<p>Carolyn, I obviously misplaced Rochester and NYU. They are both research universities. And I did not say Rochester is a safety. Someone else must have said that. I agree, Rochester is not a safety for most students.</p>
<p>lol. i agree with gentleman. If you think Berkeley is too liberal, just a warning, but another name for Cambridge is "the people's republic of Harvard". Take a guess on whether Harvard is liberal or not.</p>
<p>"Wow. Talk about a bogus ranking methodology.
This "ranking" is published by Claremont McKenna and computed by totaling the number of "standard-sized" pages in Economics journals published by faculty members over a 10 year period."</p>
<p>Interestedad, allow me to paraphrase your wow!</p>
<p>FYI, this issue has been discussed to death on CC in the past 24 months.<br>
The reality is that there are NO rankings for undergraduate economics. The only rankings that are commonly accepted are for graduate programs. </p>
<p>Now, as far as separating the methodologies of bogus rankings from the "acceptable" ones, would you be kind enough to explain what constitutes a reasonable methodology. Also, do you have any statistics that describe the number of undergraduates in economics that INTEND to pursue a doctoral degree in the field? This may be nice to qualify the apparent relevance of the number of PhD to the relative value of a program. </p>
<p>Oh, what the heck! I won't play games - it is too late at night. If you want to speak with some authority about the subject of ranking economists and economic departments, it may be wise to google names such as Tom Coup</p>
<p>The fact that Bernie Saffran was well ranked on a page count list has nothing to do with whether or not he was a great professor of undergrad students.</p>
<p>I have no problem with bogus ranking systems. But, when someone says "top-ranked department in the country", how about just a little clue what the bogus ranking system is so that the reader can evaluate.</p>
<p>That's what I do with my bogus PhD production rankings. It's easy. Just say that Acme U.'s econ professors publish more pages than any other school. Or, Podunk U is ranked #1 on the USNEWS list. Or that USC is ranked number one on the BCS Coach's Poll.</p>
<p>Quote: "That's what I do with my bogus PhD production rankings."</p>
<pre><code> :) We finally agree. :)
</code></pre>
<p>I-Dad, I thought that you had responded to Alexandre's rather innocent mark next CMC listing in the LAC. I think it said "tops among LACs", which is different from "top-ranked department in the country". </p>
<p>I also think that you paid no attention to what I wrote. Your insistence on labeling the methodology "bogus" speaks volume about your interpretation of the work of the persons I listed. </p>
<p>There is world of difference between extrapolating data the Caspar/NSF, trying to equate the relative value of undergraduate departments with the production of PhD, and the methodology used by several recognized scientists. </p>
<p>FWIW, I hope you noticed that I wrote that there are NO universal rankings for undergraduate programs in Economics. And there might be a very good reason for that ... it does not matter. It is pretty easy to recognize the schools that have spent the necessary resources to offer their students the benefits of a competitive and approachable faculty, a great student-ratio, and a great combination of research and internship opportunities.</p>
<p>Claremont McKenna had to have earned its reputation as a premiere economics school somehow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope you noticed that I wrote that there are NO universal rankings for undergraduate programs in Economics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. I not only noticed, but I agree. I don't believe in the concept of "top-ranked". IMO, the notion of a hierachical ranking of undergrad programs makes no sense. Even among the the many excellent schools, there are wide variations in their strengths, weaknesses, and educational approach.</p>
<p>I really don't believe in choosing a school based on the "ranking" of a department. I think it that part of researching a college is confirming that potential areas of interest offer what the student needs. But, beyond that, trying to establish that Harvard's undergrad Econ department is better than Yale's or Swarthmore's is better than Pomona's or whatever is just sheer folly.</p>
