Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(1) You are a genius, IQ 170 or higher. You very well might find economics easy.
(2) You went to a terrible school where economics, as taught, is a joke.
What are you talking about? (I am a trained economist.)
I go to uga (60 us news rankings). A standard "flagship" state school. I'm not a genius either. These threads convince me you either need to go to a top 20 school or just skip college. subpar education.
I go to uga (60 us news rankings). A standard "flagship" state school. I'm not a genius either. These threads convince me you either need to go to a top 20 school or just skip college. subpar education.
I looked at the UGA intermediate microeconomics syllabus for the course taught by David Kamerschen (Econ 4010). It is not a joke! The material is good and is typical of undergraduate intermediate micro courses for econ majors. What is behind your comment that econ is a joke?
I looked at the UGA intermediate microeconomics syllabus for the course taught by David Kamerschen (Econ 4010). It is not a joke! The material is good and is typical of undergraduate intermediate micro courses for econ majors. What is behind your comment that econ is a joke?
It's 90% intuitive. If you pay attention in class, you should do fine. there is no challenge in what I do. I honestly don't need to rework theories that prove intuitive conclusions. You can map everything you do to simple algebra problems (at most calc 1 problems). There's a reason why econ is a worthless major. If you want something practical go to accounting or finance. you'll make money and be happier.
econometric is stat. it's a joke of a stat class really because we can use R. I already took a real upper level stat class.
I'm hardly a smart person (computer science is hard for me at times. data structures aren't easy for me to understand. it was a real "ah ha" moment when I realized that stacks are like 'memory'. I spent most of theory confused. pumping lemmas are still very confusing to me.)
If I could go back, I'd make my parents spend that 250k or so at duke and double major in finance and computer science with a minor in math and stat and some psychology courses on the side. I'd make it a point to intern starting the summer between my freshman and sophomore year at some lesser company. That way I'd be prepared to intern at big company the summer between sophomore and junior and then again between junior and senior at the same company. It's really the path to any sort of decent job if you aren't going the med school/healthcare route. It's hyper competitive for the early 20s crowd. you have to be the 1% or accept a low standard of living.
Last edited by stellastar2345; 11-06-2014 at 12:14 AM..
I agree that financial economics is the most easily applied branch of economics, and that's what I do for a living. However, if you think all economics does is to give mathematical form to intuitive conclusions, I'd say you missed some valuable aspects of an economic education. Both data and theory often point to counterintuitive conclusions.
If you really need four specializations from a top-20 school to get a job, the economy is in deep trouble. The top 15-20% of the population ought to be able to make a highly-priced contribution to the economy, and not just in health care. The company where I worked before I retired had lots of senior and mid-level executives who were obviously not in the top 1% of any distribution - those guys and girls went to Goldman Sachs, now they go to AQR - but they did a good job and were worth the upper-middle-level paychecks we gave them. It's only been a few years since that time, and it seems statistically impossible to me that all the jobs now go to the top 1%, but I could be wrong.
If people have an aptitude for computers they should try to develop skills in web design/web development/computer repair etc. on their own. That way if they can't get jobs in their majors they could try something else?
I agree that financial economics is the most easily applied branch of economics, and that's what I do for a living. However, if you think all economics does is to give mathematical form to intuitive conclusions, I'd say you missed some valuable aspects of an economic education. Both data and theory often point to counterintuitive conclusions.
If you really need four specializations from a top-20 school to get a job, the economy is in deep trouble. The top 15-20% of the population ought to be able to make a highly-priced contribution to the economy, and not just in health care. The company where I worked before I retired had lots of senior and mid-level executives who were obviously not in the top 1% of any distribution - those guys and girls went to Goldman Sachs, now they go to AQR - but they did a good job and were worth the upper-middle-level paychecks we gave them. It's only been a few years since that time, and it seems statistically impossible to me that all the jobs now go to the top 1%, but I could be wrong.
I also forgot to mention the repetition. You start off with a bang and then it's a plateau. ya, there's macroeconomics. It's not always intuitive. The FED uses macroeconomics. The FED produced QE. I do my best not to waste time taking macroeconomics courses.
Your company hires investment bankers from one of the best ib firms. Goldman Sachs maybe hires 1 or 2 people who go to my school a year. It's not a target. I wouldn't get a job where you worked (not that I'm interested in getting a career in the financial industry). So, ya maybe I exaggerated on the 1% part, but it's super competitive. Hey, I can even relate it to economics - it's supply and demand!
I've never heard this. The lawyers I know majored in Poli Sci or Linguistics prior to law school. Women tend toward Linguistics, men take Poli Sci as Pre-Law, in my observation. Though there are other options as well. I've never heard anyone recommend Criminal Justice as pre-Law, though, or met anyone who did it.
Just about every lawyer I went to school with majored in Political Science.
In Britain it's history, because it's already been done and thought about, and as far as the Brits are concerned, they have the "answers" to the "questions".
In the US the study of the process is still an open question, hence the most competitive and prestigious major for law, or the diplomatic core interview, was "poly sci".
As I said to Bill L., editor of his law review and aspiring Orange County lawyer: Bill, most of the people in criminal law.......are criminals. They did it. It's not like TV. My college roomie is now a "shyster Hollywood lawyer"; but he's always seen the con, so it's a good fit.
Bill always could write, hence the study of both "Engrish" and Spanish would seem to be highly recommended.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, it's a different language and in college it does appear to be all numbers, but it's not.
ditto Political Science in the USA
