an intro finance class (esp corp finance) will teach him how to figure out his student loans (if he will have any).
And you say "free-market-evangelist douchebag" like it's a bad thing.
What are his politics like? Can you set him to compare political 'Econ 101' arguments, with the actual caveats and exceptions and 'none of this works simply in real life' he should be getting in a respectable Econ class, so that he can come out with informed contempt for that class of argument?
Everyone will say finance, stats, accounting, which are all good choices. But if his university offers economic history through its econ department, that's a real bargain. Also, international econ/trade.
Honestly, quality of course and degree of doctrinaire dogma depends on the faculty, though.
Ooo, statistics. That one is vitally useful for comprehending anything in the news with numbers in it.
It's a good rule of thumb to be wary of bargains which require you to have a lack of working knowledge of economics.
Accounting. And definitely basic stats (which should be required for everyone, or at minimum for all social science majors), but adding on econometrics would also be good. A lot of the really devious number-twisting goes on at this level.
You can always remind him, a la dsquared, that whenever making translation from Econ 101 to real life, the answer to "Let's assume ..." is "no, let's not, because that's not how it is."
History of economic thought might be a good course to take, if it's offered. Intermediate micro would probably be good too. And econometrics would help with statistical methods in other fields.
Robert Frank has a new popular economics book, The Economic Naturalist, inspired by essays from his introductory course.
But a true economist would of course only keep the economics major long enough to get the financial aid.
I'm biased on this, of course, but I genuinely loved my resource and environmental economics classes.
Statistics is at least as useful as macroeconomics. At least my macroeconomics class, where the teacher actively resisted giving real-world examples for the seemingly pointless and utterly arbitrary formulas we had to memorize. You should have seen us try to wheedle an explanation out of him of what the difference was between "M1" and "M2" and why we should care. Some people sounded like they were about to be brought to tears by the sheer arbitrariness.
Yeah, accounting is useful in a 'dealing with everyday life' kind of way, and also terribly easy if he can do arithmetic, so a nice way to fill out a semester when your other classes are going to be challenging.
The extra financial aid for majoring in econ reminds me of Cornell, which although an Ivy League is also an ag school, and which has lower tuition (I think? More aid? It's cheaper somehow?) for people admitted into the ag school and majoring in something agricultural. I had a friend in a prior job with a degree in Agricultural Economics from Cornell, which was all the same classes as regular Econ, mostly, but was half the price.
Sometimes labor economics or feminist economics can be good.
The history of economic thought class would also be more useful than a survey of the most basic and boring ideas in current economic thought with no explanation of where they came from or why other possible ideas are less accurate. (yes, that is also a summary of my econ class)
11: Several colleges at Cornell are public. The university is only partially private.
Macroeconomics is useful more as a history/social-science class than the natural-science class it is often portrayed as. Why does it matter what M1 and M2 are? Because everybody who makes macroeconomic policy thinks it's important and knowing how those guys think can be informative. Going in to try to learn the natural laws of money flow is bound to be frustrating and it sounds like Ned's teacher tried to offer the class that way.
Economics from a game-theoretical perspective, perhaps. That might or might not be available during his first two years, but it will almost certainly avoid the infamous supply-side indoctrination. And with a good teacher (mine wasn't, but then again, I was in the class because it was cross-listed as Political Science, so maybe the Econ students got more out of it than I did), it could be really interesting.
I had a good class like that in Law School -- yes, very interesting and worthwhile.
But does he have any sense of what else he might want to major in? I mean, if it's math, there's probably a whole bunch of math classes he could pass off as econ, and the same if it's history or poli sci. We'd just have to know which.
Definitely statistics. But also there is no field in which "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" is more true than economics. So I'd strongly suggest he either carry on doing economics if it takes his fancy or to take everything with a pinch of salt if he doesn't. I can't tell you the number of economics post grads who've told me that they had to unlearn much of what they learned as fact at undergrad level.
I agree with and transcend 9 and 12. The most interesting econ courses I've taken (and I've got about a major's worth) weren't macro or metrics or what have you. They were subfield courses - environmental and resource, US poverty, etc. If he can, I'd reccomend whatever of this type of course interests him and has a good prof. Most schools have environmental economics, development (one I'm bummed I missed), health care economics, feminist economics, public finance, regular finance, history of economic thought, maybe an urban economics course, etc. Those are usually pretty cool.
These are all good suggestions. He's pretty politically liberal, although he's still somewhat malleable, but I suspect he'd be more likely to get in trouble arguing with his professors than start idolizing Milton Friedman.
He's still not sure where his interests really are. Right now, he's talking history or English but, before, he was saying engineering/comp sci. His latest idea is that he's considering becoming a high school teacher. But I figure this can all change 20 times before it's done.
21 - Yes, this is the brother who has read a lot of Rand. He's currently politically liberal, but you can see why I'm concerned. He might easily be tipped over into Libertarian territory.
