Getting into graduate economics

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>Yes, I know it's too early to be certain about any future plans. Still it helps getting a feel for what you can expect.</p>

<p>I want to do graduate economics, preferably at a good school. Then World Bank or OECD or some such. What would be the best choice?</p>

<p>I'm thinking either a) Major in Math and take a lot of (math-inclined) Econ classes, and perhaps Minor in something else I'm interested in like philosophy or b) Major in Math and Econ, although that would be hardcore and probably won't leave any time for side classes. (From what I've read the admissions is actually more impressed by hard math courses than econ). What would be better?</p>

<p>Oh, and try to get a high GPA it goes without saying.</p>

<p>To that end I assume taking Math 1A and Econ 1 is the best choice for first semester, right?</p>

<p>What do you think?</p>

2

<p>Actually, from what I heard, the best way to prepare for a PHD in economics is to major in Applied Mathematics (with of course, a concentration on econ).</p>

<p>It's kind of funny, but most undergrad econ programs do not prepare their students for study at the graduate level, mainly because said undergraduate programs don't contain enough math prerequisites. For example, we can look at berkeley's undergrad and graduate economics. Undergrad only requires a semester of calculus, while the phd program requires at a minimum multivariable calculus and linear algebra. In fact, the website suggests that one take even higher level courses such as real analysis (upper division-104 i think?).</p>

<p>As such, I would suggest that you major in applied mathematics (econ concentration). Make sure you take the econ 101 series as opposed to the 100 series, and take 141 instead of 140 for econometrics.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Check out the major and see if it appeals to you:
Course</a> Requirements: Applied Mathematics - UC Berkeley Department of Mathematics</p>

3

<p>You really don't need to take 1A to major in mathematics, if you've already taken AP Calculus and done well. It's just not necessary. Taking Econ 1, though, would be a very good idea if you are planning to major in Economics, even if you've taken AP Econ or taken the course at community college already.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
I'm thinking either a) Major in Math and take a lot of (math-inclined) Econ classes, and perhaps Minor in something else I'm interested in like philosophy or b) Major in Math and Econ, although that would be hardcore and probably won't leave any time for side classes. (From what I've read the admissions is actually more impressed by hard math courses than econ). What would be better?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Two other options would be:</p>

<p>c) Major in statistics
d) Major in computer science</p>

<p>That's because much of the economics research that is being performed today is either algorithmic/computational (especially work on financial economics) or econometric (hence statistical) in nature. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, the website suggests that one take even higher level courses such as real analysis (upper division-104 i think?).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, that would be pretty good, in addition to Math 128A. Statistics 151 A & B would also be pretty good. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's kind of funny, but most undergrad econ programs do not prepare their students for study at the graduate level, mainly because said undergraduate programs don't contain enough math prerequisites.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is certainly true. </p>

<p>Here is what Greg Mankiw has to say about it. Although I'm sure he would have grouped statistics and mathematics together (as at most schools, statistics is part of the math department). </p>

<p>*A student who wants to pursue a career in policy-related economics is advised to go to the best graduate school he or she can get into. The best graduate schools will expect to see a lot of math on your undergraduate transcript, so you need to take it. But will you use a lot of differential equations and real analysis once you land that dream job in a policy organization? No, you won't.</p>