<p>I generally like Alexandre's approach very much. He usually provides a list of schools, including some from three widely different types. To me, that is the best way to answer these sorts of questions. From those lists, many schools will be eliminated based on personal preference on many issues far more important than the "econ department". Location. Money. Size. Campus culture. Etc.</p>
<p>His little note next to CMC caught my eye because it was out of character for Alexandre to post something so definitive. As thorough as Alexandre is, I knew that he must be refering to a specific ranking methodology. All I ask is that, when any of us post a "bogus" arbitrary ranking system (remember, they are all "bogus" in my book), we provide a citation. I'm not talking about a full academic footnote, but just enough to let the reader know the nature of the arbitrary methodology.</p>
<p>That way, the reader can evaluate based on personal priorities. For example, I personally weight undergrad teaching higher than publishing. So I would give more weight to an arbitrary "bogus" ranking that focuses on teaching more than one that focuses on publishing.</p>
<p>Others are enamored with research/publishing and would give such a ranking more weight.</p>
<p>Both approaches are valid as long as you know, at least in general terms, what factors contribute to the ranking.</p>
<p>As a practical matter, it would be more useful to prospective students to know that 40% of CMC undergrads major in the Econ department. That is a statistic that makes CMC very unique. The emphasis on Econ/PoliSci/Public Policy is so heavy at CMC that I don't know how you would compare it to liberal arts colleges. Just like I scratch my head at people trying to compare Caltech to Stanford.</p>
<p>I-dad, I understand your viewpoint, but almost EVERYONE in this thread has posted an opinion, including Alexandre. It is obvious that ANY list produced on CC reflects the subjective nature of the writer/compiler. I do not know why Alexandre should have to document or explain how he composed his list. </p>
<p>In a way, there was a lingering assumption here: that Alexandre had to be familiar with the "bogus" information about CMC. I think that Alexandre has been very candid about the fact he values reputation of schools, as well as a bit of "insider's information" that results from his professional activity. </p>
<p>I agree that CMC is rather unique among LAC. Actually, the entire Claremont is a bit of an oddity because of the proximity and complementary of its colleges. I guess that one could argue how well CMC and especially Harvey Mudd fit the image of a LAC. However, one has to recognize that the existence of a core curriculum and GE requirements is real. As far as the strong focus on economics and government, I'm not sure if that could be viewed as a negative ... or a positive. On an individual basis, I do not see any conflict in merging the broad curriculum of a LAC with a few selected specialized programs. While it is true that a great number of students flock to the main prgrams, they do not do this exclusively or at the expense of "other" passion. A quick look at a graduation booklet would indicate that economics is often combined with another major, and that most students viewed a degree in economics or government as a foundation or steppingstone for their career, but not necessarily the cornerstone.</p>
<p>FWIW, I checked a list of popular majors for several LAC's</p>
<p>McKenna
Social Sciences (Economics, International Relations, Political Science/Government): 35%
Interdisciplinary Studies: 12%
Psychology: 11%
Biology: 8%
English: 8%
Area and Ethnic Studies: 5%
Philosophy: 5% </p>
<p>Pomona
Social Sciences: 30%
Biology: 10%
Interdisciplinary Studies: 10%
English: 8%
Psychology: 8%
Area and Ethnic Studies: 7%
Physical Science: 5%
Protective Services: 5% </p>
<p>Swarthmore
Social Sciences (Anthropology, Economics, Political Science/Government, Sociology): 37%
Biology: 13%
Philosophy: 8%
Foreign Languages and Literature: 7%
English: 6%
Physical Science: 5%
Psychology: 5%
Visual and Performing Arts: 5% </p>
<p>Williams
Social Sciences: 35%
Psychology: 12%
English: 11%
Visual and Performing Arts: 10%
Physical Science: 8%
Biology: 7%
Mathematics: 5% </p>
<p>Wellesley
Social Sciences: 31%
Foreign Languages and Literature: 11%
Psychology: 9%
Area and Ethnic Studies: 8%
English: 8%
Interdisciplinary Studies: 8%
Visual and Performing Arts: 7%
Biology: 6%</p>
<p>I think the Claremont Colleges model is fascinating...and totally unique as far as I can tell. It is a hybrid between small undergrad colleges and a mid-size university without the grad schools.</p>
