08年发表的一篇文章:详细的做了美国PHD Econ Program的排名,非常专业
A guide to graduate study in economics: ranking economics departments by fields of expertise.Comment:A guide to graduate study in economics: ranking economics departments by fields of expertise.Author:Grijalva, Therese C.; Nowell, CliffordArticle Type:ReportGeographic Code:1USA Date:Apr 1, 2008 Words:12904 Publication:Southern Economic Journal ISSN:0038-40381. Introduction
Each year, thousands of undergraduates apply for admission tograduate schools in economics intending to obtain a Ph.D. Many of thesestudents have little idea on how to choose a graduate program, and manygo to an undergraduate adviser looking for advice. Prospective graduatestudents and their advisers have little published research to help themin the process of choosing what schools best match theundergraduate's skills and interests.
This study highlights many of the characteristics of departmentsthat offer doctoral degrees in economics and provides information onboth overall productivity and productivity by subject field. Thisresearch is significant for those looking to obtain a Ph.D. in economicsbecause the choice of where to attend graduate school has been shown tobe important in both academic and nonacademic job markets. Research intothe careers of Ph.D. economists (Barbezat 1992; McMillen and Singell1994; Stock and Alston 2000; Siegfried and Stock 2004) consistentlyindicates that graduates from top-rated schools fare better in academicand nonacademic job markets than their peers from lower-ranked programs.
Based on the finding that the quality of the school influencesoutcomes in the job market, the best advice for those applying tograduate school in economics may simply be to apply to the best schoolsto which you will likely be admitted. Yet this advice is of little valuefor those who are unlikely to be admitted into a top program yet have astrong interest in one of the many subject fields of economics and astrong desire to pursue a particular field. This group of students isleft getting advice from an undergraduate adviser who cannot be expectedto know the strengths of economics departments across the country or tosearch the Web pages of all the programs that offer a Ph.D. looking forclues as to what school is the best match.
In this article, we provide information to undergraduate studentsand their advisers on the research strengths of 129 economicsdepartments that offer Ph.D. degrees in the United States and toidentify schools that are ranked highly in the many different subjectfields of economics. This article should also provide guidance todepartments hiring new Ph.D. candidates within a specific field and tojob candidates looking for information on potential academic employers.
This article differs from the many papers ranking the quality ofeconomics departments by identifying the relative strength of all Ph.D.programs and by specifically providing information on all the majorsubject fields in economics. Although Tschirhart (1989) ranksdepartments in fields of expertise, only a limited set of fields isidentified, and departments are ranked using data that are now over 20years old. U.S. News and Worm Report (1) also provides a ranking ofeconomics departments by field. Their ranking is based on surveyresponses of department chairs who were asked to rank all departments ona five-point scale. Department rankings by field can also be found onthe EconPhd.net website (http://www.econphd.net). This site ranksdepartments by field, using publications in 63 highly ranked economicsjournals during the 1993-2003 period. The data we used as the basis forthis article are more comprehensive and cover a larger time frame. Weused all journals in which economists at the Ph.D.-granting institutionsin the United States had published during a 20-year period. Our data setconsists of publications in 254 journals over the 20-year period1985-2004. This analysis provides by far the most detailed, completeranking of departments by field in the literature.
In addition to simply identifying the top 20 schools in each field,other information, not found elsewhere, is provided on the relativeimportance of the field at the school and how the scholarly output isdistributed across the department's faculty. To measure theconcentration of faculty in a field, we calculate a Herfindahl-HirschmanIndex (HHI). The HHI is particularly important for an undergraduate toconsider. Planning to obtain a Ph.D. from a school in hopes of studyingwith a single person is a risky undertaking not only because the facultymember may move but also because any single faculty member can mentor only a limited number of students.
We recognize that ranking departments is fraught with danger.Thursby (2000) has pointed out that using single measures of departmentproductivity suggests differences between many departments that aremeaningless, a finding we reiterate when solely aggregate measures ofperformance are used. However, by providing detailed information ondepartments by field and by identifying the publication patterns of thefaculty within the field, we are able to highlight some differences thataggregate measures gloss over.
2. Methods
Similar to Tschirhart (1989), the data-gathering stage consists offour basic steps: (i) identifying all Ph.D.-granting institutions ineconomics as of the 2004 spring semester, (2) (ii) identifying alltenure-track or tenured faculty as of the 2004 spring semester, (iii)acquiring a list of faculty publications, and (iv) determining thequality of each publication.
To identify the universities offering doctoral degrees ineconomics, we used the website maintained by the University of Albany.(3) This site contained a list of all economics departments with Ph.D.programs at American and Canadian universities and was verified withPeterson's Guide to Graduate Schools. (4) Based on this, weidentified 129 programs located in the United States that offereddoctoral degrees in economics as of the spring of 2004.
The second step, identifying all tenure-track or tenured facultyfor each university, was accomplished by accessing economics departmentWeb sites. A slight shortcoming of this approach is that faculty listsare highly dependent on whether a department maintains and updates theirfaculty lists. Removing faculty members without any publicationsresulted in over 2600 faculty names. In the few cases where facultyappeared on multiple department websites, we included the faculty memberin the department where he or she had a permanent and currentaffiliation. We recognize that there are some faculty who are members ofa department other than economics (e.g., the Department of ManagerialEconomics and Decision Sciences at Northwestern University) yetcontribute to the education of graduate students and are productive inthe field of economics. Determining who these faculty are and the extentto which they are involved in the economics department made itimpractical to include them in the analysis.
The third step focused on acquiring journal publications for eachfaculty member listed in the Journal of Economic Literature databaseEconlit. The database was queried for the publications of tenure-trackfaculty identified by the 129 departments. Faculty were dropped from theanalysis if Econlit indicated that they had no published articles. Thisstudy focused on articles published between 1985 and 2004. Over thistime period, Econlit cataloged over 38,000 publications of faculty whowere employed in Ph.D. economics programs as of the spring of 2004. (5)Further, Econlit provided four essential pieces of information thatwould be needed for analysis: (i) article source, (ii) page numbers,(iii) number of authors, and (iv) Journal of Economic Literature subjectcodes. The article source would be needed in order to assess the qualityof the article. The credit each author received for a publication wasweighted by the number of authors and page length. The greater thenumber of coauthors, the less credit assigned to each coauthor, and thegreater the length of the article, the greater the credit assigned toeach coauthor. (6) The subject codes would be needed to sort articles bya field of expertise.
The final step was assigning a quality index, , to eachjournal. We used both the impact factors published in the 2004 SocialScience Citation Index (SSCI scores) and rankings based on"citations per character in 1990" for articles publishedbetween 1985 and 1989 (JEL scores) proposed by Laband and Piette (1994).(7) Many publications contained at least one or both an SSCI and a JELscore. There were 107 journals containing both an SSCI and a JEL score.There were an additional 131 with only an SSCI score and an additional16 with only a JEL score. Thus, the total number of journals indexed inthe SSCI that we used in our analysis was 238, and the total number ofjournals indexed in the JEL that we used in our analysis was 123.Publications that had neither an SSCI nor a JEL score were dropped fromthe analysis. It should be noted that although the SSCI indexes 172journals in the economics discipline, we use all publications identifiedby Econlit and indexed in the SSCI, even if outside the economicsdiscipline, in calculating productivity.
Following Tschirhart (1989), articles were adjusted by number ofauthors and page length. The first step consisted of dividing the numberof pages of article i, , by the number of authors (n), thusensuring that each author received 1/n credit times the number of pages.The second step consisted of taking the value from the first step( divided by n) and dividing it by the average length ofall articles from the same journal j ([.sub.j]). The weightingthat each coauthor of article i in publication j, , receivesis given by
= //[.sub.j]
The quality, , of each article was then multiplied by, yielding a productivity value, , indicating theweighted quality assigned to each article assigned to the author. Theseweighted productivity values were summed by individual and then byschool. The results presented in this study are based primarily on theSSCI scores because of the broader coverage of the SSCI and because theSSCI includes many of the newer journals that began publication after1985.