I agree. Two of my best econ courses were "Poverty" and "Environmental and Natural Resource Economics". "Labor Economics" can be great or terrible, depending on the prof. As can most courses, actually. In fact, other than maybe stats and the basic intro stuff, we shouldn't be shouting out recommendations based on course names at all. You need to tell us his school, and we'll shout out recommendations based on the professors. In determining course quality and value, course titles mean nothing; the professor is everything.
Thirding the recommendation for stats. Though my stats prof tried to turn the guns and butter example into a milk and cookies example, and it pissed me off.
He's going to change his mind about twenty gajillion times anyway, but it's always easily to move, in terms of pre-requisites, away from technical fields rather than into them. So make sure he gets his math & science reqs done.
he was saying engineering/comp sci.
Then he shouldn't bother with statistics.
His latest idea is that he's considering becoming a high school teacher.
Then he should take statistics.
At many universities (particularly big, research-oriented ones) there are very good economic historians in the economics departments -- think Brad DeLong. Econ departments pay much better than history departments so, to make Milton Friedman happy, most economic historians have migrated into them. So if he's interested in history, that would be a good way to go. On the other hand, I'd have to recommend against history of economic thought. I've read a certain amount of stuff by economists on the subject, and it has uniformly been incredibly naive and ill-informed: very like the old-style history of medicine written by retired doctors. I'm not sure why this is: political scientists do history of political thought very well, and of course, though history of philosophy is a somewhat strange beast, it's often very good too.
shouldn't bother with statistics
Is wrong. Statistics is massively useful in computer science and I would think in engineering as well.
Also, this is cynical, but if he gets enough Econ to call it a minor, and he ends up with a liberal arts major, my guess is that people hiring him will think he's smart. It's a signal that he's doing liberal arts because that's what interests him, not because he can't add. (I think this is crap, but I also think people think this way.)
Statistics is massively useful in computer science and I would think in engineering as well.
So useful, in fact, that he'll have a required engineering-level statistics course which will cover all of the material from the non-engineering-oriented statistics course in about a week.
If you're worried about him becoming libertarian, I'd suggest an institutional economics course, if they offer it, or political economy. Development economics is also fun, and all the cool kids take it.
And economic history. I can't emphasize that enough. Economic history.
As comp sci, I had to take a statistics class. It was a brutal one that you could only take after you'd completed all three required Calculus classes.
I was thinking statistics would be a good portable class but it seems like each major has its own flavor that mixes in its research methodology. If he, say, transferred to psychology I bet he'd have to take statistical methods again. He'd probably find it totally easy after taking the other stat class, though, so that'd be good.
So useful, in fact, that he'll have a required engineering-level statistics course which will cover all of the material from the non-engineering-oriented statistics course in about a week
*cough* bullshit. Unless American statistics courses are absolutely repulsively awful. There's nothing on earth funnier than the sight of a physical sciences person asserting that he "learned all that stuff in a week" and is going to settle some issue once and for all, then coming up against his first non-experimental data set. Engineers come to econometricians for help on their difficult problems; we don't go to them.
Economic history is the most unbelievably boring pile of wank. If that's the cost of not becoming a Randian, it's too high. The only more worthless course is history of economic thought. The only courses that are worth anything are the quantitative ones, plus international economics. Actually game theory is pretty quantitative and that's a pile of wank too.
OT: For ttaM and D^2:
There's a Czech hip-hop song making the rounds called "Hej ty kundo v bílim dome" (hey, you cunt in the White House). A few kids in my son's class have the song downloaded to their mobile phones and play it incessantly, it is ever so cool, combining a disrespect for authority, a hatred for another country's leader, and a great dance beat that you can dance to!
Link not worth following.
The link is so unworthy of following that it doesn't even exist.
D^2 is in finance, not economics, so ignore him.
It was a brutal one that you could only take after you'd completed all three required Calculus classes
oh God I forgot that American universities had this whole "omigod Calculus classes!" thing. There is nothing difficult about calculus, just as there is nothing difficult about statistics. It's just that they are always taught repulsively badly, usually by mathematicians who don't really properly remember what they're talking about.
The most interesting econ courses I've taken ... were subfield courses - environmental and resource, US poverty, etc. If he can, I'd reccomend whatever of this type of course interests him and has a good prof
I think this is exactly right. The most interesting econ class that I took was Labor Economics which, not coincidentally, was also the econ class in which the professor was most engaged.
He does bring up a good point. We are presuming that this fellow doesn't actually want to study economics, so we are recommending against the classes that are full of equations and therefore immensely boring to people who don't want to study economics. However, maybe he doesn't care about economics but he wants to enter some sort of lucrative job moving money around and enriching the already rich. In that case all the economics classes would be equally boring and he might as well take the quantitative ones.
Economic history is the most unbelievably boring pile of wank
Beg to differ. Over on your side of the pond, Niall Ferguson produces unbelievably boring piles of wank? H. J. Habbakuk? Good stuff, man.
