<p>What's there to get? Funny is what makes you laugh. You dont have to get it.</p>
<p>I found Rabben's calling someone else a "baby" while not apparently not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" pretty funny. ;)</p>
<p><em>re-lurks</em></p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, I'll put it to you this way. Most economists working today would not recognize anything done before 1940 as similar to what they do today. The words were similar, but the actual methods and paradigms that characterize the research had nothing in common with today. This is like arguing with the statement "real physics started with Newton" by saying that people talked about motion and force before that. Yes, they did, but that doesn't contradict the statement.</p>
<p>I agree with you that there were departments of economics before Samuelson, but they did not do what is now known as economics. Comparitive advantage is in fact pretty trivial and intuitive (Samuelson's disagreement notwithstanding), but the vast majority of economics done since then isn't -- it's deep and complex and not at all obvious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that gets right down to the heart of the problem . I don't want to be harsh, but the fact is, nothing that has happened in economics in the last 60 years is as important as what somebody like John Maynard Keynes did. Or Alfred Marshall. Or David Ricardo. Or Schumpeter. Truth be told, guys like this changed the world in ways that economists of today are still fathoming. </p>
<p>Again, I'll put it to you this way. Samuelson 'mathematized' macroeconomics by calculating the Keynesian Cross. But it was Keynes who first had to describe what would eventually become the Keynesian Cross. In other words, no Keynes, no Samuelson. In fact, I think even Samuelson himself acknowledged that he didn't think he was as important an economist as Keynes. In fact, I doubt that any Nobel Prize winner in Economics (barring one exception which I will name below) would seriously dare to say that he/she is more important to economics than Keynes. The problem is that, of course, the Nobel Prize in Economics was not created until 20 years after Keynes had died, and you're not allowed to win a Nobel Prize posthumously. </p>
<p>The one exception I would state is probably Hayek, who won the Nobel in 1974. But he didn't win for huge mathematical statements. His major discoveries and highest prominence was during the 1930's, as the last of the Austrian School. He opposed Keynes vociferously, but as Keynes's ideas became popular, Hayek lost prominence and basically spent decades in the academic wilderness until his ideas made a strong comeback in the 1970's. Read Hayek's Nobel-winning papers and notice that they contain very little math. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your statement about the lack of experiments and testable predictions is completely and ridiculously wrong. There is a wide field today called experimental economics. You should Google it. Lest you complain that it's small and useless, you should be aware of the following:</p>
<p>When the FCC wanted to sell radio spectrum to telecom firms, they hired economists (including a professor of mine) to design an auction with incentive schemes based on auction theory. These theories were then tested with real subjects using experiments in the laboratory. The theories were adjusted and then the incentive schemes were let loose in a real auction. The resulting event netted more than 10 billion dollars, when previous government auctions for similarly valuable assets netted tiny fractions of that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't deny that some aspects of economics can be made more science-ish. Just like certain elements of, say, sociology or psychology can be made science-ish. But to say that all of economics can be made to work like a science is a huge stretch. In fact, the entire basis of the Austrian School is to reject the entire notion of experiments, instead relying on pure logic and deduction - much like how ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato rejected experimentation in favor of pure reason. {Which is why Greek philosophy is certainly not a science}. </p>
<p>Again, take Hayek, arguably the most prominent of the recent Austrian School disciples. He won the Nobel Prize in 1974, and arguably the most influential economist of the last generation (i.e. both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan used Hayek's works as the basis for the philosophies on political economy). Hayek, as a typical Austrian School member would, completely rejected the value of experimentation. So think about what that means. It means that the Nobel Prize committee bestowed their highest Economics Prize on somebody who had openly denounced the importance of experimentation. </p>
<p>Name me a single true science in which some of the most significant and highly respected members do not believe in the validity of experimentation and do not take experimental evidence as proof. How many respected Nobel-Prize winning physicists out there do not believe in the validity of experimentation? How many chemists? </p>
<p>Look, I agree with you that a lot of the economics research of the past is quite different from the economics research of today, which is often times extremely mathematical. But I would ask you - who has the most influence the deep mathematical economists of today, or the more conceptual thinkers? The sad truth is, much of the mathematical economics researchers of today are not as influential and relevant as the conceptualists. Take Milton Friedman, another extremely influential economist of the last 30 years. The truth is, Friedman's work uses relatively little mathematics, and the mathematics he does use can usually be understood by anybody with a decent technical background. Friedman is mostly a conceptualist. </p>