In preparing to rank schools by subject fields, the JELclassification system was used. (8) The JEL classification systemconsists of 18 different subject fields. We eliminated one subjectfield, M (business administration and business economics, marketing, andaccounting). The remaining 17 subject fields are listed in Table 1. Thesubject field with the greatest number of faculty publications was D,microeconomics, and the field with the least number of facultypublications was JEL code B, methodology and history of economicthought.
3. Results
After gathering and cleaning the data and making the previouslymentioned calculations, rankings are computed. The results are presentedin Tables 2 and 3.
The second column of Table 2 provides the overall productivity rankof all 129 departments. This ranking was computed by summing for each university, with the top university having the greatest overallproductivity sum. Although it is similar to rankings found in Graves,Marchand, and Thompson (1982) and Dusansky and Vernon (1998), somedifferences are apparent. These differences can be attributed to thedifference in time periods analyzed, the inclusion of all articleslisted in Econlit rather than a subset, and the use of the SSCI for thequality index.
The third column in Table 2, "Z-Score," indicates thenumber of standard deviations the school's productivity rank isabove or below the mean productivity rank. Only 44 of the 129 schoolshave a positive Z-score, indicating that the distribution of overallproductivity is skewed to the right. A noticeable feature of thisskewness is that distinction between schools diminishes as the rankdeclines. For example, the top-ranked school, Harvard, has a Z-score of5.08, and the fifth-ranked school, Yale, has a Z-score of 2.18, asubstantial difference. However, as we move lower in the rankings, the70th-ranked school, the University of Massachusetts, has a Z-score of-0.43, and the 80th-ranked school, the University of Delaware, has aZ-score of -0.50, a very small difference. The ordinal rankingspresented in much of the literature that ranks economics departmentsmiss the fact that below a relatively small group of top programs, thedifferences in aggregate productivity become fairly small.
The fourth column of Table 2, "Per Faculty Rank," showshow each school ranks when their total productivity sum is divided bythe number of publishing faculty within the department; it representsthe average productivity of publishing faculty in a department and maybe the best indicator of the quality of the faculty for potentialgraduate students. For example, the California Institute ofTechnology has an overall rank of 38 and an average rank of 7,suggesting that thelower overall rank of the department is greatly influenced by thesmaller size of the department and not due to the productivity of eachpublishing faculty member. A student attending this institution wouldlikely obtain an education from "top 10" faculty even thoughthe relatively small department size dampens the overall productivityranking. The fifth column of Table 2 indicates the overall productivityranking of departments based on the journal rankings of Laband andPiette (1994) that appeared in the Journal of Economic Literature.Notice that rankings using the SSCI or those calculated by Laband andPiette (1994) identify the same top 10 schools, and there is only onedifference in the top 20 schools.
The sixth column of Table 2, "Top Field," indicates eachdepartment's best subject field. Top field was determined bysumming each department's productivity for each JEL category, usingthe first JEL code identified by the author as a guide and then choosingthe subject field with the highest sum. The seventh column of Table 2shows the HHI for each school. The HHI is typically used to measure thedegree of market concentration for a particular industry. In this study,the HHI provides information on how concentrated the research is amongthe number of faculty publishing in the department. The HHI is found bysquaring the faculty member's share of the department's totalproductivity and then summing the results:
HHI =
where s represents the productivity share of the ith facultymember. Values for the index can range from 0 to 1, depending on thedistribution of publication patterns across the faculty at the school. Avalue of 1.0 indicates that all the publications result from a singleindividual, and a value of 0 implies that the publications are spreadequally among the faculty in the area. (9)
The eighth column of Table 2, "Field Strength Index,"demonstrates how well each department does in its top field relative tothe department that is the number one rank in that particular field. Forexample, Harvard's top field is financial economics, and it is thetop-ranked department in financial economics; hence, Harvard has a fieldstrength index of 1.0. Princeton University's top field ismicroeconomics (JEL code D), although its field strength index inmicroeconomics is 0.88, indicating that it produces 88% of the researchof the top-ranked school in the microeconomics category. (10) It isimportant to note that some universities may not offer a field in theirtop field (see footnotes for Table 2). Finally, the last column of Table2, "Average Ph.D. Graduates (2002-2007)," provides informationon the size of each program, and is included to provide additionalinformation to potential applicants. (11) A significant portion ofgraduate education is obtained from one's classmates. As such, thisfigure provides information regarding the activity level of the graduateeducation within a department. A department may have many productivescholars but may not be as actively engaged in its graduate education.
Table 3 identifies the field rankings for each of the 129departments using the first JEL code identified by the author. Allarticles were assigned to a field on the basis of the assumption thatthe first JEL code listed represents the primary subject field of thearticle. Once an article was categorized, the productivity value foreach article, , was summed by subject and university, yieldinga total productivity score within a particular field for a particulardepartment. While this information is useful to potential graduatestudents and others, it should be noted that not all fields are offeredat each university. Thus, potential graduate students should confirmthat a field of interest is available at a particular university beforeapplying.
Table 4 identifies the top 20 schools in each field. Thistablealso identifies the number of faculty in each school who publish in thefield regardless of where they publish or whether the journal is listedin the SSCI. Table 4 also shows the HHI for each of the top 20 schoolsin the field. For example, referring to Carnegie Mellon University, thevalue for the HHI in general economics and teaching (JEL subject codeA)is 0.18, whereas for Cornell University the HHI is 1.0. AtCarnegie Mellon, publication in this field is spread out among theeight membersof the faculty who publish in this area. At Cornell, however, all thepublications listed in SSCI are attributed to a single faculty member.(Although at Cornell, three people have published in this area, onlyoneperson has published in journals listed in the SSCI.) As anotherexample, for JEL subject code I (health, education, and welfare),Stanford University has nine faculty members who have published in thisarea and an HHI of 0.63. Michigan State University is ranked slightlylower than Stanford and has 10 faculty publishing in the area with anHHI of 0.16. If a student wishes to pursue a graduate degree ineconomics at Stanford University with an emphasis in health, education,and welfare, he or she should realize that the scholarly activity inthis area at Stanford is concentrated in a few of the nine people whopublish in the area, while at Michigan State University, thepublications are more evenly distributed across the faculty in thisarea.
The fifth column in Table 4, "Importance Index,"demonstrates the importance of a particular field for a departmentrelative to its overall productivity. The importance index simplydivides a department's productivity score for a particular field bythe department's overall productivity score. Refer to PrincetonUniversity, which ranks as the top department in JEL subject codes BandF, methodology and history of economic thought and internationaleconomics, respectively. For methodology and history of economicthought, Princeton has an importance index of 2%, and for internationaleconomics, Princeton has an importance index of 12%. This indicatesthatmethodology and history of economic thought is more likely aspillover category and not the primary focus of the department'soverallresearch agenda.
4. Conclusion
The primary objective of this article is to provide information toundergraduate students and to their advisers on the research strengthsof 129 economics doctoral programs in the United States. We provide bothtotal and average, or per capita, research productivity measures forpublishing faculty and identify schools that are highly ranked in themany different subject fields of economics.
A noticeable feature of our total productivity rankings is that thedistinction between schools diminishes as their rank declines. The datademonstrate that per capita and total productivity measures result indifferences in quality rankings, where total productivity is influencedby both the number of publishing faculty and the productivity of eachfaculty member. Students searching for graduate schools may benefit fromconsidering both the average quality of the faculty and the totalquality of the department.
For students who have a strong interest in a specific subject fieldof economics, we identify the schools that may best fit with thestudent's desires. As a cautionary note, we provide HHI measuresthat alert students to the possibility that some departments may have atop reputation in a subject field due to having a single, veryinfluential faculty member.
