<p>At my school the only difference between a BA and BS is that a BS goes through Calc II and III and adds on either an advanced microecon class or a advanced macroecon class, that's it. I heard that it doesn't matter whether you major in BA or BS but I also heard that you need to take as many math classes possible as an Econ major. Will employers look at my transcript to see the extra math classes I've taken or is it irrelevant and does GPA matter more?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Which employers? Some jobs require extensive quantitative training, others don’t. Some care a lot about mathematical problem-solving skills or your capacity for “abstract reasoning”, others couldn’t care less. </p>
<p>If you are at all interested in econ grad school, consider taking math way beyond Calc III. [Wellesley:</a> recommended math courses for an economics major](<a href=“http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/Courses/related.html]Wellesley:”>http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/Courses/related.html)</p>
<p>It would matter more if you plan to attend grad school to pursue a MS or PhD in Economics, or other related fields. </p>
<p>Sometimes certain jobs require a BS for a position, or at least prefer a BS over a BA.</p>
<p>AS<AA<BA<BS<MA<MS<PhD (although there are exceptions to that chain, depending on the field).</p>
<p>The link between math and economics is very strong–in fact most economic theories can be arrived independently through conceptual understanding or through math, which is my many math majors can breeze through econ.</p>
<p>I think it’s a mistake to skimp out on math if you’re an econ major. I don’t know if you can truly believe you understand micro theory if you haven’t taken linear algebra at a minimum.</p>
<p>It will also prevent you from getting into most grad schools for econ.</p>
<p>I agree with justtotalk. A strong math background is very helpful towards understanding economic concepts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree 90%. Most math-heavy economics is pure voodoo. Math is important, if for no other reason than to be competent at statistics, but people who treat econ as if it were a branch of math are hacks, IMO (and in the opinion of a few Nobelists to, so I’m not just some nutbar).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s the justification for this? Is there anything beyond the supposed opinions of unnamed authorities?</p>
<p>Tom,</p>
<p>Economics beyond intro micro and macro econ (I’m talking PhD/grad school economics courses) are very math heavy.</p>
<p>Economists (which basically requires a PhD to be taken seriously) spend most of their time analyzing and building economic models. These economic models are basically statistical models. Building (accurate) statistical models requires a strong math background. Drawing inferences from economic/statistical models requires a strong analytical/math background.</p>
<p>JoeBlow can try to look at data and (mis)interpret it and attempt to make decisions based upon the data models, however he is far more likely to build an inaccurate/inefficient model than a mathematically trained economist is.</p>
<p>Economics w/o math is sociology.</p>
<p>Which is why most economists are just glorified statisticians.</p>
<p>Here’s something to get you started:</p>
<p><a href=“http://college.holycross.edu/eej/Volume20/V20N3P251_265.pdf[/url]”>http://college.holycross.edu/eej/Volume20/V20N3P251_265.pdf</a></p>
<p>Math is useful in economics, but it is mainly useful for making sense of a lot of raw data. Not for “modeling” the economy the way you’d model air flow through a tube or electric current in a RLC circuit. The way math is used by “economists” today is mere cargo cult science.</p>
<p>So two guys wrote a paper on it and all of a sudden it’s true?</p>
<p>Also, I don’t think you have a clue what goes into mathematical/statistical/economic modeling.</p>
<p>No big deal, but just be careful running off at the mouth without knowing what you are talking about.</p>
<p>Unless you’re looking to get a PhD later on I think you would be fine with taking calculus, linear algebra, and a probability and stats class or two, which is usually around what’s required for a BS. This is going to help you understand things like micro theory more analytically in addition to just conceptually.</p>
<p>Some amazing work has been done in economics with the use of very little math, if any, by great economists such as Ronald Coase and James Buchanan. Major contributions were made to price theory by individuals like Carl Menger without using much math, so it can be done. </p>
<p>General equilibrium theory on the other hand, makes use of topology. It might not be “pure voodoo,” but it’s an abstract notion that doesn’t represent real world markets. Of course, no model should be an exact representation, so it does have its purpose.</p>
<p>Modeling an economy is absurd. How do you model human greed and emotion? Tom is right in that math is most useful when its used to evaluate empirical data and not the other way around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the same debate that physicists struggled with in the early 1900s…A lot of quantum physics was arrived at mathematically before it could be understood physically or intrinsically. If Einstein and Bohr couldn’t agree on whether mathematics was a suitable means to arrive at a model of physical reality, then I don’t think we will easily agree on its usefulness for describing economic reality or the softer topic of consumer behavior. </p>
<p>That said, you’ll notice that physicists are expected to have an in depth understanding of math. Regardless of whether pure math can truly describe economic reality, you are expected to have a solid foundation in math so that you can understand most of the theories/models being churned out today.</p>
<p>Physics isn’t economics. A lot of hack economists wish they were alike but they really aren’t. Economics has much more in common with ecology. Any physical process can be isolated in a lab and studied, not so with economics. A virtually infinite number of unknown and <em>impossible-to-quantify</em> variables are at work in an economy. We don’t need to model it because we have a price system which conveys the necessary information to the parties concerned.</p>
<p>And OminousRun, that wasn’t just a paper written by two people, it was loaded with quotations from leading economists saying what I’m saying.</p>
