<p>I'm looking to find a listing of the top ranked schools for Economics and/or Applied Math. Does anyone know where I can find a list of these top schools?</p>
<p>Here is a pretty good thing I got a while back:</p>
<p>those are all grad school rankings</p>
<p>Thats true, but generally good graduate programs in these fields also means a strong undergraduate program. Check out US News also, becuase there really are no "official" undergraduate rankings for economics or math.</p>
<p>*Edit- That is from 1995 though</p>
<p>Most top profs in these types of fields end up at major schools where they can do research.</p>
<p>Rankings change a decent amount, but not much over 10 years. Alexandre put up changes in program rankings over the years on a different thread, and in 10 years' time, programs moved at most 8 or so positions, and the average was around 3, so that's still a good general guideline. Megan, if you want to go into econ or applied math as a career, you should really be researching the best math programs, because at the graduate level, both applied math and economics rely heavily on a solid theoretical foundation in mathematics and math majors are always at a huge advantage in grad school in those areas, even over those who got their undergrad degrees in econ or applied math. I've done extensive research on this because applied math and econ are also my top academic interests.</p>
<p>Caltech
Harvey Mudd
UC Berkeley
also UCLA, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz
Yale
Northwestern
U Chicago
U Illinois UC
Johns Hopkins
Harvard
Tufts
U Mass Amherst
U Michigan
Barnard
Coulumbia Fu Found
U Rochester
UNC Chapel Hill
Brown
Rice
Case Western
UVA
U Washington</p>
<p>Megan, there are so many excellent Economics and Math programs. Can you be more specific as to what you are looking for? At any rate, here is how I would group top undergraduate programs in Math and Econ. My groupings are usually not based purely on graduate school rankings (although they do play a significant part in the groupings), but rather, on Faculty involvement in undergraduate education, resources availlable to undergrads who take the initiative and opportunities availlable to fresh graduates.</p>
<p>ECONOMICS:
Group I:
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of Chicago</p>
<p>Group II:
Northwestern University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Pennsylvania
Yale University</p>
<p>Group III:
Columbia University
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</p>
<p>Group IV:
Brown University
Cornell University
Duke University</p>
<p>Group V:
Carnegie Mellon University
New York University
University of Calfornia-San Diego
University of Rochester
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>
<p>MATHEMATICS:
Group I
California Institute of Technology
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Chicago</p>
<p>Group II
Brown University
Columbia University
Cornell University
New York University
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>Group III
Duke University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University
University of Wisconsin-Madison</p>
<p>"Thats true, but generally good graduate programs in these fields also means a strong undergraduate program. Check out US News also, becuase there really are no "official" undergraduate rankings for economics or math.</p>
<p>*Edit- That is from 1995 though"</p>
<p>The above is as far away from the truth as black and white are distinct colors. </p>
<p>Good grad programs are good because of research (publications, funding, presence of scholars)
Good undergraduate programs are good because of quality of teaching. </p>
<p>Top scholars at top grad programs hardly ever teach undergrads and if they do it is in huge classes (or else university administrators need to review the economies of scale chapter of economics books to be better able to find the optimal allocation between research and teaching of their best researchers)</p>
<p>Megan (the OP) asked about Applied Math programs in particular. The schools I listed above have majors in Applied Math.</p>
<p>Stud, can you shed some light as to how one can rate the quality of instruction at a university? Most universities have thousands of professors teaching thousands of classes. Furthermore, the material covered by most students at top universities can only be learned with the initiative of the students. Professors can only share their cutting edge knoweldge with the students, but it is entirely up to the students to learn. I do not think the difference between graduate and undergraduate quality is that distinct...but the ability to rate the overall quality of instruction at any university certainly seems to be a very grey subject!</p>
<p>Alexandre: Let me ask you one think? What percent of undergraduate course credits (or hours) is taught by teaching assistants or graduate students at large universities? Very likely around 30% if not 100% for certain subject fields (like English). How about at LACs? Very likely 0%. </p>
<p>Let me further clarify for you why I think that it totally inappropriate to use a graduate school reputation as a proxy for an undergrad one. There are two part to my point:</p>
<p>(1) Departments and fields (economics and applied math included) at large research universities owe their excellent reputations due to the research of professors who may, or more likely may not, teach undergraduates. So, that's it. You can not use the reputation of a grad school as a proxy for the reputation of an undergrad program where the same professors simply do not teach. The great names that a grad program is known for, very likely do not teach undergrads at all. Period. </p>