Although this information should be helpful to students applying tograduate school, applicants should be mindful of several things. First,one should apply to many different Ph.D. programs. The loss from aredundant application is much smaller than the loss of not applying to aplace that could become one's best offer (or maybe help to get abetter deal elsewhere). Second, although a student will benefit byattending a university ranked highly in his or her preferred field, amajor consideration should still be the overall quality of thedepartment. There are several benefits of attending a highly rankedschool: (i) a student often learns a lot from his or her classmates, whoperhaps are better students; (ii) students may change their preferencesduring their studies, and our study shows that highly ranked departmentsoverall are strong in many fields; and (iii) students may be moresuccessful in their job search if they graduated from a department thatis highly ranked overall. While this article can be a useful tool tostart with, when actually choosing between competing offers, prospectivestudents should check out department websites and relevant curriculavital themselves. (12)
Finally, our work shows that many top-ranked programs based ontotal productivity measures are able to provide an education that isbroad in nature and that gives access to many of the subject fields ofeconomics. For students who are interested in a specific subject field,attending a traditionally top-ranked program will likely not limit thestudent's ability to conduct future research in an applieddiscipline. At the same time, however, for students who will not attenda top-ranked school based on total productivity measures, they willlikely attend a program with actively publishing faculty, and if theychoose their programs correctly, it will still be possible to obtain atop-ranked education in one of the subfields of economics.
Assistance in data gathering was provided by Adrienne Strong.
Received January 2007; accepted August 2007.
References
Barbezat, Debra A. 1992. The market for new Ph.D. economists.Journal of Economic Education 23:262-76.
Dusansky, Richard, and Clayton J. Vernon. 1998. Rankings of U.S.economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:157-70.
Graves, Philip E., James R. Marchand, and Randel Thompson. 1982.Economics departmental rankings: Research incentives, constraints, andefficiency. American Economic Review 5:1131-41.
Journal of Economic Literature. 1991. Classification system: Oldand new categories. Journal of Economic Literature 29:xviii-xxviii.
Laband, David N., and Michael J. Piette. 1994. The relative impactsof economics journals: 1970-1990. Journal of Economic Literature32:640-66.
McMillen, Daniel P., and Larry D. Singell, Jr. 1994. Genderdifferences in first jobs for economists. Southern Economic Journal60:701-14.
Siegfried, John J., and Wendy Stock. 2004. The labor market for newPh.D. economists in 2002. American Economic Review Papers andProceedings 94:272-85.
Stock, Wendy, and Richard M. Alston. 2000. The effect of graduateprogram rank on success in the job market. Journal of Economic Education31:389-401.
Thursby, Jerry G. 2000. What do we say about ourselves and whatdoes it mean? Yet another look at economics department research. Journalof Economic Literature 38:383-404.
Tschirhart, John. 1989. Ranking economics departments in areas ofexpertise. Journal of Economic Education 20:199-222.
Therese C. Grijalva * and Clifford Nowell ()
* Department of Economics, Weber State University, Ogden, UT84408-3807, USA; E-mail tgrijalva@weber.edu; corresponding author.
() Department of Economics. Weber State University, Ogden,UT 84408-3807, USA: E-mail cnowell@weber.edu.
(1) Available at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/phdhumindex_brief.php (July 2007).
(2) Departments offering doctorates in agricultural economics werenot included in the analysis.
(3) Available at http://www.albany.edu/econ/eco_phds.html (July2007).
(4) Available athttp://www.petersons.com/graduate_home.asp?path=gr.home (July 2007).
(5) Coauthors listed as "et al." rather than by name inEconlit are not identified specifically by Econlit.
(6) Articles with four or more authors or in articles wherecoauthors are not specifically identified (i.e., et al.) are treated ashaving four authors.
(7) An alternative to using impact factors is to use totalcitations per journal per year. We chose to use impact factors to beconsistent with past research (e.g., see Tschirhart 1989).
(8) In 1991, JEL modified its classification system. We followedthe JEL recommendations in mapping pre-1991 subject codes to post-1991subject codes (Journal of Economic Literature 1991).
(9) It should be noted that in the case of an HHI of 1.0, more thanone faculty member may publish in this area, yet because other facultymembers' publications may not be indexed in the SSCI, they are notrecognized in our data as contributing to the department's researchproductivity.
(10) The field strength index measures only the department'srelative productivity in its top field. It is possible that a departmenthas a higher field strength rating in a field other than its top field.
(11) These data were acquired by calling and e-mailing the graduateadvisers or the department administrators at each university. In somecases, multiple attempts were made to contact the department and acquirethis information.
(12) We thank an anonymous referee for pointing out thesecautionary notes. 下面是关键部分
第一部分是
Table 1. The JEL Classification System for Journal Articles
Codes Beginning
with the Letter Description
A General economics and teaching
B Methodology and history of economic thought
C Mathematical and quantitative methods
D Microeconomics
E Macroeconomics and monetary policy
F International economics
G Financial economics
H Public economics
I Health, education, and welfare
J Labor and demographic economics
K Law and economics
L Industrial organization
N Economic history
O Economic development, technological change,
and growth
P Economic systems
Q Agricultural and natural resource economics
R Urban, rural, and regional economics 总排名,包括系里面教授的论文总数的排名和单位教授的生产力排名
Table 2. Overall Rankings for Ph.D.-Granting Institutions in Economics
Overall
Productivity Z-Score Per Faculty
School Rank (SSCI) (SSCI) Rank (SSCI)
Harvard U 1 5.08 1
UC Berkeley 2 4.09 4
Princeton U 3 3.79 3
MIT 4 3.29 2
Yale U 5 2.18 11
U Michigan 6 1.92 18
New York U 7 1.92 8
UCLA 8 1.76 16
Stanford U 9 1.75 13
U Chicago 10 1.50 5
