Stick with Economics for undergrad after getting a C?

Parents Forum
1

<p>I posted this on the law school board, but I only got one response, so I thought I'd post this here and see what people thought.</p>

<p>I´m a new transfer student at Stanford, and I´ve been doing really well so far---well, a 3.7 GPA during my first two quarters. And then the third quarter hit.</p>

<p>I took the Econ class from hell, and barely managed to get a C after working like crazy, hiring a tutor, etc.</p>

<p>Even before this class, I´ve had a lot of issues with the way Economics is taught at Stanford---it´s very mathematical instead of conceptual, doesn´t have a lot of history or political economy classes, etc. I fell in love with Economics before I came to Stanford because I was entranced with authors like Hayek, von Mises, Adam Smith (in the original, baby!), and more modern writers such as Hernando de Soto and Amartya Sen.</p>

<p>I´m concerned, though, that this bad grade is the proverbial writing on the wall: perhaps I´m in the wrong major, especially since I´m hoping to go to law school (to do international business law or similar) and need good grades.</p>

<p>I could still switch majors to International Relations (I´ve never taken a Poli Sci course in my life, but I´ll be doing one this summer while studying in England, so I´ll see how I like that). But I feel like Economics has a sort of prestige---you know, the blustery "no cream puffs for me" sort of thing.</p>

<p>What do you guys think? Any Econ majors out there? Does my intense dislike for graphs and Lagrangians mean that I´m the wrong place? Should I get out before my GPA is entirely trashed?</p>

2

<p>You'd be surprised at how many in the hard sciences think econ is a cream puff major ;-).</p>

<p>Economics these days, as a discipline, is trying very hard to move away from its philosophical roots towards more rigorous discipline in its methods. That's a good thing. In academe and in science circles, economics is a bit of an intellectual stepchild. Physicists have been known to remark that "economics attacts the best fifth-rate minds in the world." Physicists are sometimes like that. Regardless, if you got your Ph.D. in economics, that stings. The good side is that it tends to drive the discipline towards more and more rigor.</p>

<p>If you're going to stay at Stanford, you need to ask yourself two questions:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Do I like economics now that I understand how mathematcially oriented it is and is going to be?</p></li>
<li><p>If I'm already working as hard as I can and getting Cs, is this the right field for me?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Only you can answer those questions.</p>

3

<p>Those are some very good questions. </p>

<p>Here's the crux of the matter: I'm interested in economics as a career primarily, and as an intellectual endeavor secondarily. I like the old philosophical style of economics, and my intellectual taste would be to study the implications of property law on economic growth, etc. </p>

<p>I'm also interested in a career that will allow me to travel internationally (and I'd like to earn a bunch o' money, too). The intellectual endeavor is supposed to be a support to that, but not necessarily related.</p>

<p>The big beef that I have with mathematical economics is that I don't think that it's a good model of human behavior. There are so many assumptions and caveats that I have trouble keeping them straight and I wind up "relaxing constraints", or just mindlessly solving equations (since I don't think they have a lot to do with reality and just tackle the math). I get frustrated and have trouble figuring out which answer I'm supposed to give them (the one based on the model or the one I think is true).</p>

<p>Where do you think would be a good place to go next?</p>

4

<p>Thank you returning student. That was a lot of fun to read!</p>

<p>First, you should know that you're preaching to the choir. Economics deals only with the expectancy/valence model of human behavior. That model explains some behavior, but not all. I have angered many economists by even suggesting that their models can never be accurate so long as they continue to ignore very strong evidence that there are well-proven biological/psychological overrides to their models.</p>

<p>So, it sounds to me like you want a well-paying job that will let you travel. I would suggest getting an MBA, preferably at a top-rated school. That will allow you to join an investment banking firm or top management consulting firm. You'll probably get what you want from that.</p>

<p>If you want to be an economist, but you don't like where econ is going, I will give you the same advice I gave my rising college freshman who will be studying economics at the University of Chicago. I told her that, if she wants to get a Ph.D. and do research, study, and teaching, behavioral economics would be an interesting way to go because it is in great need of those who know enough to try to integrate consistency theory and Hullian dive/habit theory into the numbers. Only once that's done can the models hope to be even reasonably accurate.</p>

<p>I also told her that, barring that, it would be an awful thing to be a practicing economist who knows for a fact that the models are wrong and is unable to do anything about it. In other words, if one is in position to change the system, knowing the models don't work is useful. Having to live with the models when you know they don't work is simply frustrating.</p>

<p>I'm going to read between the lines and make a guess that your frustration comes from the fact that econ is a philosophy trying to be a science, and getting the science wrong because of philosophical dogma the field has not yet shaken. I find it fascinating that John Nash won a Nobel Prize for equations everyone (even he) knows don't work, or at least work to predict behavior only sporadically.</p>

