The world's top universities?

[Ebitdadada]

University of Michigan is also one of the top in the world when it comes to business.

Double Post, Sorry

 

[Ebitdadada]

University of Michigan is also one of the top in the world when it comes to business.

Number 8 in the US i think. Economics department is something like 10th in the US if I'm not mistaken.

 

[superisis]

ONe thing you gotta acredit Keynes though, is that he coined over half of all the econ quotes out there.

 

[Ebitdadada]

ONe thing you gotta acredit Keynes though, is that he coined over half of all the econ quotes out there.

I like the, "In the long run, we're all dead" one. Still doesn't make up for the fact that the guy was horribly wrong. I'm not saying he wasn't a genious just that he was wrong like alot of other briliant scientists / thinkers have been. Gotta give the U of Chicago credit for realizing that much earlier than everyone else though.

 

[Goonie]

Queen's University.

 

[Yom]

People don't realize the greatness of Princeton. Harvard's just winning on name recognition.

I like the, "In the long run, we're all dead" one. Still doesn't make up for the fact that the guy was horribly wrong. I'm not saying he wasn't a genious just that he was wrong like alot of other briliant scientists / thinkers have been. Gotta give the U of Chicago credit for realizing that much earlier than everyone else though.

Explain how he was horribly wrong.

 

[downtown]

To answer the thread question, it really depends on what major. MIT may be top notch in some things, but if i wanted to say, study music or english, i could be better served by many other colleges. The Univeristy of Minnesota has a suburb chemical enginering program for example, but you usually wont find it on any top 15 university lists in the US.


I know little of other colleges outside of the US outside of prehaps oxford and campbridge. Take those 2, and any handful of american ivy league schools, and that list will be as good as any

 

[HamaticBabylon]

So where is the great wonder Newton's "University" located??

 

[WillJ]

So where is the great wonder Newton's "University" located??

I believe that would be Cambridge.

 

[superisis]

Explain how he was horribly wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he believed that one of the biggest goals of the Government was to eliminate unemployment. We've now (ofcourse 40 years after the bright people of Chicago) learnt that this is folly, and that the purpose of Government is to keep inflation at a healthy 2%, such is the policy of the US, and Western Europe (especially the ECB is really uptight about this). This is common knowledge that the economy works best at an inflation rate of 2%, despite its inverse relationship with unemployment (meaning that low inflation = high unemployment) and the fact that there is no economic proof that any inflation rate between 2-10% is harmful to the economy.

Basically mainstream economists have jumped the libertarian/pro-globalisation wagon, so this is where we are heading. And spear heading this train is ceratinly the wise people of U. of Chicago. They're brilliant, which is why I applied, but there's just something... which is why I dd'nt accept their invitation.

So, Wesleyan here I come.

 

[ComradeDavo]

My vote (and yes I voted only once cuz i'm to hung over to comprehend multi-choice polls, typing is difficult enough at the moment) goes to Imperial College London cuz 2 of my best friends have gone their! (Plus Mise of course )

 

[superisis]

Keynes also believed in government intervention and that growth shold come form government spending... and some aregue that he was right. The industries behind American growth have long been subsidized by the US government. Some even claim that legislation of the US congress has played a bigger roll in the economic history of the US since the end of WW2 than any free market forces.

 

[Yom]

@superisis: I don't know enough about macroeconomics to disprove or support your arguments, but I was under the impression that Ebitdadada was suggesting that demand-side economics was horribly wrong, and that supply-side economics was the way to go, which it most certainly is not.

 

[superisis]

Well, I remain neutral until I've gotten my hands on a master degree or a nuclear device. But I'll nudge my head approvingly.

 

[Bigfoot]

It depends on the subject matter, and also whether you are talking about undergrad level or graduate level work. I sincerely doubt if any one school is 'best' in all categories, or if there is even a consensus on what makes one school better than another. Number of Nobel Prize winners on staff? Earnings potential of the students? Number of publications?

Also, you can attend a big-name school and still get only a so-so undergrad education, especially with so many courses being either over-crowded or taught by TAs. UC Berkeley comes to mind, I am sure there are others from your list. BTW, I would have included LSE and Sorbonne on your list.

 

[Ebitdadada]

@superisis: I don't know enough about macroeconomics to disprove or support your arguments, but I was under the impression that Ebitdadada was suggesting that demand-side economics was horribly wrong, and that supply-side economics was the way to go, which it most certainly is not.