I have to wonder how much influence the classes someone takes has on politics anyway. Is this a chicken-or-egg thing? Does a student go into Econ 101 as a tabula rasa, come out having been taught that laissez-faire economics actually work, and find themselves devoted to it? Or do you have to be at least a bit of an asshole in the first place to be drawn to the study that treats the movement of money as a hard science?
It's a long-established Cornell dodge, if you're a New York State resident, to go to one of the state colleges within Cornell U -- like ILR or Ag -- for a couple of years at in-state tuition, then apply for transfer to the privately endowed Arts and Sciences or Engineering colleges to get your degree. You can save a lot of money that way if it works out for you.
Or rather, it was; I don't know if it's still possible.
Niall Ferguson produces unbelievably boring piles of wank?
Horses for courses, but I was practically considering drilling a hole in my head to let the boredom out.
Statistics is massively useful in computer science
How true is this? I occasionally regret that I don't get to use more of my math background in my current programming job. My impression is that most programming jobs don't require advanced math, if that's wrong it would be an incentive for me to look for a different job.
That's separate, of course, from the fact that knowing statistics is very useful background knowledge for computer science, just that I don't use it much in my actual work.
Be careful of political economy, it's often way more shallow than an actual econ class. That said, I took political economy type classes in the poli sci dep't; the econ version could be great. It all depends so heavily on the school & profs.
Micro, macro & stats seem like a logical beginning.
I left this out:
In nine verses, President Bush is called both Czech words for a cunt ten times, a dick four times, and a various variations of a fucker eight times. Other nouns include shithead, fart, purple scab, and ass ulcer. At the end the author expresses his desire to kick his jaw and trample his mug.
Ideologically, the most annoying libertarians I've know all seemed to have taken Econ 101 far to seriously. I've also heard smart but thoughtless centrist types repeat their econ teacher's misinformation verbatim.
International Political Economy. One of the most worthwhile and interesting classes I took.
If you want to be an econ department model jockey, impressing all the kids with the size of your panel data set, then yeah, stick with the quantitative stuff. If you want to understand both the strengths and limitations of economic modeling by learning how they hold up in historical contexts, then take economic history. Some of it deals with piece rates in 17th century Dutch home textile production, which, admittedly, gets a bit tedious. A lot of it focuses on questions many of your favorite bloggers continue to ask today.
Undergrad econ stats is just a primer; it doesn't go beyond the basics. An econ PhD could teach engineers about stats, but that's not what we're talking about.
Though what Katherine says about it is sort of true--the one I took was more political science than economics. This was a plus for me.
I mean, um, no offense to all those fine upstanding current and former Economics majors out there.
The university which your brother will be attending.
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT, BEN.
51:.
The university that her brother will be attending.
I know I'm the only one who cares about restrictive and nonrestrictive phrases (Chicago Manual of Style rule 6.31, if the interwebs don't mislead me), but you started it.
The university who her brother will be attending.
At least at Wisconsin, Econ 101 (micro) and 102 (macro) are incredibly simplistic and badly taught, giving no idea where any of their concepts come from. If he can deal with the math, he's better off trying to skip directly to intermediate micro and macro if they'll let him.
,extra financial aid for freshmen and sophomores who are majoring in economics so my parents are making him major in that for his first two years. My brother doesn't really have any interest in economics and is wondering what he's going to get out of this experience.
Maybe he'll learn that getting something just because it's relatively cheaper isn't such a good deal if what you get doesn't line up with your preferences.
Though I'm not really a believer in the "follow your heart" crap anyway, especially w/r/t undergrads. Tell him to take the core econ stuff in conjunction with something like history or philosophy, if he likes that sort of thing.
D2 is only warning him away from the history of economic thought because if there's one thing more hopeless than a teenage Randian, it's a teenage Sraffian. Besides, unless he's going to Duke hardly any econ departments will offer such a course.
The idea that one exlusively uses "that" for one and "which" for the other was cut from whole cloth by Fowler. If the CMS perpetuates that, well, so much the worse for the CMS.
Besides, unless he's going to Duke hardly any econ departments will offer such a course.
Really? I was under the impression that most places had history of thought courses. I took it at Utah, which is rather heterodox but not particularly demanding.
The brother who will be attending her university.
Really? I was under the impression that most places had history of thought courses.
Maybe I'm biased by grad school course offerings. Utah is an exception though --- it has E.K. Hunt. Notre Dame would be another.
The brother by whom her university will be attended at, asshole.
As far as the getting him interested part, does anyone have any advice on getting himi interested in the subject, besides recommending Freakonomics. I figure it's not the best intro but it might be something that wouldn't be too boring to read over the summer.
64:
Show him pictures of all the hot girls who will be studying that subject.