<p>That raises the question: Why do we academics want students that have taken a lot of math? There are several reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Every economist needs to have a solid foundation in the basics of economic theory and econometrics, even if you are not going to be either a theorist or an econometrician. You cannot get this solid foundation without understanding the language of mathematics that these fields use.</p></li>
<li><p>Occasionally, you will need math in your job. In particular, even as a policy economist, you need to be able to read the academic literature to figure out what research ideas have policy relevance. That literature uses a lot of math, so you will need to be equipped with mathematical tools to read it intelligently.</p></li>
<li><p>Math is good training for the mind. It makes you a more rigorous thinker.</p></li>
<li><p>Your math courses are one long IQ test. We use math courses to figure out who is really smart.</p></li>
<li><p>Economics graduate programs are more oriented to training students for academic research than for policy jobs. Although many econ PhDs go on to policy work, all of us teaching in graduate programs are, by definition, academics. Some academics take a few years off to experience the policy world, as I did not long ago, but many academics have no idea what that world is like. When we enter the classroom, we teach what we know. (I am not claiming this is optimal, just reality.) So math plays a larger role in graduate classes than it does in many jobs that PhD economists hold.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Is it possible that admissions committees for econ PhD programs are excessively fond of mathematics on student transcripts? Perhaps. That is something I might argue with my colleagues about if I were ever put on the admissions committee. But a student cannot change that. The fact is, if you are thinking about a PhD program in economics, you are advised to take math courses until it hurts.*</p>

<p>Greg</a> Mankiw's Blog: Why Aspiring Economists Need Math</p>

5

<p>@JP,</p>

<p>That's what the impression I've gotten. They seem more interested in the math you can do than the economics. Including pure stuff like topology and lots of analysis.</p>

<p>Would Applied Math (Econ concentration) with Philosophy minor look OK?</p>

<p>@kenf,</p>

<p>The main reason I'm taking Math 1A is a) easy A and b) will be my slacker course for first semester since I'm also taking three other proper courses (Econ 1, Chem 1A and possibly Phil 6) for which I <i>will</i> have to work. Good idea?</p>

6

<p>@sakky,</p>

<p>I think I'll stick with just the math. I find it bearable and at times interesting. Not so for stats and compsci. Besides, I'm more interested in things like comparative development, development economics, economic history, etc, than the econometrics/financial econ. Although that's probably because I've read up and possibly understood a few things about some of the former. :)</p>

<p>Thanks for the Mankiw link, very useful.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
Besides, I'm more interested in things like comparative development, development economics, economic history

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet those are precisely the economic subfields for which a strong background in statistics is necessary, even more so than a background in (pure) mathematics, as research papers on those subjects invariably boil down to a series of intricate econometric models. For example, let's take development economics. How do you convincingly prove that, say, free capital markets improves the GDP's of developing nations (or doesn't), after controlling for other factors such as weather, culture, political systems, and so forth? The only way to do that convincingly is through careful statistical analysis. In fact, so much so that often times a computer science background is useful in order to devise an efficient algorithm in order to compile the regressions. </p>

<p>A deep pure mathematical background will help you to build theoretical economic models that will help you to describe what should[/] happen in equilibrium, given that your initial assumptions are correct. However, a statistics background will let you determine what actually *has happened. {Now, to be fair, mathematical economic models will allow you to predict future economic equilibria, and statistical models, because of their inherent backward-looking nature, have difficulty in predicting future equilibria. Yet the fact is, bare any real-world economies are ever in a state of true equilibrium anyway.}</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong. A deep pure math background is certainly useful in many economic fields. For example, if you had said that your interests were in, say, general equilibrium, industrial organization, information economics, or especially game theory (which is basically a branch of mathematics), then I would have said, sure, I would agree that a deep pure math background is far more important than a statistics background. But the subfields you mentioned are highly empirical, for which most of the current work is econometrically based.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
The main reason I'm taking Math 1A is a) easy A and b) will be my slacker course for first semester since I'm also taking three other proper courses (Econ 1, Chem 1A and possibly Phil 6) for which I <i>will</i> have to work. Good idea?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Up to you. The thing is, I think you are supposed to take Math 53 before you take Econ 101A. Check on that. Anyway, if you take 1A now, you won't get to Math 53 for a while. So you'd have to delay 101A. If you are serious about a math/econ double major, you might want to get a move-on with the math as well. </p>

<p>If it were me, and I really wanted to study economics and perhaps double major in math, I'd take Math 1B this semester, then take Econ 1 and Math 53 next semester. Then next Fall i could start on Econ 101A and Math 54. Then math 55/Econ 101B. Then you have junior year to start going deeper into econ and math, if you can take it. That's a hard road!</p>