<p>HMC and CMC (and perhaps Pitzer?) are the most "radical" of the group in the sense that they are very specialized undergrad colleges. These are very intriguing institutions. For example, the Joint Sciences Department providing shared science intruction at CMC, Scripps, and Pitzer is a really interesting approach to covering the bases while allowing a school to focus its resources in a specific area.</p>
<p>Don't interpret my thoughts as being negative in the least about the Claremont Colleges. I actually think that their innovative model may be the best way to provide small-scale undergrad education in an economic environment that makes offering such a "boutique" education increasingly cost prohibitive.</p>
<p>If I were putting together a preliminary college list, Pomona, CMC, and HMC would all be on it. I do think it's helpful to point out to prospective students the fundamental difference in those three schools -- a difference that isn't necessarily apparent from a superficial look at USNEWS.</p>
<p>Something doesn't jive with your info and the numbers CMC provided to USNEWS regarding majors:</p>
<p>"25% political science and government, 24% economics, 13% psychology, 10% history, 9% international relations and affairs."</p>
<p>Or, the claim on the CMC Econ department's website that "the Department of Economics has about 400 majors and dual majors, representing 40% of CMC enrollment."</p>
<p>Your "majors" numbers for Swarthmore aren't right. Here's a link to the actual data going back 20 years.</p>
<p>I think it's helpful to look at postgrad studies at each college. For example, career path at many schools, including CMC is clear. Of those CMC grads going on to grad school, 33% go to law school and 13% to get an MBA. Those are very high percentages. Med school is low at 7%. Graduate arts and science degrees (masters, PhDs, etc.) seem to be pretty high (36%). </p>
<p>Amherst is: </p>
<p>28% Law
15% Med
31% Graduate Arts and Sciences
15% MBA (I find this number highly suspect!)</p>
<p>Pomona is:</p>
<p>26% Law
19% Med
48% Graduate Arts and Sciences
0% MBA (I find this number highly suspect!)</p>
<p>Swarthmore is:</p>
<p>15% Law
20% Med
46% Grad. Arts and Sciences
8% MBA
4% Eng</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I know the mythodology you speak of. Although I am familiar with it, I do not put much faith in it. I actually have my own concoction when it comes to Economics. Like I said, there are a dozen or so LACs that have excellent Econ departments. The reason I singled out CMC as having the top Econ program among LACs is because the school is so focused on Econ and Political Science. CMC has one of the largest Econ faculties among LACs and that gives it the ability to cover a multitude of Econ fields that man LACs cannot touch upon on a frequent basis. But I could have easily singled out a half dozen other LACs that are just as good.</p>
<p>Don't forget the London School of Economics (and Political Science, to give it it's full title)</p>
<p>Speaking of the London School, one of its professors ranked the world's top political science programs last year...</p>
<ol>
<li>Columbia </li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Ohio State</li>
<li>EUI (Italy)</li>
<li>UCSD</li>
<li>UC-Irvine</li>
<li>Indiana U</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Yale</li>
</ol>
<p><a href="http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eiupolsci/hix.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.indiana.edu/~iupolsci/hix.html</a></p>
<p>No offense to whomever did these rankings, but what the hell?</p>
<p>UC Irvine but no UCLA or Berkeley?</p>
<p>No MIT?</p>
<p>No Michigan?</p>
<p>Bizarre.</p>
<p>thats for PhD's in Political Science, right?</p>
<p>It is a ranking of articles published in Political Science journals by professsors in the undergrad and graduate schools.</p>
<p>It has about as much bearing on the quality of undergrad teaching as the number of ice cream flavors sold in the university food court. </p>
<p>If published page counts were of use in evaluating a school, it would be for students trying to decide on a Ph.D. program. If anything, there may even be an inverse relationship between pressure to publish and the amount of focus a professor places on undergrad teaching. That inverse relationship is the perception of many college professors and it is sometimes codified in the tenure criteria.</p>