58: Whatever, dude. I see two schools of thought here: a) rules a descriptive, serving to say how people actually use language, so they're only worth trying to enforce where there's ambiguity, or b) there are real rules, with prescriptive power, and they're codified in authoritative sources. You're clearly not on Team A, so I go to CMS as a (if not the) leading such source.
The apparent middle ground, "there are real rules, and I get to decide what they are," seems attractive but not really tenable.
further to the thoughts about statistics, if you can do it, you are probably better with a stream that allows
calc I & II (and a third, if offered and you are taking it)
followed by a proper introductary probability course
which is a pre-req to your statistics course. This way you have a reasonable basis to start to talk about what's underlying the statistics. This is probably a 3rd year, 2nd term course, then. Having reasonable fundamentals means the course will be less likely to fall into idiomatic approaches from a particular field coupled with a `don't worry about how it works, just do it' method.
I'd actually argue that course stream should be required for any degree that can possibly fit it in. Plus a little bit of linear algebra. Shortened versions are probably sensible for some streams.
THE UNIVERSITY WHAT HER BROTHER BE FIXIN' TO ATTEND
I'm curious about this in 57:
Though I'm not really a believer in the "follow your heart" crap anyway, especially w/r/t undergrads. Tell him to take the core econ stuff in conjunction with something like history or philosophy, if he likes that sort of thing.
Do you think people should study stuff with a high financial return and pick up their interests when they get around to it? That seems to be the general tone of the advice, but the second sentence makes it sound like you think people should get a broad-based liberal arts education whether they want to or not!!!
69: fwiw, I think undergrads should be forced to a bit of breadth.
I wasn't forced to even a bit of breadth, which was certainly unfortunate for me in some ways, but did have the happy effect of meaning that everyone in every class I took was in it because they wanted to be there -- or at least wanted something more specific than a bachelor's degree that required that they be there. It was nice.
68 -- Oh great, thanks, where were you when we needed you last night?
69: well, horses for courses. But there is a class of courses that you only are thankful for taking in retrospect -- often, in significant retrospect, like several years. not that you should ignore your preferences or whatever. but stuff of the first kind is most of the reason that college can be an education.
Czech hiphop is abysmal and this one's especially sketchy. There's a literal translation of shithead, which I don't think is idiomatic even up in Kobylysi.
Linear algebra suitable for engineers is useful in very many contexts, especially for those who can manage some programming, is demanding, but has minimal prerequisites. John
b) there are real rules, with prescriptive power, and they're codified in authoritative sources.
I mean, Fowler literally made it up. He noticed that one tended to use "which" with unrestrictive clauses and decided it would be a nice symmetry if "that" were used with restrictive clauses. If that isn't a good reason to decide that the supposed rule's silly, I'll eat the hat of your choosing. After all, it's not as if the CMS itself is unrevisable. Every man his own style manual, say I—only some men stylior manual.
Languagelog, as one would expect, thinks little of the rule.
(Some men stylior manual not because they've got the realm of truth on their side, but because of cussedness.)
dsquared outs himself as a big hippie who thinks the children can learn if only they found the right teacher...
No one should take any intro economics courses whatsoever. I recommend either a) taking enough math courses so that you can skip to graduate micro, which isn't as full of so many lies, or b) skip the whole thing and study nineteenth century erotic literature.
As far as the getting him interested part, does anyone have any advice on getting himi interested in the subject, besides recommending Freakonomics.
I swear you're doing this to annoy me. Actually I would not be surprised if all these fucking universities have rewritten the syllabus to make undergraduate economic "more like Freakonomics!!!1!". In which case I really will be shopping for a machinegun.
#67 is, IMO, insane. Rigorous probability theory has surprisingly little to do with statistics, and infallibly confuses the beginner. Most good statisticians are appallingly bad at probability and vice versa, which is a big part of why both are so badly taught.
I utterly repudiate #78: it is quite possible that Becks' brother will still be unable to learn even if he happens to get one of the very rare stats teachers who aren't full of it.
Dsquared is right, though, that engineers are completely deluded about the level of statistical sophistication of econometricians, which is probably the highest outside of statistics itself.
57 misses out on the important lack of teenage Randian Sraffians. Your brother could be the first, Becks!
(Some men stylior manual not because they've got the realm of truth on their side, but because of cussedness.)
Fair enough. My main point was about glass houses, more than about my deep-seated feelings about that/which distinctions--if you're going to start correcting people, seems to me it's best to have something more behind you than your own say-so. But if your position is "every man his own style manual" and still your cussedness demands a correction of "which" in place of "where" in a setting where nobody's confused, well, you go right ahead and draw that line in the sand.
Is "Economic History" stuff like the Friedman book on interest rates? Yes, boring wank.
History of Economic Thought, on the other hand, is the history of class consciousness & ideology, and well, with the mood I am in, there isn't any other kind of thought. What did Keynes say?
What did Keynes say?
"Read your economic history, you whinger."
D^2 and I do agree about Freakonomics.
