Is Duke or Harvard better for studying economics?

The biggest practical tradeoff is scale versus access: Harvard offers a broader economics ecosystem and unusually deep connections across nearby research institutions, while Duke can make it easier to build close working relationships with professors in a smaller undergraduate setting. Both schools provide rigorous theory, econometrics, and applied-economics training, and both can support serious undergraduate research.

Harvard has the advantage in sheer course depth and intellectual range. Economics concentrators can draw on a large department and related work in government, business, public policy, statistics, and data science; eligible students also have access to cross-registration opportunities at MIT. Harvard’s surrounding research environment, including faculty-affiliated work in labor, inequality, development, macroeconomics, and behavioral economics, is especially strong for a student who wants to explore several subfields before narrowing a focus.

Duke’s economics program is highly regarded and offers substantial quantitative and applied coursework, with useful overlap with public policy, statistics, computer science, and the Fuqua School of Business environment. Its undergraduate scale can be a real benefit: students who take initiative may find it more straightforward to get to know faculty, pursue independent study, and join a research project rather than feeling like one of many economics concentrators. Duke is particularly appealing for someone interested in connecting economics to policy, health, environment, or finance in an interdisciplinary way.

For the priorities you named, Harvard is the stronger academic fit overall because its economics course breadth and research ecosystem are difficult to match. Duke is the more compelling choice only if you value a more intimate campus experience and believe you would thrive by pursuing faculty mentorship and interdisciplinary work early and actively.