<p>“There is something fundamentally wrong with an approach which habitually disregards an essential part of the phenomena with which we have to deal: the unavoidable imperfection of man’s knowledge and the consequent need for a process by which knowledge is constantly communicated and acquired. Any approach, such as that of much of mathematical economics with its simultaneous equations, which in effect starts from the assumption that people’s knowledge corresponds with the objective facts of the situation, systematically leaves out what is our main task to explain. I am far from denying that in our system equilibrium analysis has a useful function to perform. But when it comes to the point where it misleads some of our leading thinkers into believing that the situation which it describes has direct relevance to the solution of practical problems, it is high time that we remember that it [equilibrium analysis] does not deal with the social process at all and that it is no more than a useful preliminary to the study of the main problem.”</p>
<p>– Friedrich Hayek, Winner Nobel Prize '74 “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” VII, 31</p>
<p>Tom, </p>
<p>Economists use math in almost everything they do. If they aren’t bright enough to realize it, then I wouldn’t put too much stock in quotes from selected Economists.</p>
<p>Analyzing events in either a quantitative or qualitative nature is mathematical. My guess is that some Economists get so good at looking at the raw data they don’t need to put it into a model to have a fairly good idea of what the results are. It doesn’t mean they aren’t using math, or haven’t used math to develop their analytical skills.</p>
<p>High level math obviously isn’t needed for day to day economic analysis. However, a strong understanding of the limitations of data (and the math associated with data analysis) is needed for proper inference.</p>
<p>FWIW, I don’t agree with tons of things Economists say or do. I think the problem with many Economists is they lose their sense of what a true Economist is, and instead dive head first into being a Political Scientist (see Krugman for example).</p>
<p>Maybe if “Economists” aka Political Scientists went back to their mathematical and historical models they would be more accurate in their analysis. Instead, many of them decide to use their knowledge to sway political and business decisions one way or another. There are many bad Economists out there. Rouge Economists that do more damage than good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fact, you are only showing that economics is even more difficult to observe and understand empirically than physics, and so our reliance on pure math is necessarily heavier. Since we can’t take gathered data and truly weed out cause and effect, we necessarily assume certain parameters (such as consumer preference) and forecast endogenous variables mathematically with these presumptions. The more uncontrollable variables there are, the less effective any multivariable stat analysis can be, and the more likely that mathematical analysis will give us more insight than the bull aggregate models that the fed comes up with. </p>
<p>Of course, you could believe that both econometrics AND pure math approach to economics is bull, and that we really know nothing and need to back off. That’s fine–not too different from a typical libertarian, but you’d have to wonder why most of the basic economic concepts that are understood “intuitively” can be derived EXACTLY through math. How likely is it that two completely different approaches reach the same fundamental conclusions about economic growth, general equilibrium theory, price theory, etc. when they are both wrong?</p>
<p>The idea that you can somehow believe one approach and disregard the others is rather idiotic. Pure math has no basis in reality. Applied econometrics can’t possibly know which data is irrelevant. “Everything is bull” doesn’t explain why pure math and applied math reach the same conclusions. Until economics is understood better, you need the math training just to appreciate the two completely different approaches to economics: the conceptual, and the mathematical.</p>
<p>Ravensfan hit the nail on the head (from the perspective against mathematical economics), while you and ominous are just arguing about the value of econometric modeling.</p>
<p>Economic phenomena can absolutely be isolated in a lab and studied – ever hear of experimental economics?</p>
<p>You can’t make the assumption that people are going to behave in a lab setting exactly the same as they would if they weren’t under observation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Err… you do so through game theory, an incredibly well developed field of mathematics? </p>
<p>I’m a bit curious about exactly what kind of economics are performed without math. Is this some sort of sour-grapes, “math wasn’t going to be useful anyway” type of argument from those who are mathematically weak?</p>
<p>The notion that “modeling an economy is absurd” would imply that economics is pure voodoo, if actually taken to heart. Fortunately, no economists operate on such principles.</p>
<p>Yeah, Nobel prize winners are a bunch of nobodies, right? Who cares what they have to say about the discipline that they shaped?</p>
<p>“Any approach, such as that of much of mathematical economics with its simultaneous equations, which in effect starts from the assumption that people’s knowledge corresponds with the objective facts of the situation, systematically leaves out what is our main task to explain. I am far from denying that in our system equilibrium analysis has a useful function to perform. But when it comes to the point where it misleads some of our leading thinkers into believing that the situation which it describes has direct relevance to the solution of practical problems, it is high time that we remember that it does not deal with the social process at all and that it is no more than a useful preliminary to the study of the main problem.”</p>
<p>Hayek, Nobel, '73</p>
<p>Math can help you make sense of data, it can be a preliminary to real economic analysis, but you cannot derive “economic laws” the way you’d derive physical laws with mathematical modeling. Again, cargo cult science. I suggest that before you take me (or the people I quote) as cranks or as nobodies, you do some research on the shortcomings of heavy math use in economics. Your professors may have never told you what a bunch of voodoo and scientism they were peddling.</p>