Rigorous probability theory has surprisingly little to do with statistics, and infallibly confuses the beginner.
79: What was your undergrad, or do you have a math PhD? Because, admittedly I did not take measurement theory with all the related martingales work, but I found the slightly lower-level probability courses very related to stats. The rigorous foundations of statistics as we were taught them were mostly the integrals and transformations of distribution functions that tied in directly with our probability class, though focusing much more often on a certain set of distributions most applicable to real data sets, rather than general distributions.
Also, if they have a good behavioural econ or finance professor at your brother's school, that'd be a very interesting course to take. It may not have much theoretical application yet, but the literature has compiled a pretty fascinating set of discrepencies between orthodox theory and real data, and the slightly twists they suggest to decision models are useful when looking at how individual people actually think.
79: I'm not talking about a rigorous probability theory course, few streams could even approach that in 3rd year anyway. But my point was different, and I suppose I stated it badly. Roughly speaking:
1) probability is a good thing to understand anyway, for similar but *different* reasons to those for having a decent statistics course. This is a good thing in and of itself.
2) the stats course that has it as a pre-req is, ime, not likely to rely on it much (for the reasons you note), but far more likely to be a general statistics course and to talk a bit about why things are done certain ways. Otherwise you quite likely to end up in a intro stats course that is too tailored to a particular discipline.
So I'm talking about typical streaming and curriculum issues.
88 is basically what I'm talking about, and typically this is what you would see in an introductory probability course at this level. Essentially you want to have solid practical if not rigorous idea of what a distribution is, what probability means in a continous setting, etc.
Anyone interested in Freakonomics should read D-squareds review of the book, which exists in several parts, the first of which is here:
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2005/11/long-awaited-freakonomics-post-this-is.html
The other parts are hard to find because of D-squareds committment to having no one read his blog.
84: I've liked all of the books I've read by Cowen and Tabarrok. Unfortunately, that's two.
79: What was your undergrad, or do you have a math PhD?
I learned this stuff the hard way, solo. I don't recommend this, but I don't recommend most statistics courses either. Fair enough I see what you mean here, with the caveat that a very great deal of the confusion over asymptotic properties of estimators appears to me to have its roots in confusion over limits.
Why not just buy the kid some JK Galbraith books? They'll be more or less useless to him for his economics course, but at least they have some good jokes.
#92: hey dammit, that link is a secret.
I decline to take style advice from anyone commenting under the name "Lurker" or variations thereon.
The best possible advocacy for a particular style is the example of its consistent, well-executed use. The worst possible, miserable scolditude.
I should have mentioned actually that while measure theory is nearly useless in statistics, it shows up surprisingly often in good mathematical economics; people like Quiggin are using it all the time.
94: Agree with you on the basic trouble people seem to have with asymptotic properties. If I could specify a decent calc I calc II stream in the above, I would have. Unfortunately for most people, this just isn't going to happen.
That being said, we really ought to seperate a solid introduction for a solid understand here. Plenty of people would benefit from a single statisics course, even if they never hear of asymptotic properties, or convergence in measure, or what have you. After all, it's not like we should throw prob & statistics out of undergraduat ed. because you can't do it quite correctly without measure theory.
quibble on 97, I should have said you can't quite do prob. correctly w/o measure theory. Underpinnings of stats as I understand it (and IANAS) fall or don't based on that, not on their own use of it.
You can do discrete, and finite-dimensional continuous probability spaces just fine without measure theory. It's boring, in that you have to define everything multiple times, and the convergence theorems wouldn't be as nice, but you could do it. Where you really need it is for continuous-time stochastic processes (or alternatively, you can believe in the binomial tree fairies.)
99: Sure, a lot of it is managable if not so clean, but as you note some bits can't be done, and they are important.
All this still doesn't have anything to do with a decent introductory course.
What, I have to stay on-topic now? That's worse than the smiley-face ban!
I learned stats on my own, too. Admittedly, my stats are fairly weak though. Enough to read papers without being completely fuddled by the stats, but not enough to do any real hardcore work with it.
On the other hand, the foundations of probability stuff I found endlessly interesting [philosopher, etc].
The best possible advocacy for a particular style is the example of its consistent, well-executed use.
Thank you, Nehamas!
I decline to take style advice from anyone commenting under the name "Lurker" or variations thereon.
The best possible advocacy for a particular style is the example of its consistent, well-executed use. The worst possible, miserable scolditude.
Your second point is 100% wise, not to mention stylish, and my response to scolding with more scolding clearly failed to achieve its intended effect (see 83 re: glass houses). Sincere apologies.
Your first sentence is stupid. This name probably won't appear again--I used it today only because I did once before in similar circumstances, and that reference was almost certainly not worth making--but seriously? Rejecting an argument because of the name of the person making it? Sweet.
It may be that selfish people are disproportionately attracted to economics, but also the study of economics seems to make people (on average) more selfish and dishonest:
Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?