Columbia U 11 1.48 9
Northwestern U 12 1.43 12
UC San Diego 13 1.35 6
U Wisconsin, Madison 14 1.08 10
Boston U 15 0.93 22
U Pennsylvania 16 0.91 15
Ohio State U 17 0.84 28
Michigan State U 18 0.83 49
Cornell U 19 0.64 23
U Virginia 20 0.52 17
U Maryland, College Park 21 0.49 27
U Illinois, Urbana 22 0.46 38
Carnegie Mellon U 23 0.45 41
Duke U 24 0.44 31
UC Davis 25 0.44 25
U Southern California 26 0.43 19
U Texas, Austin 27 0.38 24
Brown U 28 0.38 29
U Minnesota 29 0.37 20
North Carolina State U 30 0.37 58
Iowa State U 31 0.35 59
Vanderbilt U 32 0.35 35
Johns Hopkins U 33 0.24 14
Syracuse U 34 0.24 53
Pennsylvania State U 35 0.24 43
Georgetown U 36 0.22 40
Boston College 37 0.15 26
California Inst Tech 38 0.09 7
U of Rochester 39 0.09 21
UNC, Chapel Hill 40 0.08 48
George Mason U 41 0.08 55
U Colorado, Boulder 42 0.05 56
UC Santa Cruz 43 0.01 30
City University of
New York (CUNY) 44 0.00 98
U Washington 45 -0.04 50
U Illinois, Chicago 46 -0.04 34
Arizona State U 47 -0.07 57
Rice U 48 -0.08 36
Texas A&M U 49 -0.09 60
Georgia State U 50 -0.12 69
UC Santa Barbara 51 -0.12 63
Florida State U 52 -0.14 61
Indiana U 53 -0.19 46
George Washington U 54 -0.22 75
Rutgers U 55 -0.22 70
UC Riverside 56 -0.23 44
U Oregon 57 -0.25 54
U Houston 58 -0.26 72
U Pittsburgh 59 -0.26 68
U Iowa 60 -0.28 52
U Wyoming 61 -0.30 32
U Arizona 62 -0.32 51
U Kentucky 63 -0.34 45
U Florida 64 -0.35 64
Southern Methodist U 65 -0.36 62
Clemson U 66 -0.37 73
Purdue U 67 -0.39 76
U Connecticut 68 -0.41 89
Washington U, St. Louis 69 -0.41 67
U Massachusetts, Amherst 70 -0.43 85
Emory U 71 -0.43 66
UC Irvine 72 -0.44 81
U South Carolina 73 -0.44 39
U Georgia 74 -0.46 65
Virginia Tech 75 -0.47 74
U Albany 76 -0.47 71
SUNY Binghamton 77 -0.48 77
Wayne State U 78 -0.49 47
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 79 -0.49 95
U Delaware 80 -0.50 101
American U 81 -0.52 102
U Missouri, Columbia 82 -0.53 78
U Kansas 83 -0.54 93
RPI 84 -0.54 33
SUNY Buffalo 85 -0.54 83
U Nebraska, Lincoln 86 -0.55 84
Florida International U 87 -0.57 92
U Notre Dame 88 -0.57 42
U Alabama 89 -0.59 96
U Oklahoma 90 -0.60 97
Brandeis U 91 -0.61 37
Louisiana State U 92 -0.62 80
SUNY Stony Brook 93 -0.62 91
Oregon State U 94 -0.63 86
Lehigh U 95 -0.64 99
U Miami 96 -0.64 79
Auburn U 97 -0.64 90
New School U 98 -0.64 87
Washington State U 99 -0.65 88
Tulane U (e) 100 -0.65 104
Oklahoma State U 101 -0.66 105
Southern Illinois U,
Carbondale 102 -0.67 94
Northern Illinois U 103 -0.67 100
West Virginia U 104 -0.68 112
U New Orleans 105 -0.68 114
Colorado State U 106 -0.68 117
U Tennessee, Knoxville 107 -0.69 107
U Hawaii, Manoa 108 -0.69 116
U Utah 109 -0.69 124
U Arkansas 110 -0.70 108
Western Michigan U 111 -0.70 120
Temple U 112 -0.71 125
U New Mexico 113 -0.71 113
U Mississippi 114 -0.71 111
Kansas State U 115 -0.71 115
Fordham U 116 -0.72 109
U Rhode Island 117 -0.72 103
U New Hampshire 118 -0.73 122
Utah State U 119 -0.73 128
Northeastern U 120 -0.74 118
Claremont Graduate U 121 -0.74 82
U Missouri, Kansas City 122 -0.74 106
Clark U 123 -0.75 110
Portland State U 124 -0.76 121
Middle Tennessee State 125 -0.76 126
Colorado School of Mines 126 -0.76 123
Texas Tech U 127 -0.80 119
Suffolk U 128 -0.81 127
Howard U 129 -0.81 129 Overall
Productivity Top Field HHI
School Rank (JEL) (SSCI) (SSCI)
Harvard U 1 G 0.03
UC Berkeley 3 D 0.03
Princeton U 2 D 0.04
MIT 4 J 0.05
Yale U 5 C 0.07
U Michigan 7 J 0.03
New York U 9 D 0.04
UCLA 6 D 0.04
Stanford U 8 D 0.04
U Chicago 10 D 0.05
Columbia U 11 F 0.09
Northwestern U 12 C 0.06
UC San Diego 13 C 0.05
U Wisconsin, Madison 14 C 0.06
Boston U 15 J 0.05
U Pennsylvania 17 J 0.07
Ohio State U 16 D 0.05
Michigan State U 19 J 0.08
Cornell U 22 D 0.06
U Virginia 18 D 0.08
U Maryland, College Park 20 H 0.05
U Illinois, Urbana 24 C 0.05
Carnegie Mellon U 25 G 0.05
Duke U 23 C 0.06
UC Davis 29 F 0.06
U Southern California 32 D 0.11
U Texas, Austin 26 J 0.08
Brown U 27 0 0.06
U Minnesota 28 D 0.07
North Carolina State U 30 Q 0.06
Iowa State U 21 Q 0.04
Vanderbilt U 31 E 0.06
Johns Hopkins U 33 D 0.11
Syracuse U 37 J 0.05
Pennsylvania State U 39 D 0.05
Georgetown U 40 E 0.07
Boston College 34 D 0.10
California Inst Tech 38 D 0.13
U of Rochester 36 D 0.10
UNC, Chapel Hill 41 J 0.09
George Mason U 35 D 0.06
U Colorado, Boulder 43 F 0.06
UC Santa Cruz 44 F 0.10
City University of
New York (CUNY) 47 J 0.04
U Washington 46 E 0.12
U Illinois, Chicago 50 J 0.10
Arizona State U 42 C 0.07
Rice U 51 C 0.10
Texas A&M U 45 C 0.06
Georgia State U 48 J 0.08
UC Santa Barbara 52 D 0.07
Florida State U 49 J 0.08
Indiana U 54 E 0.09
George Washington U 57 F 0.06
Rutgers U 55 F 0.07
UC Riverside 56 D 0.12
U Oregon 53 F 0.09
U Houston 59 J 0.07
U Pittsburgh 63 C 0.07
U Iowa 58 C 0.11
U Wyoming 68 Q 0.14
U Arizona 66 D 0.10
U Kentucky 61 H 0.16
U Florida 60 C 0.09
Southern Methodist U 65 D 0.09
Clemson U 64 J 0.09
Purdue U 62 D 0.10
U Connecticut 71 R 0.11
Washington U, St. Louis 69 D 0.15
U Massachusetts, Amherst 73 J 0.09
Emory U 67 D 0.14
UC Irvine 77 D 0.07
U South Carolina 74 J 0.24
U Georgia 72 E 0.11
Virginia Tech 78 D 0.09
U Albany 80 J 0.13
SUNY Binghamton 70 Q 0.16
Wayne State U 75 R 0.23
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 79 J 0.15
U Delaware 76 E 0.09
American U 81 J 0.09
U Missouri, Columbia 83 J 0.10
U Kansas 85 C 0.14
RPI 94 O (c) 0.20
SUNY Buffalo 86 R 0.19
U Nebraska, Lincoln 82 A 0.13
Florida International U 93 F 0.15
U Notre Dame 84 G (c) 0.23
U Alabama 87 C (c) 0.14
U Oklahoma 88 D 0.13
Brandeis U 89 E 0.42
Louisiana State U 90 J 0.13
SUNY Stony Brook 96 D 0.14
Oregon State U 95 D (d) 0.19
Lehigh U 97 J 0.11
U Miami 91 J 0.27
Auburn U 92 L 0.14
New School U 104 E 0.22
Washington State U 105 L 0.20
Tulane U (e) 99 Q 0.12
Oklahoma State U 103 R 0.15
Southern Illinois U,
Carbondale 100 C (c) 0.15
Northern Illinois U 102 J 0.17
West Virginia U 101 H 0.16
U New Orleans 109 G 0.13
Colorado State U 106 R 0.14
U Tennessee, Knoxville 110 H 0.10
U Hawaii, Manoa 114 Q 0.13
U Utah 107 J 0.11
U Arkansas 112 D 0.10
Western Michigan U 116 J 0.17
Temple U 108 J 0.15
U New Mexico 117 Q 0.08
U Mississippi 98 C 0.13
Kansas State U 119 L 0.17
Fordham U 118 C 0.15
U Rhode Island 115 Q 0.28
U New Hampshire 121 J (cd) 0.20
Utah State U 113 Q 0.17
Northeastern U 120 L 0.10
Claremont Graduate U 124 F 0.25
U Missouri, Kansas City 111 E 0.23
Clark U 123 F 0.30
Portland State U 122 J (cf) 0.25
Middle Tennessee State 125 J 0.18
Colorado School of Mines 127 Q 0.26
Texas Tech U 126 1 0.28
Suffolk U 129 L 0.55
Howard U 128 F 0.29 Average
Ph.D.
