Amherst vs Columbia for economics: which is better for undergraduate economics majors?

For undergraduate economics specifically, Columbia usually has the edge if you want a larger, more structured economics ecosystem with more course variety, more faculty in the department, and easier access to finance, policy, and research opportunities through New York City. Amherst is excellent too, but it offers a smaller-scale liberal arts version of econ: closer faculty access, smaller classes, and more flexibility across disciplines. The better choice depends less on prestige and more on whether you want a university setting with a big department or a liberal arts college with very personalized teaching.

Being in NYC also matters in a practical way for undergrads: semester internships, policy organizations, think tanks, and finance-related opportunities are much more accessible during the school year.

Amherst’s economics major is still very strong and often especially appealing to students who want close interaction with professors and a more discussion-driven classroom experience. Amherst’s small size means undergrads are the clear priority, and it is often easier to build relationships for recommendations, thesis advising, and research mentoring. Through the Five College Consortium, you also get access to additional courses at places like UMass, which can broaden options beyond Amherst’s own catalog.

In terms of pure undergraduate teaching, many students would actually give Amherst the advantage. In terms of breadth of economics offerings, research infrastructure, and proximity to real-world econ and finance opportunities, Columbia is stronger. So if your question is which is “better” for an undergrad econ major in the broadest sense, Columbia probably wins on resources and range, while Amherst can be the better fit if you want the most intimate and teaching-centered academic experience.