Robert H. Frank, Thomas Gilovich, Dennis T. Regan
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 159-171
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/economics_frank/frank.html
So, there's the reduced tuition on the one hand, one's Eternal Soul on the other... what to do...what to do...
I think the mysterious Plate is claiming that including "Lurker" in one's handle lacks style. In this wise Plateself is paronomasing upon "style".
This name probably won't appear again--I used it today only because I did once before in similar circumstances, and that reference was almost certainly not worth making--but seriously?
I do, generally, wish that people wouldn't comment under variants of 'Anonymous' or 'Lurker'. There isn't a membership vote -- if you're hitting the little 'post' button, you're a commenter just like anyone else. And you'll feel pretty silly if you find yourself commenting more and you're still claiming to be a lurker.
But I'm pretty sure w-lfs-n was kidding about that being a reason not to listen to you.
Oh, whoops, that was Bridgeplate rather than w-lfs-n.
if you're hitting the little 'post' button, you're a commenter just like anyone else.
Let's not go crazy.
42: It's still possible, as far as I know, but I haven't heard of anyone doing it, and I don't really see the point. You would save a lot more, after all, by sticking with a state college for all four years, and it's not like a Cornell Ag degree is significantly less prestigious than a Cornell A&S degree (this may have been different in the past). It would only work for a few majors, anyway: the ones that are offered in more than one college, in forms either identical or nearly so (bio, econ, geology, maybe psych).
As some people have implied, "getting him interested in economics" and "using his time well" probably push in opposite directions. I was an econ major, 2 classes away from math, took phd game theory and some micro; I'm now rather bitter about how I used my time.
The stuff that is most likely to get him interested in the subject tends to be freakonomics-esque in claiming the econ toolkit will reveal the truth about everything. As this is false, there's a bit of a problem. More relevantly: an econ major is built around acquiring tools, the utility of which the student will not be able to evaluate properly until it is far too late.
On the other hand, as others have said, statistics is incredibly useful, no matter what. Math is tricky--it's necessary for a lot of stuff, but if you end up not needing it at all, you might be annoyed at all the time you spent acquiring tools rather than knowledge. Game theory is a lot of fun, if he likes mental puzzles, but either you realize it's mostly a shell game, and become disillusioned, or think it's the key to social scientific explanation, and become a purveyor of falsehood.
A lot of the intro classes will depend very heavily on the instructor. Make sure he knows this.
And you'll feel pretty silly if you find yourself commenting more and you're still claiming to be a lurker.
This is true, but as long as all I do is quibble about restrictive clauses, I think the frequency should stay down. And I'm pretty sure the bit about "a commenter like everyone else" doesn't apply under those circumstances either.
That's why I don't expect to come back to this name, though. Should I have anything substantive to say, I won't taint it by connection to this episode. Sort of like a dead president.
But I'm pretty sure [Bridgeplate] was kidding about that being a reason not to listen to you.
Then I apologize again, for the failure of my irony sensor. Damned thing's just out of warranty, too.
So the Stanford slaughterhouse experiment?
econometrics was the hardest class i had in college, math like crazy. But the statstics class was rather entry level and worthless. Development economics was interesting, but i could see someone taking right-wing douchery views out of that, because its so hard (developing, not the class) and i learned a lot about the country i did a paper on. there was also an economics credit for a spring break field trip to germany which i really regret not doing.
A good friend of mine from the suburbs graduated high school a year early so he wouldn't have to delay further his lifelong dream of becoming a farmer. Anyone knowledgeable in agricultural psychology would know that this is because he was insane.
Ethics of this aside
I would suggest the first thing that YOU should do (not your folks, who are feeling financially pressured, not your brother who is presumably 18) is go look at the fine print on the whole 'extra financial aid' thing. Is it time-bombed in any way? Can he switch majors safely without some admin coming after him with a chainsaw? They're trying to work a scam; considering the whole college financing scam, I can't say I look down on them for it. However, the first thing to do is to make sure the scam will work.
After that, what LB and D^2 said with bonus emphasis and modification: if he's going to Average American U. he's got his two years of general edumecation requirements to get out of the way. That will eat up lots of hours. Throw in Macro and Micro and he should have very few hours left over. Therefore he shouldn't take any Econ courses beyond the minimum.
Many technical degrees require Macro and/or Micro so it's safe to take those, and the GenEd requirements likely mandate a 'social science' course anyways, so at worst, he's out one elective. The tech degrees (including various econ-type BS degrees) will require Calc (& friends) at a minimum, so he should fill the holes remaining with those and perhaps Stat (not 'Stat for Morons'). Once he's done all that, he's positioned to shift majors to just about anything, and it's nigh-perfect for a math major.
In two years or so, he can make the decision about his major when he knows what the hell it is he's tryin' to do. At worst, he decides his post-grad plan is to move to lower Slobovia and form a commune for oppressed transexuals so he wants to major in Gender Studies. Even then, he can then convert the math courses into a minor (maybe ditto with the econ).