Field Graduates
Strength (2002-2007)
School Index (SSCI) (a)
Harvard U 1 31
UC Berkeley 1 23
Princeton U 0.88 19
MIT 1 21
Yale U 1 18
U Michigan 0.74 9
New York U 0.72 10
UCLA 0.51 23
Stanford U 0.63 20
U Chicago 0.58 36
Columbia U 0.85 11
Northwestern U 0.54 22
UC San Diego 0.65 13
U Wisconsin, Madison 0.51 17
Boston U 0.45 13
U Pennsylvania 0.50 12
Ohio State U 0.39 15
Michigan State U 0.58 12
Cornell U 0.28 10
U Virginia 0.34 9
U Maryland, College Park 0.54 25
U Illinois, Urbana 0.23 12
Carnegie Mellon U 0.45 5 (b)
Duke U 0.16 10
UC Davis 0.38 7
U Southern California 0.38 7
U Texas, Austin 0.41 10
Brown U 0.41 7
U Minnesota 0.34 13
North Carolina State U 0.95 9
Iowa State U 1 7
Vanderbilt U 0.18 6
Johns Hopkins U 0.37 8
Syracuse U 0.31 6
Pennsylvania State U 0.23 12
Georgetown U 0.20 7
Boston College 0.29 8
California Inst Tech 0.46 4
U of Rochester 0.30 12
UNC, Chapel Hill 0.31 12
George Mason U 0.28 15
U Colorado, Boulder 0.31 10
UC Santa Cruz 0.31 7
City University of
New York (CUNY) 0.32 9
U Washington 0.20 14
U Illinois, Chicago 0.31 5
Arizona State U 0.13 2
Rice U 0.21 5
Texas A&M U 0.20 9
Georgia State U 0.27 11
UC Santa Barbara 0.13 10
Florida State U 0.22 4
Indiana U 0.14 6
George Washington U 0.14 4
Rutgers U 0.14 3
UC Riverside 0.19 5
U Oregon 0.15 6
U Houston 0.20 6 (b)
U Pittsburgh 0.15 7
U Iowa 0.16 4
U Wyoming 0.45 3
U Arizona 0.15 6
U Kentucky 0.42 5
U Florida 0.06 6
Southern Methodist U 0.12 3
Clemson U 0.13 7
Purdue U 0.10 8
U Connecticut 0.46 5
Washington U, St. Louis 0.18 8
U Massachusetts, Amherst 0.12 8
Emory U 0.07 4
UC Irvine 0.06 10
U South Carolina 0.33 7
U Georgia 0.07 3
Virginia Tech 0.10 4
U Albany 0.12 5
SUNY Binghamton 0.18 4
Wayne State U 0.55 4
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 0.16 6
U Delaware 0.05 6
American U 0.07 7
U Missouri, Columbia 0.10 7
U Kansas 0.06 3
RPI 0.11 2 (b)
SUNY Buffalo 0.41 2
U Nebraska, Lincoln 0.88 2
Florida International U 0.15 12
U Notre Dame 0.04 5
U Alabama 0.05 5
U Oklahoma 0.07 5
Brandeis U 0.11 2
Louisiana State U 0.06 13
SUNY Stony Brook 0.11 10
Oregon State U 0.07 5
Lehigh U 0.04 3
U Miami 0.09 2
Auburn U 0.11 2
New School U 0.08 12
Washington State U 0.10 10
Tulane U (e) 0.07 Suspended
Oklahoma State U 0.36 5
Southern Illinois U,
Carbondale 0.03 6
Northern Illinois U 0.13 2
West Virginia U 0.06 8
U New Orleans 0.06 3
Colorado State U 0.15 4
U Tennessee, Knoxville 0.12 5
U Hawaii, Manoa 0.06 6
U Utah 0.06 10
U Arkansas 0.02 1
Western Michigan U 0.06 4
Temple U 0.03 3 (b)
U New Mexico 0.11 5
U Mississippi 0.03 4
Kansas State U 0.08 4
Fordham U 0.05 8
U Rhode Island 0.21 4
U New Hampshire 0.04 2
Utah State U 0.15 3
Northeastern U 0.16 New program
Claremont Graduate U 0.04 10
U Missouri, Kansas City 0.05 18
Clark U 0.04 4
Portland State U 0.03 0 (f)
Middle Tennessee State 0.04 3
Colorado School of Mines 0.10 3
Texas Tech U 0.05 6
Suffolk U 0.02 New program
Howard U 0.01 1 (b)
(a) This column of data represents the average number (rounded up) of
doctorates granted by each university in the past five years and was
acquired by calling each university. It should be noted that these
data provide no information regarding retention rates. While multiple
attempts were made to contact several universities, we were unable to
acquire this information for some departments; as such, NA (not
available) is used to represent these instances.
(b) This information was obtained by counting and then averaging the
number of doctoral dissertations listed in the December 2004, 2005,
and 2006 issues of the Journal of Economic Literature.
(c) The top field at this school is not an offered field. The top
offered field for the following schools is RPI, Q; U Notre Dame, F;
U Alabama, E; Southern Illinois U at Carbondale, F; U of New
Hampshire, D; and Portland State U, O. U of Notre Dame offers a field
in E, which may be closely related to G. At U of Alabama, the Ph.D.
in economics is offered out of the Business School, where a Ph.D. in
applied statistics is available. U of New Hampshire offers a field in
1, which may be closely related to J.
(d) School may or may not offer a field in microeconomic theory (D)
but does offer multiple fields in applied microeconomics.
(e) At the time of this writing, Tulane U had suspended its Ph.D.
program because of Hurricane Katrina.