<p>As far as the effect of property law on economic growth, you're going to be getting deeply back into numbers again, I suspect.</p>

<p>Here's something I'm just going to throw out. There is a little-known field of historical economics (or something like that). Its practitioners (based on my limited understanding), try to reconstruct economics and economic impact on history based on, sometimes, very little data. Because of that, it tends to be based more on the broad concepts than on straight numbers. It's a limited field. Most (maybe all) practitioners are academic types. I throw this out not because it matches your career aspirations, but because it's something that might interest you.</p>

<p>Finally, you might enjoy a class in motivational behavior. There is some fascinating work being done that proves Heider's consistency theory based on pleasure response in brain function. Consistency theory is a wrench in the expectancy/valence (economic man) theory machinery. Perhaps you would learn something in that class that will make your econ classes more interesting and valuable to you.</p>

5

<p>returningstudent,</p>

<p>I have some bad news for you: If you want to do an econ PhD in ANY area (behavioral, property rights, economic history, development, whatever), you're going to need a LOT more Math. The lack of good data often requires more not less math (or at least understanding it) to make up for the limitations of your evidence. Stanford's undergrad program is not unusual. It is simply more honest about what someone who pursues a PhD will need. Believe me, in comparison to most undergrad courses in econ, the first year theory sequence at ANY of the top 40 PhD programs is going to seem like the worst concentration camp imaginable. Even less mathematical areas require that you have enough math to read the American Economic Review. Most behavioral economists and economic historians, for example, are going to be pretty econometrically savvy. Many leading economists have undergrad degrees in math, physics, or engineering. Indeed they are often favored for grad school over those with econ degrees. </p>

<p>I posted elsewhere about my surprise that even an undergrad with a good record from Harvard was rejected by every econ Phd program he applied to because of his weak math background. </p>

<p><a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/love-econ-bad-at-math.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/06/love-econ-bad-at-math.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>However, Greg Mankiw of Harvard also gives good advice in that post about alternatives to standard PhD work.</p>

<p>I would add that you might also consider going to grad school in Poli Sci or Public Policy, or to a Law and Economics grad program. There are even one or two sociology and demography programs which overlap heavily with econ which are less technical. It is, for better or worse, a limitation of economics, that smart kids who can't do math will head to those fields to tackle economics in a non-quantitative way.</p>

<p>My sense is that grad programs today are less mathematical than they were 20 years ago, but we're talking about fine distinctions here -- say, the difference between a specialist in string theory and someone studying physical chemistry. The minimum is still going to require that you be able to read through Microeconomic Theory by Mas-Collel, know some serious game theory, and make it through a grad course in econometrics.</p>

6

<p>Returning student, should you not be able to carve your own "niche" in Economics by selecting the classes that interest you? Doesn't Stanford have one the most complete Economics department? </p>

<p>FWIW, there must be at least 50 threads on CC asking the question, "What is the best econ program?" Despite yielding tons of replies, the question is really unanswerable because the field is as vast as the teaching methods and espoused theories. </p>

<p>Further, regarding how people view Economics, I always enjoy reading the interviews of the late Peter Drucker. His position on economics and the behavior of humans versus commodities is fascinating. Here's one from the Atlantic Monthly: </p>

<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512u/peter-drucker%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512u/peter-drucker&lt;/a> </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
During his four-year stay in England, Drucker sat in on John Maynard Keynes's economics seminar at Cambridge University and made an important discovery: He "suddenly realized that Keynes and all the brilliant economics students in the room were interested in the behavior of commodities while I was interested in the behavior of people." His interest in people would lead him to the study of management and a career as a management consultant to institutions (the Pentagon), corporations (from General Electric down to small furniture makers), and charitable organizations (ranging from the Girl Scouts to Protestant megachurches). "This is a person business," he said of consulting. "We are not greengrocers selling commodities." As for economics: "There is only one point on which the economists and are in agreement: I am not an economist."

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>There is life outside Economics - or within when selecting the classes correctly.</p>

7

<p>I will add one thing. You don't need to BE a mathematician in your research career, but you need to get over the math hump to get the "union card." I advised a grad student who already had a Phd in History when he came to our econ program who didn't like the math either. I basically told him to tough it out till he finished. He made it through and now has a good career at a small college. He does a lot of the sort of research you would be interested in. Most of my colleagues use less math now than they learned in grad school for their own work. But there's no getting around the fact that for 90% of the profession, high math skills are used as a filter in weeding out grad students. Economists are among the best paid academics and usually have better job prospects than the average professor so many more people try to enter good programs than there are slots.</p>

8

<p>So how much math IS enough? Calculus 1...Calculus 2...Linear Algebra...Multi-variable Calculus?</p>