I think you're confusing supply side economics (endorced by Larry Kudlow, possibly the Bush administration and not too many real economists) with neo-clasical economcis (the University of Chicago). Supply side economics has its basis on the assumption that you can increase tax revenue by decreasing the tax rate. This is basically like eating the cake and having it too. It's also emprically wrong (because of the behavior of the real world behavior of the supply curve of labor, that is increasing people's take home pay by decreasing the tax rate doesn't increase the supply of labor, therefore, the economy doesn't really grow and provide the predicted (by supply siders) increase tax revenue). The Neo-Clasical school by enlarge thinks this is bs.

As far as why I beleive Kenyes was wrong. Kenyes beleived the government could get rid of the business cycle by spending money when the economy was down (running a deficit) and saving money when the economy was up (running a surpluss). This effect works according to Kenyesians because of the multiplirer effect (which pretty much everyone agrees on) which means if you have an increase in autnomous spending of say $2, the economy grows by $8 if the multiplier is 4. So being GDP = Private Sector Consuption + Private Sector Investment + Government Spending (investment and consuption) +(Exports - Imports) an increase in Government spending also triggers an increase in consuption, theoretically growing the economy. This is all good and well but it ignores that pesky little Investment part of the equation. The thing is that like everything else, the cost of capital (intrest rates) is subject to supply and demand. If the government runs a defficit, it "demands" loanable funds. This means the demand for loanable funds increases and like any good, when demand increases, its price must increase so interest rates go up. Now, if intrest rates incease, that means that investment gets more expensive and thus spending on investment goes down mostly canceling out any good the Kenysian policy did to correct the economy so in effect, the policy ends up not really doing alot to tame the business cycle but it does end up transfering resources from private sector investment to government investment. Because private sector investment is subject to price mechanisms, private sector is usualy much more efficient than government investment. So if you follow Keynsian economics for a long time, you'll create some big problems.

That said Keynes did contribute some good theories but he's kind of like a scientist who used to say the sun revolved around the earth but still did some usefull stuff in trying to prove that. I spose he was a briliant guy but he was still wrong.

Anyway that's my opinion and what's in vouge with economists now but who knows, Keynes may someday be proven to be right and everyone who's supposed to know whats going on now is wrong. I doubt it though.

 

[Atlas14]

Surprised nobody has mentioned that university in India. By far the most intelligent university, and most rigorous. I think it is IIT, Indian Institute of Technology. Anyway, it was on 60 Minutes or something. Those kids' back up schools if they don't get accepted into IIT are Harvard, Yale, etc. They almost feel ashamed if they have to come to an American university because they don't even compare to IIT supposedly.

 

[superisis]

I'm not going to enter an arguement with Ebitdadada cause that would be thread jacking. A few things though:

Firstly if there is a slowdown or a recession in the economy it doesn't nessesarily mean that the government is running a deficit. Secondly increased interest rates will lead to greater foreign investment into the country. Thirdly, while borrowing money will decrease investment, the people who get work due to government spending will start consuming (the multiplier effect) which will have a positive inpact on business. Also the mps (marginal propensity to spend) will determine what is spent (thus what gives business money) and what is saved (i.e. what lowers interests rates). With economy it is always about the actions that cause reactions, the strength and effect of each depend on the situtation.

 

[Fifty]

Everything I've heard about harvard, princeton, and yale is that they are meritocracys more than universitys. Everyone graduates with a high gpa because graduating with a high gpa is what your parents paid for.

I think the question should be split into "best degree" and "best education". Best degree I'd certainly say harvard, princeton, yale. Best education I'd put a few Universities above those three, especially depending on major.

A really good article related to education at the elite universities is "lost in the meritocracy" 2 issues back in the Atlantic Monthly. This guy is a Rhodes Scholarship finalist, straight A student, and he can't hold a conversation about Emerson with a high school kid, despite having taken classes devoted solely to Emerson! The latest Atlantic Monthly talks about a Harvard professor who, to combat grade inflation without punishing his students, started giving them a "harvard grade", which would be inflated and would be what was put on their transcripts, and a "what you deserve grade", which would actually assess the quality of their work!

 

[superisis]

hehe... I'd say that Harvard, Yale, etc are definatly not the best unis when it comes to undergraduates... graduate students, yes. But not undergrads.