(f) Portland State U does not offer a Ph.D. in economics. The
university offers doctoral degrees in urban studies and systems
science, both of which offer an emphasis in economics. 各个学校的各个经济学分支排名
Table 3. Field Rankings (based on first-listed
JEL code for publications) (a)
THE JEL Classification System
for Journal Articles
School A B C D E F
American U 49 32 70 105 78 56
Arizona State U 58 77 34 40 30 34
Auburn U 35 51 86 87 117 *
Boston College 69 72 35 23 29 22
Boston U * 56 14 19 11 29
Brandeis U * * 110 120 34 116
Brown U 51 68 28 38 48 37
California Inst Tech 48 35 15 11 87 78
Carnegie Mellon U 2 17 38 33 26 66
City U of New York 76 24 90 72 47 52
Claremont Graduate U 90 76 * 110 112 67
Clark U * *. * * 121 62
Clemson U 25 67 103 66 84 71
Colorado School of Mines * * * 126 * *
Colorado State U 82 18 122 108 96 85
Columbia U 18 6 37 20 6 3
Cornell U 17 58 17 24 37 41
Duke U 37 10 27 39 31 19
Emory U 21 82 62 63 44 46
Florida International U * 83 82 102 77 25
Florida State U 70 43 81 62 50 70
Fordham U * 87 64 125 86 68
George Mason U 9 3 40 25 79 99
George Washington U 42 73 67 70 58 30
Georgetown U * * 48 46 20 18
Georgia State U 14 16 68 65 104 97
Harvard U 15 7 5 3 1 2
Howard U * * 118 127 118 103
Indiana U 5 * 53 53 28 43
Iowa State U 30 * 44 31 62 51
Johns Hopkins U 24 9 39 15 13 79
Kansas State U * 79 114 109 67 115
Lehigh U 33 46 93 88 102 77
Louisiana State U 79 * 87 95 71 89
MIT 6 5 3 5 4 38
Michigan State U 32 26 23 44 72 21
Middle Tennessee State * 47 117 124 119 83
New School U * 41 111 113 41 84
New York U 16 4 9 4 7 14
North Carolina State U 39 * 32 52 36 63
Northeastern U 50 42 * 128 108 113
Northern Illinois U * * 119 97 110 110
Northwestern U 34 37 4 10 5 36
Ohio State U 47 57 13 13 17 23
Oklahoma State U 81 38 104 115 115 92
Oregon State U 74 59 79 67 125 114
Pennsylvania State U 67 11 21 28 40 32
Portland State U 78 49 116 116 89 118
Princeton U 12 1 7 2 2 1
Purdue U 13 * 69 49 65 45
RPI 55 71 88 106 114 117
Rice U * * 19 35 60 109
Rutgers U 89 * 61 57 46 28
S. Illinois U, Carbondale * 45 75 81 92 60
Southern Methodist U * 75 41 47 68 47
Stanford U 26 21 18 6 14 9
Suffolk U * * 95 123 * 120
SUNY Binghamton * 63 63 77 98 *
SUNY Buffalo * 53 83 78 105 111
SUNY Stony Brook * * 91 50 109 *
Syracuse U 27 44 49 42 66 42
Temple U * 55 109 91 111 102
Texas A&M U 29 * 20 37 73 76
Texas Tech U 91 80 121 119 103 *
Tulane U * * 99 104 * 75
U Alabama 45 48 58 76 55 69
U Albany * 60 57 68 75 48
U Arizona 85 74 45 41 122 *
U Arkansas * * 89 89 106 100
UC Berkeley 4 2 8 1 3 4
UC Davis 41 19 43 32 15 8
UC Irvine * 23 66 69 59 82
UC Los Angeles 28 84 10 9 8 6
UC Riverside * 81 33 34 64 73
UC San Diego 40 70 2 26 12 13
UC Santa Barbara 56 * 47 45 49 90
UC Santa Cruz 73 29 65 55 24 11
U Chicago 10 14 56 7 25 26
U Colorado, Boulder 86 52 77 59 82 12
U Connecticut 92 65 84 73 85 94
U Delaware 54 * 98 86 53 105
U Florida 38 * 50 74 69 40
U Georgia 71 64 76 75 42 81
U Hawaii, Manoa * * 96 100 99 64
U Houston 62 39 59 61 83 24
U Illinois, Chicago 23 15 85 71 57 88
U Illinois, Urbana 63 27 16 29 32 39
U Iowa * * 29 84 27 55
U Kansas 36 34 54 82 61 96
U Kentucky 61 78 92 83 63 61
U Maryland, College Park 88 86 36 30 35 10
U Mass, Amherst 64 33 101 85 70 50
U Miami * * 80 111 123 59
U Michigan 19 61 25 17 9 7
U Minnesota * 12 55 16 16 31
U Mississippi 68 * 78 90 81 121
U Missouri, Columbia 84 * 60 101 45 91
U Missouri, Kansas City * 13 123 122 54 *
U Nebraska, Lincoln 3 20 97 103 74 95
U New Hampshire * 22 112 96 120 101
U New Mexico 65 * 120 112 101 93
U New Orleans * * 100 92 107 87
UNC, Chapel Hill 20 66 24 58 56 54
U Notre Dame * * 74 79 52 49
U Oklahoma 66 * 107 64 80 80
U Oregon 7 * 52 54 43 27
U Pennsylvania 52 36 11 12 23 15
U Pittsburgh * * 30 48 38 65
U Rhode Island 44 * 105 114 * *
U Rochester 22 25 31 21 19 33
U South Carolina 60 * 94 118 91 58
U Southern California 72 30 12 14 51 57
U Tennessee, Knoxville * * 106 117 97 72
U Texas, Austin 11 85 26 27 39 44
U Utah * 40 113 121 100 107
U Virginia 1 * 22 18 33 16
U Washington 59 * 51 56 21 17
U Wisconsin, Madison 43 69 6 22 18 5
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 75 * 102 93 93 53
U Wyoming 53 * 73 60 90 108
Utah State U 46 * 115 107 124 112
Vanderbilt U 8 28 42 43 22 20
Virginia Tech 31 31 46 51 88 104
Washington State U 77 * * 80 113 106
Washington U, St. Louis 83 50 71 36 76 119
Wayne State U * 62 72 94 94 74
West Virginia U 80 * 108 98 95 86
Western Michigan U 87 54 * 99 116 98
Yale U 57 8 1 8 10 35 继续是分支的排名
THE JEL Classification System
for Journal Articles
School G H I J K L
American U 88 77 60 64 63 73
Arizona State U 32 94 35 37 53 99
Auburn U 78 71 65 95 57 38
Boston College 53 38 41 67 * 59
Boston U 24 12 15 10 12 10
Brandeis U 54 121 106 110 59 77
Brown U 50 28 32 15 75 103
California Inst Tech 21 32 * 92 28 41
Carnegie Mellon U 3 18 24 98 * 30
City U of New York 19 43 5 18 41 55
Claremont Graduate U 95 78 * 120 * 126
Clark U 116 * * 113 * 82
Clemson U 52 55 33 41 15 48
Colorado School of Mines * * * 127 * 63
Colorado State U 84 84 90 111 80 93
Columbia U 12 9 22 49 18 11
Cornell U 16 13 6 24 48 54
Duke U 15 23 17 60 27 12
Emory U 57 65 100 115 13 85
Florida International U 114 110 73 118 * 100
Florida State U 55 34 54 25 9 51
Fordham U 79 * 95 121 * 123
George Mason U 39 25 92 55 11 57
George Washington U 33 31 37 58 39 33
Georgetown U 26 33 78 57 * 17
Georgia State U 82 11 47 23 60 96
Harvard U 1 3 1 2 2 6
Howard U * 105 * 119 * *
Indiana U 70 41 30 82 79 121
Iowa State U 43 52 58 39 65 35
Johns Hopkins U 61 37 11 30 * 52
Kansas State U 118 106 99 78 * 53
Lehigh U 121 85 51 86 * 104
Louisiana State U 83 73 42 69 * 106
MIT 5 2 4 1 8 2