<p>In fact, this is why the field of economics is riven with so many conflicts, and different schools of thought. For example, Keynesians vs. the Austrian School and the Chicago School. Neoclassical vs. New Keynesian. The reason why so much conflict and rancor occurs is precisely because, #1, neither side can truly prove their cases experimentally, and #2, even if they could, experimental evidence would not be accepted as proof by many economists (notably those economists who are proponents of the Austrian School). </p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way, Ben Golub. The Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 was won by Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz, for their work on asymmetric information. Here are the 3 foundation papers that each of them wrote. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di951801/95p0304u/0%5B/url%5D">http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di951801/95p0304u/0</a> </p>
<p>Notice how each of their papers is not particularly mathematical, and certainly no more mathematical than the microeconomics of the 1800's, what with the calculations of marginal utility, price elasticitiy, and so forth. I am quite certain that if we used a time machine to go back to the 1800's, carrying these 3 papers with us and showed them to an economist of those days, that economist would be able to understand them. Hence, these papers are not that different from the economics pre-Samuelson. These papers are far more conceptually important than mathematically important. The point is, economics didn't really change THAT much with Samuelson. You can still become extremely prominent in the field of economics without using super-complex math and science-based methods. </p>
<p>And like I said, even today, the most influential economists are the conceptual ones. Let's face it. Even today, the ideas of Keynes and Hayek are still more influential and relevant to real-world economics than most of the math-based economists.</p>
<p>But the vast majority of economics done in universities today is highly mathematical work based on the technical general equilibrium theory developed by (Nobel laureates) Ken Arrow and Gerard Debreu, whom you conveniently forget to mention, perhaps because you like to say "Keynesian cross" as many times as possible.</p>
<p>You think of economics in terms of its political influence, but that focuses on a tiny fraction of the work that is done and so belies the true shape of the field.</p>
<p>Economics is in its infancy as a science, so it is to be expected that the work that is applied is barely "economics" at all. In the same way, the "applications" of chemistry in 1500 (i.e. alchemy) would embarrass any chemist of a more modern vintage. I would wager that sakky in 1500 would point to chemistry and say
[quote]
it probably will never be a true science because the most applied work seems so mystical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To put it bluntly, the applications of economics today are mostly voodoo and would not be viewed by most academics as true scientific applications of their work. You point to this and tell me that it shows economics is fairly unscientific and non-technical. I just respond that the true "scientific" economics is not old enough yet to be applied. So stop looking at today's applications and telling me that's what economics is about.</p>
<p>P.S. about Nobel prizes. They are won for work that was done 30-5o years ago. The Nobel in economics, as you know, is a lifetime achievement award. So it is given to old guys. Since the mathematical explosion has taken the place within the last three to four decades, of course the papers you cite won't be that technical.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the vast majority of economics done in universities today is highly mathematical work based on the technical general equilibrium theory developed by (Nobel laureates) Ken Arrow and Gerard Debreu, whom you conveniently forget to mention, perhaps because you like to say "Keynesian cross" as many times as possible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And it is a topic of great debate within the economics community as to whether economics has become far too mathematical. Many of the top economists of today think that economics has become far too much mathematical and basically become obsessed with equations. And then, like I said, there is the Austrian School who thinks that the entire notion of experimentation is anathema to the understanding of economics. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You think of economics in terms of its political influence, but that focuses on a tiny fraction of the work that is done and so belies the true shape of the field.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But it's BY FAR the most important part of it. Why even be interested in economics if it is never used to shape real-world events? Let's face it. The reason why Keynes became the most important economist of the 20th century is because his ideas became popular with the political leaders of his time, such as FDR. The reason why Hayek made a phoenix-like rise from the academic wilderness is because his ideas later became popular with powerful political leaders such as Reagan and Thatcher. The reason why Milton Friedman and the Chicago School became dominant is because their ideas became popular with political leaders. </p>
<p>
[quote]
To put it bluntly, the applications of economics today are mostly voodoo and would not be viewed by most academics as true scientific applications of their work. You point to this and tell me that it shows economics is fairly unscientific and non-technical. I just respond that the true "scientific" economics is not old enough yet to be applied. So stop looking at today's applications and telling me that's what economics is about.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then let's not look at today's applications. Let's look at "tomorrow's" promising economists. Specifically, let's look at the winners of the John Bates Clark Medal, which is given every 2 years to the best economist under the age of 40, and hence is often dubbed the "Junior Nobel in Economics". About half of the JBC winners eventually receive the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Looking at the winners, since 1991 the last winners who could truly be said to be highly mathematical was Matthew Rabin in 2001 and Acemoglu (last year). Steven Leavitt is certainly not a heavy mathematician. Neither is Lawrence Summers, David Card, Kevin Murphy, Paul Krugman, or Andrei Schleifer. By that I don't mean that they don't use mathematics at all, but to mean that the mathematical techniques they do use are certainly not anything that a decent college graduate of a technical discipline wouldn't be able to understand. They certainly are not applied mathematicians, and they don't pretend to be. They are conceptualists.</p>