9

<p>It sounds like you should consider another major.</p>

10

<p>if you want to do economics as a career, you probably shouldn't be worrying about what law schools are going to think of your gpa. why? because you probably shouldn't be a lawyer. most lawyers do relatively little with econ and few of them have jobs that take them overseas. </p>

<p>if you love econ, i say go for it, with the understanding that your grades might be slightly lower and your workload a lot heavier. i found in many subjects that the intro classes are actually the hardest anyway--the class size is large, the material is general, you're not focusing on a subject you like, some departments are trying to scare people away to keep the number of majors low, etc. things might get easier for you as you progress through the department. talking with your prof from that class, econ majors, and the dept chair might help you figure out what's best for you.</p>

11

<p>polo1A</p>

<p>Everything you mentioned plus some stats and econometrics. Realistically, you'll usually need a serious Real Analysis class and game theory in addition. People have gotten into good programs with less but if any of these are missing, you start to lower your probability of acceptance. At the top ten departments several members of the entering class will have come in already having taken the equivalent of the first year Micro/Macro PhD sequence at another college and will then RETAKE the course at their university.</p>

<p>Basically they want you to be fully conversant with the equivalent of Simon and Blume's Mathematics for Economists by the time you arrive.</p>

<p>I repeat that you don't HAVE to work with all this math for many topics in economics, but the departments want to make sure that math is not a hindrance when you're deciding what topic to research. All else being equal , someone with an MS in Applied Math will get in over an A minus Econ undergrad who has taken no linear algebra or analysis. You can ignore the math in your work only after you've proved that you can handle it. (Catch 22).</p>

12

<p>Is it possible for one to get a good job in this field without going into academia (or grad school)?</p>

<p>Also what is the best type of major for this type of career (economic analysis)?
Applied Math, Stats, Econ?</p>

13

<p>What if your goal is NOT to do a master's or PhD in Economics, but rather shoot for something like law school or a job in finance or business? I love Economics as it's been taught to me in high school and I see it as a potential major, but the only paths I consider after undergrad are either teaching high school econ, doing a finance/business-related job, somehow getting into hospitality, or going to law school. Would I need as much math in that case? Or would 2 semesters of calculus, an econometrics class, and a class on game theory be enough? It's not that I'm bad at math, I just don't enjoy it and I would hate to have to take about 5 or 6 classes of math in my undergraduate years.</p>

14

<p>polo1a</p>

<p>That is a completely different story. If you're not interested in a PhD, ignore the math recommendations. Take the minimum your school requires and then just take the classes that interest you. However, some consultancies and finance companies do look for employees who have taken tough math classes and done well. But in general, for law school, MBA, etc., the fancy math is irrelevant.</p>

15

<p>I am acquainted with a PhD student in economics at the University of Chicago. We sat at the library last summer studying our respective subjects, and all during the summer, he was solving math problems. At the U. of C., that seems what economics simply is.</p>

<p>Perhaps it might be a wise idea to get a few mathematics courses under your belt before further pursuing economics. That surely will facilitate your work in economics classes, as you will be more learning the concepts than learning both concepts and the math that goes along with it.</p>

16

<p>Thanks for answering my questions. I do have one last one. Is philosophy something that works "together" with Economics? I've heard that Econ has roots in philosophy and I can see how the logic and the reasoning learned in philosophy would help with econ. Any truth to this? Would an econ/philosophy double major be "favorable" if I really liked both subjects? I'm just trying to get idea, heck, my interests might change radically once I start taking classes this fall. Oh, and I'm at Cornell, is their econ program considered good and how is it recruited by finance companies?</p>

17

<p>polo1A-
My son is an econ major and is planning to double minor in philosophy and environmental studies, with an eye toward law school and a specialization in environmental law. His main reason for taking the philosophy courses is to improve his writing and reasoning abilities for law school. Also, the logic courses in philosophy should be of some benefit for law school, too. The environmental slant came about by chance when he took an elective that he really enjoyed. He has been able to find many courses that weave economics, environmental studies, philosophy and law in some combination. </p>

<p>Your idea to double major in econ and philosophy is a good one as long as you have an interest in both. And they can only help you with law school, I'd think. Hope this helps in some way.</p>

18

<p>polo1A</p>

<p>Take what subjects you like. For law school, the requirements aren't very restricted (unlike for the Phd). Philosophy may or may not help. That's not important. If you like it, you'll learn something.</p>

<p>Cornell's econ department is first rate. You can learn all you need for law school, mba, or PhD if you wish. You'll have to consult with your own career center to ask about finance recruiting though. Most research oriented profs I know tend to be caught up in their own work and aren't too familiar with which companies recruit at their schools.</p>

19

<p>For finance analysis, would a business degree be more useful than an econ degree (or stats/applied math)?</p>

20

<p>Thanks guys, I'll definitely talk to my advisor and career services.</p>