Michigan State U 25 10 12 6 66 23
Middle Tennessee State 99 * 83 79 * 124
New School U 74 120 * 96 * 107
New York U 8 27 27 17 69 16
North Carolina State U 40 51 44 29 56 25
Northeastern U 109 * * 126 73 27
Northern Illinois U 87 81 82 42 81 114
Northwestern U 58 30 20 13 * 7
Ohio State U 10 59 13 22 31 24
Oklahoma State U 93 92 85 109 74 92
Oregon State U 106 96 69 114 * 40
Pennsylvania State U 66 70 70 47 37 36
Portland State U * 119 87 101 * 105
Princeton U 2 14 2 4 6 20
Purdue U 56 95 88 84 * 34
RPI * 90 64 77 * 56
Rice U 44 6 77 72 * 71
Rutgers U 37 53 94 80 40 50
S. Illinois U, Carbondale 117 112 103 124 49 112
Southern Methodist U 80 39 55 93 * 66
Stanford U 9 15 8 14 33 5
Suffolk U 103 115 101 122 * 95
SUNY Binghamton 81 107 107 54 54 74
SUNY Buffalo 98 93 56 105 14 78
SUNY Stony Brook 105 117 102 56 42 97
Syracuse U 30 7 25 20 68 102
Temple U 101 80 80 90 35 98
Texas A&M U 63 26 57 46 29 44
Texas Tech U 111 104 * 75 * 117
Tulane U 89 83 * 107 * 64
U Alabama 97 79 * 108 19 94
U Albany 75 61 61 43 * *
U Arizona 119 91 * 33 62 28
U Arkansas 85 116 * 100 32 87
UC Berkeley 7 4 16 3 1 1
UC Davis 45 29 98 52 * 14
UC Irvine 60 75 75 62 * 91
UC Los Angeles 18 45 * 7 30 3
UC Riverside 123 42 50 97 71 70
UC San Diego 6 16 * 26 5 21
UC Santa Barbara 17 21 45 81 38 29
UC Santa Cruz 27 58 * 34 24 49
U Chicago 4 19 14 8 7 4
U Colorado, Boulder 104 24 46 36 77 31
U Connecticut 71 87 59 66 4 75
U Delaware 67 86 36 74 * 45
U Florida 77 36 23 70 50 43
U Georgia 41 44 66 85 43 60
U Hawaii, Manoa * 109 * 112 * 84
U Houston 65 82 40 28 51 62
U Illinois, Chicago 102 60 7 19 55 113
U Illinois, Urbana 11 22 39 38 44 15
U Iowa 34 74 62 76 * 61
U Kansas 62 * 104 87 22 89
U Kentucky 92 8 26 73 82 101
U Maryland, College Park 42 5 10 50 23 26
U Mass, Amherst 59 100 48 45 * 90
U Miami 94 101 43 59 * *
U Michigan 14 1 3 5 10 8
U Minnesota 28 48 21 48 61 46
U Mississippi 91 88 86 117 72 79
U Missouri, Columbia 73 * 72 53 * 67
U Missouri, Kansas City 122 118 * 106 * 116
U Nebraska, Lincoln 113 76 89 99 76 72
U New Hampshire * 97 79 83 * 120
U New Mexico 115 102 63 102 * 81
U New Orleans 31 103 * 125 * 108
UNC, Chapel Hill 22 35 31 21 36 58
U Notre Dame 38 108 76 * 34 110
U Oklahoma 86 89 109 61 * 76
U Oregon 49 64 52 65 * 65
U Pennsylvania 47 56 9 9 58 37
U Pittsburgh 64 72 93 104 26 83
U Rhode Island 112 113 97 * * 119
U Rochester 46 67 91 51 70 122
U South Carolina 96 62 49 16 * 115
U Southern California 51 47 34 31 52 13
U Tennessee, Knoxville 100 49 108 103 67 109
U Texas, Austin 36 20 38 11 64 39
U Utah 110 * 67 71 * 88
U Virginia 29 50 29 32 21 9
U Washington 23 69 110 40 25 68
U Wisconsin, Madison 20 17 19 27 17 19
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee 90 114 81 35 78 47
U Wyoming 35 68 * 123 46 22
Utah State U 120 111 96 116 * 125
Vanderbilt U 48 40 28 44 3 32
Virginia Tech 69 63 84 94 47 80
Washington State U 72 99 53 91 * 42
Washington U, St. Louis 76 57 74 63 * 111
Wayne State U 107 46 68 88 20 69
West Virginia U 68 66 105 89 45 86
Western Michigan U 108 98 71 68 * 118
Yale U 13 54 18 12 16 18 最后的几个分支排名
THE JEL Classification System
for Journal Articles
School N O P Q R
American U 56 46 41 74 *
Arizona State U 83 25 6 99 94
Auburn U 79 120 * 107 52
Boston College 84 50 * 91 5
Boston U 33 26 52 33 71
Brandeis U 40 87 17 44 *
Brown U 57 7 11 18 29
California Inst Tech 41 103 * 52 *
Carnegie Mellon U 54 53 48 56 55
City U of New York 23 56 14 102 87
Claremont Graduate U 63 71 57 113 *
Clark U 34 97 * 68 96
Clemson U 42 57 76 87 59
Colorado School of Mines * 123 * 29 *
Colorado State U 73 116 25 83 38
Columbia U 13 8 3 26 26
Cornell U 75 10 24 46 35
Duke U 37 13 82 64 76
Emory U * 49 * 50 97
Florida International U 26 38 55 79 *
Florida State U 50 60 72 35 7
Fordham U * 94 * * *
George Mason U 52 66 43 47 79
George Washington U 69 28 42 27 77
Georgetown U * 27 * 9 69
Georgia State U 64 84 46 20 8
Harvard U 2 1 2 4 2
Howard U * * * 112 *
Indiana U 77 30 27 38 68
Iowa State U * 22 40 1 33
Johns Hopkins U * 64 * 40 60
Kansas State U * 118 * 114 88
Lehigh U 25 82 31 72 82
Louisiana State U 86 89 * 106 50
MIT 4 5 13 7 4
Michigan State U 71 18 26 61 67
Middle Tennessee State * 98 * 98 *
New School U * 40 47 * 101
New York U 20 4 22 34 32
North Carolina State U 27 80 39 2 44
Northeastern U 67 92 * * *
Northern Illinois U * 99 * 117 80
Northwestern U 16 16 74 90 45
Ohio State U 18 42 29 85 31
Oklahoma State U 81 73 * 58 19
Oregon State U 87 90 * 57 86
Pennsylvania State U * 17 21 48 18
Portland State U * 91 59 62 102
Princeton U 7 6 12 21 10
Purdue U * 111 65 22 103
RPI 76 24 * 14 42
Rice U * 100 * 65 43
Rutgers U 8 48 67 17 73
S. Illinois U, Carbondale 70 65 64 59 *
Southern Methodist U 78 61 * 24 70
Stanford U 6 12 10 11 21
Suffolk U 61 121 * 93 *
SUNY Binghamton 19 95 * 10 56
SUNY Buffalo * 55 35 100 15
SUNY Stony Brook 65 96 * * 81
Syracuse U 74 45 79 39 3
Temple U * 114 54 104 61
Texas A&M U 46 54 28 84 74
Texas Tech U * * * 118 *
Tulane U 38 85 * 36 48
U Alabama 89 101 81 82 98
U Albany * 81 * * *
U Arizona 9 68 * 75 *
U Arkansas * 77 50 60 83
UC Berkeley 1 2 1 30 6
UC Davis 5 41 8 70 64
UC Irvine 30 39 18 80 92
UC Los Angeles 10 3 30 92 72
UC Riverside 72 79 * 81 16
UC San Diego 90 35 32 16 11
UC Santa Barbara * 86 * 6 100
UC Santa Cruz 48 29 58 89 104
U Chicago * 11 9 67 46
U Colorado, Boulder 11 44 75 12 14
U Connecticut 44 70 78 15 12
U Delaware 15 107 63 110 36
U Florida 51 52 73 109 30
U Georgia 47 122 * 63 91
U Hawaii, Manoa 49 59 66 41 58
U Houston 55 83 56 116 23
U Illinois, Chicago 12 104 44 88 1
U Illinois, Urbana 32 19 20 37 13
U Iowa * 69 * 69 66
U Kansas 28 117 * 43 54
U Kentucky 45 78 51 86 17