Any econ courses beyond the minimum are likely going to be wasted hours unless he does decide to get an econ degree, and it's likely that any of the ones he can take will be a big pile of wank. He might, for instance, decide to major in a technical field, and then fill the elective hole with a second major in History or something, at which point those extra hours go in the toilet along with the money, possibly rendering the entire exercise pointless. (Also, as far as I can tell, a BA in Econ has approximately the worst bang for the buck in academia: 'Me only study the opinion-based parts of economics because math R hard. Me pay extra money to go back to school to get accounting cert afterwards.')
As far as the getting him interested part, does anyone have any advice on getting himi interested in the subject
It's a bit late to be doing this (see 'making this scam work' above), however, if you just gave him 5K and told him he had to invest it (in Vanguard!) and that it was his spending money for the next two years, I guarantee you he would become intensely interested in economics. This might not be feasible ( in economics. This might not be feasible (
m, if he ain't interested in money, he won't be interested in economics
IME, classes like Environmental/Natural Resources Econ were interesting because they delved into the economics of policies like timber management, air pollution, etc. And what Dsquared said. A couple semesters of math isn't going to kill him.
Whoopsie. It ate part of it. Nuke the previous, would ya'll?
Ethics of this aside
I would suggest the first thing that YOU should do (not your folks, who are feeling financially pressured, not your brother who is presumably 18) is go look at the fine print on the whole 'extra financial aid' thing. Is it time-bombed in any way? Can he switch majors safely without some admin coming after him with a chainsaw? They're trying to work a scam; considering the whole college financing scam, I can't say I look down on them for it. However, the first thing to do is to make sure the scam will work.
After that, what LB and D^2 said with bonus emphasis and modification: if he's going to Average American U. he's got his two years of general edumecation requirements to get out of the way. That will eat up lots of hours. Throw in Macro and Micro and he should have very few hours left over. Therefore he shouldn't take any Econ courses beyond the minimum.
Many technical degrees require Macro and/or Micro so it's safe to take those, and the GenEd requirements likely mandate a 'social science' course anyways, so at worst, he's out one elective. The tech degrees (including various econ-type BS degrees) will require Calc (& friends) at a minimum, so he should fill the holes remaining with those and perhaps Stat (not 'Stat for Morons'). Once he's done all that, he's positioned to shift majors to just about anything, and it's nigh-perfect for a math major.
In two years or so, he can make the decision about his major when he knows what the hell it is he's tryin' to do. At worst, he decides his post-grad plan is to move to lower Slobovia and form a commune for oppressed transexuals so he wants to major in Gender Studies. Even then, he can then convert the math courses into a minor (maybe ditto with the econ).
Any econ courses beyond the minimum are likely going to be wasted hours unless he does decide to get an econ degree, and it's likely that any of the ones he can take will be a big pile of wank. He might, for instance, decide to major in a technical field, and then fill the elective hole with a second major in History or something, at which point those extra hours go in the toilet along with the money, possibly rendering the entire exercise pointless. (Also, as far as I can tell, a BA in Econ has approximately the worst bang for the buck in academia: 'Me only study the opinion-based parts of economics because math R hard. Me pay extra money to go back to school to get accounting cert afterwards.')
As far as the getting him interested part, does anyone have any advice on getting himi interested in the subject
It's a bit late to be doing this (see 'making this scam work' above), however, if you just gave him 5K and told him he had to invest it (in Vanguard!) and that it was his spending money for the next two years, I guarantee you he would become intensely interested in economics. This might not be feasible (deadpan), so you can play the game with monopoly money. Say, older sis challenges young punk to a game of 'stock market', and tells him she's totally going to kick his ass. Loser has to do something awful and humiliating. (Rules: everybody starts with an imaginary 10K and they can invest it, hold it or whatnot, in any kind of public offering (CDs, bonds, stocks, whatever). Every transaction has to be written down and a running imaginary balance kept for the time period of the game.) This is a better game to play with a 12-year-old but 18 works.
m, if he ain't interested in money, he won't be interested in economics
Wait a minute, does your brother actually listen to you?
as long as all I do is quibble about restrictive clauses
You might choose a pseud such as 'grammarbitch' or 'ben w-lfs-n.'
Interesting, max.
How about a "pre-law" type curriculum? Could that be compatible with an econ major?
My university didn't have pre-law tracks that I was aware of, but this one might.
"Pre-law" majors are a waste of time, but to the extent that one can define pre-law as those courses teaching concepts that underlie the entire 1L curriculum as taught today or that law schools offer to remediate gaping holes in the education of humanities undergrads, it closely tracks an economics major: accounting, statistical methods, economics of law, etc.
a BA in Econ has approximately the worst bang for the buck in academia
This is ever so true.
113: Human Development in the Human Ecology school is basically developmental psychology. Three of the seven undergraduate colleges at Cornell are public; it's not just the Ag school.
