
29 Columbia University in the City of New York 3
30 Hillsdale College 3
31 Franklin and Marshall College 3
<p>Honestly, I would go visit the schools and see which fits you best! While it’s important to understand all of the stats about grad school, decide where you feel the most comfortable and make that your first choice! All of the schools you listed are great, but you’ll be living there for 4 years!</p>
<p>It’s fair to say that in terms of the criteria you mentioned, Swarthmore will be at or near the top of your list.</p>
<p>Beyond just finding whether the overall college is a good fit for you, economics is a very strange bird in that different colleges tend to have different department personalities in the field. So, for example, the departments at U. of Chicago, Miami and George Mason tend to be on the conservative, free market end of the spectrum, whereas other may drift almost to Marxism. If you’re interested in some of the social or political aspects of economics (as contrasted with pure econometrics), this may be a consideration. And a smaller econ department (like in liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore - whose reputation I know nothing about) will make it tougher to dodge professors whose philosophy may drive you nuts. So, I’d do some exploring on that score as well.</p>
<p>Wow BBGunt, nice insights. I never thought of using that criteria to weigh each school against the other. I thought certain economic philosophies and such considerations were only with regard to grad school. I had the (unfounded/ignorant) impression that most undergrad economics programs were pretty standardized with same books/same curriculum (at least for the basics). But I guess not. I tried scouring the Swarthmore website for their philosophy but there seems to be no information regarding that.</p>
<p>Anyhow, Swarthmore overall seems like an excellent school with excellent preparation for grad school in econ.</p>
<p>When Cass was a sophomore, planned to go to Swarthmore
But she changed her mind one day.
Standin’ on the turnpike, thumb out to hitchhike,
“Take me to New York right away.”</p>
<p>I’m a current econ major at Swarthmore and I wholeheartedly agree with what BBGunt said. Swarthmore’s very liberal in economic philosophy. Our intro textbook is Paul Krugman’s textbook and the Macro prof (who is an amazing teacher) spends a little time every class making jabs at conservative economists. So if you’re more in the UChicago/ freshwater school of economics, you might not be happy here. Read some of Krugman’s op-eds in the NYTimes to see if you’ll fit with liberal economic thought. That said, there are some more moderate profs in the department and we do learn both sides of the debate… there’s just more emphasis/ support for saltwater economics. The department is great overall and there is definitely a high number of PhDs coming out of Swat.</p>
<p>The honors program is pretty unique, and among those schools you listed I don’t think you’re going to find one that’s comparable. </p>
<p>Of note: A larger research university (eg. Berkeley, Penn, Duke) will probably offer a greater variety of courses in econ. Swat doesn’t have an econ course in public choice, for example, though Penn does - of course, you can take any course at Penn CAS for Swat credit (along with reimbursement for the SEPTA fare, of course).</p>
<p>As you might expect, the biggest advantage of econ at Swat (particularly for honors) is size. Honors seminars are double-credit (eg. half a semester’s workload in one class) and enrollment’s capped at twelve.</p>
<p>Math isn’t (yet, though this is changing soon) a requirement for econ majors at Swat, but most upper-level classes require at least multivariable calc. If you’re thinking of grad school, you should get through the whole calc series plus linear and real analysis. Differential equations (for advanced micro) could be helpful, too, and the stats department’s really strong. Your math grades (particularly higher-level undergrad math like real) are probably more important than your econ coursework as far as getting into an econ PhD admissions is concerned.</p>
<p>I would not consider your impression unfounded. Much of the curriculum is similar. You can find the same textbook being used at Chicago as at Harvard or Berkeley. </p>
<p>Paul Krugman’s textbook was mentioned above. It is interesting to note that, notwithstanding his saltwater credentials, his wife and co-author, Robin Wells, received her BA in Economics from the freshwater University of Chicago.</p>
<p>Don’t want to interject politics, but Paul Krugman is foremost a highly partisan and predictable supporter of far left-wing policies and politics. That is not my idea of an economist, maybe an ideologue. Calling Krugman an economist is like calling Howard Zinn a historian.</p>
<p>If you didn’t want to interject politics, perhaps you shouldn’t have done so. Krugman not an Economist? Please!! You may disagree with his views, but try disagreeing without being disagreeable.</p>
<p>If economics is a science and an economist is a scientist, then someone who is slavishly and fanatically devoted to a philosophy regardless of the data is not an economist.</p>
<p>Krugman has managed to politicize economics with statements like this: “What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says.” I hadn’t realized that economic textbooks were synonymous with the beliefs of one political party.</p>
<p>Economics may like to think of itself as a science, but it isn’t, at least not in the way that physics and chemistry are sciences, for example. My STEM major son has said that any field that calls itself a science isn’t really, e.g. “Library Science,” “Computer Science,” etc. So I wouldn’t call any economist a scientist. (Full disclosure, I am a professional economist who did my undergraduate work at Swarthmore and graduate work at a top 5 econ grad program.)</p>
<p>Economic choices and policies are inherently political. Economics can describe what has happened with fiat money systems versus the gold standard, for example, and predict what would happen if a country were to change its monetary system. But the choice of what monetary system to adopt is a political one.</p>
<p>Dadx3, you make good points, but it is hard to take Krugman seriously considering the rabidly partisan nature of everything on which he opines. In addition, it is not enough to unburden himself with needlessly inflammatory pronouncements, but his need to impugn others in the harshest way possible is not what you might expect from a learned academician.</p>
<p>Krugman’s actually been quite critical of President Obama. When it comes to this thread and the topics discussed herein, seems like there’s really only one person here being rabidly partisan and, in other threads as well, has a “need to impugn others in the harshest way possible”.</p>
On Jan. 31, I posted on a thread concerning the misreporting of SAT scores at Claremont-McKenna. parent57 had taken a jab at a poster, and that poster had responded in a very restrained fashion, so I posted a single sentence praising the response. The next post I made on CC was #10 above. The first response was by parent57. That is a bit too much to be a coincidence. As I said, though, I find it humorous. </p>
<p>Since then, parent57 has written some posts here criticizing Paul Krugman. One merits some comment:<br>
Here is the complete sentence says:
<br>
By only providing half the sentence you are being misleading. Besides, that
is no more partisan than if he or any other commentator had written: What Republicans believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, raising the minimum wage will raise unemployment. If the position of a party on a particular issue happens to be in line with textbook economics, so be it. In no way does the passage say that Democrats move in lock-step with textbook economics (or vice versa). </p>
<p>But here is why your attempt at retribution is so humorous. (Yes, I know, it is just a coincidence that you are posting here and I should not flatter myself.) Since you do not know a great deal about the academic practice of economics, you might look up my user name on Google. You will find that I took the name of a Nobel prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago who is best known for work that argues for limiting government involvement in the economy.<br>
I see your point. Now replace Krugman and "learned academician in the above passage.</p>
<p>Parent57, no I’m not stalking you. What is creepy is that you repeatedly accuse others of behavior in these discussions that can be (and has been) cited by many posters across many threads as your modus operandi.</p>
<p>Sometimes it’s better not having the last word. But I’ll come back later to check if you want me to define “many”.</p>