U Maryland, College Park 29 20 4 28 57
U Mass, Amherst 43 31 33 31 62
U Miami * 58 * 73 *
U Michigan 17 15 5 51 39
U Minnesota 66 14 49 66 24
U Mississippi 53 * * 94 *
U Missouri, Columbia * 75 * 105 49
U Missouri, Kansas City * * 45 * *
U Nebraska, Lincoln 80 105 62 49 53
U New Hampshire * 88 * 76 93
U New Mexico * * * 23 99
U New Orleans * 119 * * 25
UNC, Chapel Hill 35 74 23 77 *
U Notre Dame 82 62 * 97 105
U Oklahoma 88 63 68 * 78
U Oregon 85 110 * 32 47
U Pennsylvania * 36 83 53 95
U Pittsburgh * 93 7 95 28
U Rhode Island * * * 8 *
U Rochester 39 47 * 101 89
U South Carolina 60 76 * * 84
U Southern California 24 34 16 45 37
U Tennessee, Knoxville * 115 36 78 65
U Texas, Austin 36 37 * 25 34
U Utah 31 72 53 71 *
U Virginia 22 32 38 54 22
U Washington 59 21 71 55 63
U Wisconsin, Madison * 23 61 19 40
U Wisconsin, Milwaukee * 51 80 96 51
U Wyoming * 43 * 3 *
Utah State U * 113 60 13 75
Vanderbilt U 3 33 37 108 27
Virginia Tech 68 67 34 103 85
Washington State U * 109 69 4 2
Washington U, St. Louis 21 106 77 * 20
Wayne State U * 108 * * 9
West Virginia U 62 112 70 111 41
Western Michigan U 58 102 15 115 90
Yale U 14 9 19 5 *
(a) * indicates a research productivity
score of zero for a particular field. 一般经济理论排名
Table 4. Subject Field Rankings for
Ph.D.-Granting Institutions in Economics
Category Number of
Ranking Publishing Importance
School SSCI Faculty HHI Index
JEL category A: General economics and teaching
U Virginia 1 4 0.47 0.06
Carnegie Mellon U 2 8 0.18 0.06
U Nebraska, Lincoln 3 6 0.77 0.29
UC Berkeley 4 10 0.30 0.02
Indiana U 5 5 0.80 0.12
MIT 6 6 0.40 0.01
U Oregon 7 6 0.24 0.10
Vanderbilt U 8 5 0.98 0.04
George Mason U 9 12 0.26 0.06
U Chicago 10 2 0.53 0.02
U Texas, Austin 11 5 0.51 0.04
Princeton U 12 5 0.33 0.01
Purdue U 13 6 0.65 0.09
Georgia State U 14 4 0.66 0.05
Harvard U 15 9 0.24 0.01
New York U 16 2 0.73 0.01
Cornell U 17 3 1.00 0.02
Columbia U 18 3 0.85 0.01
U Michigan 19 4 0.80 0.01
UNC, Chapel Hill 20 6 0.40 0.03 方法论和经济史排名
JEL category B. Methodology and history of economic thought
Princeton U 1 9 0.23 0.02
UC Berkeley 2 9 0.30 0.01
George Mason U 3 14 0.38 0.07
New York U 4 4 0.84 0.02
MIT 5 3 0.46 0.01
Columbia U 6 2 1.00 0.01
Harvard U 7 6 0.38 0.00
Yale U 8 3 0.92 0.01
Johns Hopkins U 9 2 1.00 0.02
Duke U 10 6 0.35 0.02
Pennsylvania State U 11 1 1.00 0.02
U Minnesota 12 4 0.43 0.02
U Missouri, Kansas City 13 4 0.37 0.24
U Chicago 14 5 0.33 0.01
U Illinois at Chicago 15 3 0.94 0.02
Georgia State U 16 1 1.00 0.03
Carnegie Mellon U 17 5 0.31 0.01
Colorado State U 18 4 0.53 0.11
UC Davis 19 3 0.52 0.01
U Nebraska, Lincoln 20 2 0.80 0.06 数量经济学和数学方法排名
‘JEL category C: Mathematical and quantitative methods
Yale U 1 20 0.34 0.35
UC San Diego 2 17 0.11 0.30
MIT 3 18 0.18 0.12
Northwestern U 4 18 0.18 0.25
Harvard U 5 19 0.16 0.08
U Wisconsin, Madison 6 16 0.18 0.26
Princeton U 7 24 0.09 0.09
UC Berkeley 8 22 0.13 0.09
New York U 9 21 0.10 0.16
UCLA 10 23 0.12 0.13
U Pennsylvania 11 17 0.13 0.18
U Southern California 12 10 0.18 0.22
Ohio State U 13 16 0.29 0.15
Boston U 14 15 0.24 0.13
California Inst Tech 15 11 0.26 0.25
U Illinois, Urbana 16 18 0.14 0.17
Cornell U 17 13 0.17 0.16
Stanford U 18 19 0.09 0.09
Rice U 19 11 0.18 0.28
Texas A&M U 20 14 0.17 0.27 微观经济学排名
JEL category D: Microeconomics
UC Berkeley 1 35 0.06 0.17
Princeton U 2 28 0.07 0.15
Harvard U 3 28 0.07 0.10
New York U 4 25 0.08 0.23
MIT 5 21 0.09 0.13
Stanford U 6 25 0.10 0.22
U Chicago 7 24 0.09 0.21
Yale U 8 28 0.07 0.17
UCLA 9 26 0.11 0.17
Northwestern U 10 22 0.11 0.18
California Inst Tech 11 11 0.19 0.42
U Pennsylvania 12 15 0.10 0.21
Ohio State U 13 18 0.14 0.21
U Southern California 14 16 0.18 0.26
Johns Hopkins U 15 9 0.27 0.29
U Minnesota 16 15 0.12 0.26
U Michigan 17 27 0.07 0.11
U Virginia 18 13 0.15 0.20
Boston U 19 17 0.11 0.15
Columbia U 20 19 0.19 0.11 宏观经济学和货币理论排名
JEL category E. Macroeconomics and monetary policy
Harvard U 1 25 0.08 0.12
Princeton U 2 20 0.12 0.15
UC Berkeley 3 18 0.17 0.11
MIT 4 12 0.24 0.11
Northwestern U 5 10 0.21 0.16
Columbia U 6 15 0.19 0.15
New York U 7 16 0.12 0.13
UCLA 8 15 0.12 0.11
U Michigan 9 19 0.09 0.09
Yale U 10 16 0.18 0.09
Boston U 11 11 0.22 0.13
UC San Diego 12 13 0.25 0.10
Johns Hopkins U 13 7 0.42 0.19
Stanford U 14 11 0.17 0.08
UC Davis 15 13 0.13 0.16
U Minnesota 16 12 0.13 0.16
Ohio State U 17 10 0.30 0.11
U Wisconsin, Madison 18 11 0.18 0.09
U Rochester 19 6 0.26 0.19
Georgetown U 20 12 0.22 0.17 国际经济学排名
JEL category F: International economics
Princeton U 1 13 0.17 0.12
Harvard U 2 19 0.16 0.09
Columbia U 3 16 0.12 0.22
UC Berkeley 4 16 0.39 0.08
U Wisconsin, Madison 5 9 0.24 0.16
UCLA 6 15 0.22 0.10
U Michigan 7 20 0.15 0.09
UC Davis 8 9 0.46 0.19
Stanford U 9 14 0.35 0.08
U Maryland, College Park 10 7 0.38 0.15
UC Santa Cruz 11 12 0.21 0.24
U Colorado, Boulder 12 13 0.27 0.23
UC San Diego 13 9 0.31 0.08
New York U 14 13 0.26 0.06
U Pennsylvania 15 7 0.40 0.10
U Virginia 16 6 0.35 0.11
U Washington 17 9 0.35 0.18
Georgetown U 18 13 0.13 0.16
Duke U 19 11 0.18 0.11
Vanderbilt U 20 12 0.24 0.12 金融经济学排名
JEL category G: Financial economics
Harvard U 1 22 0.16 0.15
Princeton U 2 26 0.12 0.11
Carnegie Mellon U 3 19 0.12 0.33
U Chicago 4 14 0.16 0.15
MIT 5 16 0.18 0.07
UC San Diego 6 11 0.26 0.10
UC Berkeley 7 20 0.11 0.04
New York U 8 11 0.16 0.07
Stanford U 9 10 0.18 0.06
Ohio State U 10 11 0.22 0.09
U Illinois, Urbana 11 14 0.21 0.10
Columbia U 12 11 0.26 0.05
Yale U 13 15 0.22 0.04
U Michigan 14 16 0.11 0.04
Duke U 15 9 0.18 0.09
Cornell U 16 11 0.43 0.08
UC Santa Barbara 17 12 0.35 0.15
UCLA 18 17 0.11 0.04
City U of New York (CUNY) 19 15 0.23 0.12
U Wisconsin, Madison 20 7 0.28 0.05