Heh, 118a/120a seems to be a good point. If there's strong financial incentive to major in economics, presumably they care about the number of graduates in that major, not the number of filled seats in 100-level classes. Maybe the extra financial aid doesn't actually amount to very much or maybe the college assumes that most people who try economics will stay there or something. But if the college wants graduates with economics majors, are you sure it's easy to switch out in two years?
111, that is exactly what I am studying, and if I'm going to spend the rest of my life bitter I would like to know about it. Elaborate, please.
It looks like you're already bitter.
Self-fulfilling prophecy?
This comment belonged in this thread.
From a long time econ prof: For getting him interested, anything by Schelling. Not Freakonomics. As people above have mentioned, instructors matter a lot. I highly recommend taking game theory even if he ends up not majoring in economics as it pervades a lot of academic disciplines and is horribly badly understood in the popular press and in general conversation, yet is extremely useful. Environmental can be a great course. Statistics, like game theory, is useful in everyday life. As is finance. I'd not recommend history of thought or economic history as they are usually taught by old guys who haven't done anything for decades. (Yes, there are notable exceptions, but not at the average university.) It's much more exciting to study from someone who is doing cutting edge research -- even if it isn't relevant to the rest of your life -- you get to see how research progresses in real life. Also recommend that he seek out research assistant positions. (In any discipline, not just economics.) Again, it is a good way to get a feel for how research progresses and can be quite interesting if you choose the professor well.
usually taught by old guys who haven't done anything for decades
in fairness, this means they haven't done anything stupid for decades. Much if not most cutting edge research in economics is quite likely to be subtracting from the sum of human knowledge. I also disagree that gaining a proper understanding of game theory will help with anything, on the basis that if something's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
I also disagree that gaining a proper understanding of game theory will help with anything, on the basis that if something's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well.
The one thing it will help with is dissecting the game theory based arguments other people are trying to make. With a proper understanding of it, you should be able to comfortably say what it isn't any good for. The same goes for economics as a whole, of course.
Dsquared explains some of his game theory hating here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/11/29/reputations-are-made-of/
This is also funny:
I am bitter because I read this texbook on my own:
http://www.amazon.com/Games-Information-Introduction-Game-Theory/dp/0631210954
I later found out that the author is an anti-gay nut bag.
D^2, you ought to write an anti-text. Radek says that Keen's is crap, so there's a niche for you.
Radek is wrong on that count (and a few others).
The one thing it will help with is dissecting the game theory based arguments other people are trying to make.
Not really, as it doesn't take much training to say "that is a wildly silly way to model this phenomenon, and since you are obviously arguing in the direction of a prior conclusion anyway, why don't we talk about that".
I am writing a game theory post for CT at the moment ...
You know who's hilarious? Tax protesters.
U.S. Marshal Steve Monier acknowledged Wednesday that waiting out the Browns could take months, but he said time was on authorities' side. He said he hoped prison would seem like an agreeable option for the Browns after a summer without air conditioning and possibly a winter without heat.
Uh, how about the year without food angle?
Perhaps they take the license-plate injunction to 'Live Free or Die' seriously.
People with no experience of New England often assume that Vermont and New Hampshire are basically the same. Stories like this are very useful in illustrating key differences.
Why don't they go in and arrest them the way they do drug dealers?
(Rhetorical question.)
how about the year without food angle?
Wouldn't surprise me if this wasn't a problem. Likely also an "Armageddon is just around the corner" type.
One thing I don't get about New England is how Vermont and New Hampshire wound up so different. You don't see this with other states. Minnesota is liberal, but so is Wisconsin and the nearby part of the North Dakota. I mean, it is like you have Berkeley and Salt Lake City as adjacent neighborhoods, or something.
(Guns, butter) = (milk, cookies)..made me laugh, at least. But I certainly regret not doing quantitative methods. In the future, being able to understand statistics will be as important as being able to read is now, as HG Wells said.
Niall Ferguson? Well, I actually did take courses in the history of the British Empire, and such is his superficial wankiness that we never even touched on his "work". Dsquared tells me that his writings on the history of banks are highly regarded, but the rest tells you more about his intense emotional attachment to banks and specifically the money in them.
I don't think that the N.D / MN comparison works any more. N.D. is pretty strongly Republican throughout, including Fargo. The neighboring area of MN where I live is about 53/47 Republican. (ND is even more Scandinavian than MN, BTW).
The comparison did work up until about 1940-1950, with the Populists. The ND Dem party is hyphenated from a merger too, like the DFL: DNPL for Democratic-Nonpartisan League.
Degree of urbanization probably mostly explains MN-WS-IA-ND-SD voting patterns.
Good econ reads (and in my opinion, enough to get anyone amped about economics):
+ Henry Hazlett's Economics in One Lesson:
http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf
+ F.A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom:
http://www.atlasusa.org/reports/Road_to_Serfdom_condensed.pdf