<p>E.x. When was the last time Jeffrey Sachs taughts undergrads? Alternatively, try to see how many of the Noble Prize winners (who do matter for a school's reputation) are ratemyprofessors.com. Almost none. </p>
<p>(2) This part will be only relevant if what I said in (1) was not true (very unlikely). The point of this is that what goes into determining grad school program reputations is based on research, research, research. Basically, quality of it and quantity of it. I challenge you to point to a graduate school ranking that uses teaching as a remote factor. Not to mention, that a great researcher certainly does not imply a great teacher. </p>
<p>E.x. Martin Feldstein is a very distinguished economist. His rating on ratemyprofessors is abysmal. This is just one example among many many others.</p>
<p>See, Stud, that's what bothers me. You make a sweeping statement based on hearsay. At top public universities, TA's almost never teach...they assist. 97% of classes at Michigan are taught by professors. The remaining 3% of classes that are taught by TAs are intro level language courses and intro-level english and math classes. There is a huge difference between 3% and 30%. I personally took over 40 classes at the university of Michigan and not one was taught by a TA, because like most Michigan students, I placed out of intro classes. TAs generally lead discussion groups at the Freshman and Sophomore levels and help with grading. That's it. UVA and UNC have similar setups. </p>
<p>On a sidenote, do you realize that some of those great professors at LACs were once TAs? So are some of the most brilliant minds out there. I personally never had the pleasure of being taught by a TA, but I am sure that those PhD students at top ranked programs are actually extremely capable of teaching intro-level college material.</p>
<p>Like I said, the quality of instruction at a university cannot be measured.</p>
<p>well, "quality" means different things to different people...to some (including me) it includes the depth of the education a degree program offers, as well as its prospects to grad/professional school and/or the job market...others try to look at "distinguished faculty" as a measure, and ranking systems often use endowments and $$ as a big factor.</p>
<p>it's all subjective really, although i do believe that what "others" think matters - at least to me</p>
<p>also, alexandre, do you really think the duke/cornell/brown is that far behind to be ranked in a 4th tier? just glanced at the list and was like woah wow</p>
<p>There is practically no difference between group 1 and group 4, let alone between group 3 and group 4. Remember...all five groups I listed above are tier 1 universities. I was grouping, not tiering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When was the last time Jeffrey Sachs taughts undergrads?
[/quote]
last semester. if you want to check out his reviews, you can google CULPA, which is the student review site at Columbia. When the room originally selected was not big enough to accomodate everyone who registered, the university wanted to exclude freshmen, but Sachs demanded a larger room instead and got it, so that many first and second year students took the course.
[quote]
Alternatively, try to see how many of the Noble Prize winners (who do matter for a school's reputation) are ratemyprofessors.com. Almost none.
[/quote]
Joseph Stiglitz co-taught an introductory class this year as well. The student concensus seems to be it was pretty much a waste of a resource.</p>
<ol>
<li>While it's true that schools do not often move dramatically in the ratings, sometimes they do when they set out to quickly improve a department. Columbia has hired 15 or more econ faculty in the last couple of years, concentrating on the up and coming, and is certainly firmly in the top ten at this point.</li>
<li> This is not to say that some LACs aren't excellent places to study econ. (Williams, for one). However, small classes per se are no guarantee of quality. You can have smaller classes that are still lecture classes. And, you can have large classes with excellent lecturers who still answer questions. You can have smaller classes where attendance is taken and students show up because they have to, but don't participate. And you can have large classes where the students who come are there because they want to be there -- otherwise they would have cut class with no one the wiser. :) (This last point is based on a conversation between my kid and a friend of his, comparing their intro econ classes at a top LAC and at Columbia.)</li>
</ol>
<p>Check out Columbias Economics program, it has increased its rank significantly over the pas few years and it has been hiring a lot of new professors.
Here is the link.
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=102580%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=102580</a></p>
<p>Also Jeffery Sacs Co-teaches the introductory economics course to undergrads at Columbia.</p>
<p>Sam88 -- minor correction. Sachs taught a course on sustainable development. Stiglitz co-taught the introductory econ class.</p>
<p>Megan,</p>
<p>If you decide to include Northwestern, check out their MMSS program <a href="http://www.mmss.northwestern.edu/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.mmss.northwestern.edu/index.html</a></p>