<p>So think about what that means. Like I said, the JBC largely denotes the highly respected young economists, and potentially who the future Nobel Prize winners are going to be. So if anything, by looking at the list, you might argue that economics as a discipline is actually becoming LESS mathematical, not more. After all, in the past, I agree that you had some serious mathematicians in the past winning the JBC, such as Samuelson, Ken Arrow, Lawrence Klein, Hendrik Houthakker and Robert Solow. In fact, for a while there in the 1950's and 1970's, you had JBC winner after JBC winner who were basically mathematicians. But recently, if the JBC is any indication, it seems as if economics has actually begun to DEemphasize mathematics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
P.S. about Nobel prizes. They are won for work that was done 30-5o years ago. The Nobel in economics, as you know, is a lifetime achievement award. So it is given to old guys. Since the mathematical explosion has taken the place within the last three to four decades, of course the papers you cite won't be that technical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See above about my discussion of the JBC. You can't win the JBC if you're over 40. Hence, the award will be given to relatively recent work at the time of conferral. And like I said, the bulk of the recent JBC winners have won for work that are far more conceptual than mathematical.</p>
<p>I vehemently disagree that political applications today are the most important part of economics. Almost by definition, they're most important to non-economists, but within the discipline the vast bulk is NOT macro and NOT intended for immediate application. Most economists want to deduce the essential rules and properties that affect choice behavior, and realize that it's a long way before that work is applied to political issues. What economists who advise policy do now is make guesses based on incomplete information (although, obviously, the statstics and other tools used can be quite sophisticated.)</p>
<p>You continue to ignore that experimental economics has had a meteoric rise, and the Hayek (Austrian) school is not well-represented in economics at all today. The vast majority of economists today are empiricists who believe in mathematical theories tested by empirical observations. Yes, economics has had odd phases (like chemistry) but don't accuse the discipline of being nonscientific because a (very famous and smart) gentleman once held views which have now mostly been rejected.</p>
<p>Some of the MIT Engineering program have ridiculously high admit rate. Ocean Engineering Has 75% admit rate. Civil Engineering has 60% admit rate. Mechanical Engineering has 30 % admit rate. Most MIT Engineering programs are fairly easy program to get into compared to other Top Engineering Program such as Caltech(about 5% admit rate) and Harvard DEAS( with less than 10% admit rate). </p>
<p>MIT Engineering students are clearly NOT at the same level as Harvard DEAS students.. Even MIT engineering students admit this...</p>
<p>Admit rate isn't a way of evaluating how good a program is, it's just a way of evaluating how popular the program is and how many applications it receives.</p>
<p>Fascinating how you can get simple facts wrong, mdx49.</p>
<p>MIT does not admit by major or program. Everyone is admitted to the <em>Institute</em> and only selects a major after their first year. So your entire post is meaningless.</p>
<p>(Aside: If the entire MIT Class of 2010 wanted to major in Mechanical Engineering... or Linguistics or Economics, for that matter, they could. It would make for a weird scene on campus ;) but it could be done.)</p>
<p>((DARN IT!! I promised myself I wouldn't be tempted by trolls again, drat!))</p>
<p>maybe he meant graduate school statistics? in which case they're still almost certainly wrong.</p>
<p>the troll is good at his job. i wonder how much he gets paid per response baited out of intelligent people.</p>
<p>mdx49, stop it with the harvard superiority complex. no one is buying it.</p>
<p>I found those MIT admit rates from Peterson's Graduate Admission Book.
They are very accurate statistics</p>
<p>this thread is not about graduate school.</p>
<p>It really doesnt matter whether it's undergrad or grad. When it comes to engineering,</p>
<p>MIT is Engineering and Engineering is MIT</p>
<p>Exactly, I mean, when you really want a very good engineering education, you think of MIT and then Stanford, Caltech, UC-Berkley, etc, but Harvard? nah, I don't think so</p>
<p>and 1=1</p>
<p>so now that that's cleared up, can we all move on?</p>
<p>by on, I mean back four pages to where this thread proved itself pointless.</p>
<p>Actually what interests me is the competition between MIT and Harvard in biology. Especially synethetic biology, which is a basically CS + bioengineering. Not sure who would win out here.</p>
<p>(<em>( )</em> worms</p>
<p>Yay, I get to be a minor expert!</p>
<p>In molecular/cellular biology, I think Harvard and MIT are in a dead tie. A huge percentage of the faculty members at both schools have pedigrees at both -- it's really common to spend one's career bouncing back and forth across Cambridge. Harvard's program is larger, and is more focused on medically relevant biology, while MIT's program has a stronger computational/genomic flavor.</p>
<p>(Just to stir the pot, and because I'm obnoxious.) Harvard's major graduate program in biology, the BBS program, is less selective than MIT's biology program. True story.</p>