Anyone else here studying economics at uni? I'm in my second year now, and to be honest I'm having a bit of trouble keeping motivated through day after day of watching my lecturers/tutors doing high school calculus, throwing in a few different pronumerals like K and L, and pretending like they are actually investigating economics.
Anyway, feel free to have your own rant about tertiary (or secondary for the younger ones in here) economics.
I'm an econ major set to graduate in December. I'm really sick of all the math.
I'm an econ major and have the same problem. I feel like if I had a chance to just get a degree without having to take the classes, I would take it. The only useful thing I'm learning is the jargon of the econ field.
I really feel for you guys, I´m not an economics grad student(will be going for an M.Ed next year and maybe an M.Phil later on), but I was thinking about it for awhile and all the math and the realization that most of what I would be taught would be things I knew to be false led me to dismiss that degree as a viable option.
Still, guys like you are essential to the Austrian "movement" as such. Economics is such an insular discipline that criticism from outsiders seems to be like tossing water onto a duck. Only you, the guys who have been in the trenches and graduated can truly transform the discipline.
von Vodka: I feel like if I had a chance to just get a degree without having to take the classes, I would take it.
I think that's the case for many. I've no doubt that upon graduation I'll use nothing I'm using, but unfortunately in the current situation degrees act as an essentially cost-free way for businesses to differentiate job candidates, so not being too keen on learning a trade, I'm stuck either staying in uni or working as a lifeguard for the rest of my life.
EinarFridgeirs:I really feel for you guys, I´m not an economics grad student
Well I'm only an undergrad myself, but I'm sure any problems I have are merely amplified at the grad level.
EinarFridgeirs:I was thinking about it for awhile and all the math and the realization that most of what I would be taught would be things I knew to be false led me to dismiss that degree as a viable option.
Personally I think it's more the latter. I'd probably rather just be studying the maths I'm doing as straight maths. My problem is less with maths than it is with the implication the maths I am doing has any relevance to economics.
EinarFridgeirs:Still, guys like you are essential to the Austrian "movement" as such. Economics is such an insular discipline that criticism from outsiders seems to be like tossing water onto a duck. Only you, the guys who have been in the trenches and graduated can truly transform the discipline.
Fair point, but it seems to be a common line of thought amongst Austrians (and a pretty reasonable one in my opinion) that the path to 'success' isn't through infiltrating the mainstream, but providing an alternative to those who haven't spent years being indoctrinated by and even more years defending something we see as wrong.
Like you I'm an economics student and I don't know, I really enjoy my course. Perhaps we have very different universities, but I find that in spite of the math (which there really isn't that much of at the undergraduate level) the economics is still about the economic way of thinking and the like. I find a lot of the micro to be very interesting, especially the stuff on auction theory, game theory and experimental and behavioural economics. This is still my second year, I'm expecting it to get better in the next two years when I have more freedom in the classes that I choose.
I agree that macro can be a bit dull and a lot of the theory I do seems very contrived, but other than that I really enjoy all my classes.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
That's what brought me to AE. I hated math................not because I hate math............but because math is not economics. Anyways I learned a lot of stuff.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
You are missing the point of the whole "experience". That is to be like Bernanke or Greenspan you have to do all sorts of crazy mathematics. Make predictions exactly in line with what politicians, financiers and the like expect. And then with a straight face sit there with every prediction failing, you just make more of them. The secret is the straight face. This path is not easy. You have to ignore the logic in the science of Micro-Economics and instead focus on giving people information they want to hear. Then when wrong you blame someone else. Lets examine some recent Federal Reserve Chairman remarks paraphrased by me:
1. There is no housing bubble.
2. There is stress in the housing and lending markets but that won't affect the economy at large.
3. The failure of these lending institutions will not cause unemployment to rise.
4. If we buy up these toxic assets then we will not have unemployment go above 8%.
5. The economy is not yet recovering but we see green shoots out there.
6. The economy is recovering but it is a jobless recovery.
The only consistent thing about these is that they were all completely wrong.
And the blamed:
1. Chinese savers.
2. Icelanders.
3. Free Markets.
4. Under Regulation.
5. Chinese currency value.
6. P.I.G.S in the EU.
Very interesting. Thank you for the info.
Bogart: You are missing the point of the whole "experience". That is to be like Bernanke or Greenspan you have to do all sorts of crazy mathematics. Make predictions exactly in line with what politicians, financiers and the like expect. And then with a straight face sit there with every prediction failing, you just make more of them. The secret is the straight face. This path is not easy. You have to ignore the logic in the science of Micro-Economics and instead focus on giving people information they want to hear. Then when wrong you blame someone else. Lets examine some recent Federal Reserve Chairman remarks paraphrased by me: 1. There is no housing bubble. 2. There is stress in the housing and lending markets but that won't affect the economy at large. 3. The failure of these lending institutions will not cause unemployment to rise. 4. If we buy up these toxic assets then we will not have unemployment go above 8%. 5. The economy is not yet recovering but we see green shoots out there. 6. The economy is recovering but it is a jobless recovery. The only consistent thing about these is that they were all completely wrong. And the blamed: 1. Chinese savers. 2. Icelanders. 3. Free Markets. 4. Under Regulation. 5. Chinese currency value. 6. P.I.G.S in the EU.
I'm studying these kinf of things and I untersand you. Now I have to know about a PS-WS-MR and NAIRU model (whith maths) and it's a problem because it's not explained in a way you can prove with calculus and without asking about accounting things. Nation treatment, and everything else. I think is interesting but a problem at the time you have to make an exam. I think it could be a big social problem if this kind of methodology rules in all of the academic programs the next 5 years.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
I've heard many of the same complaints in regards to Economics at the university level and upon registering for Econ101 I expected mostly misinformation. To my surprise a few weeks into the semester my professor brought each of us a copy of a Mises.org article discussing Fannie and Freddie and provided us all with links to the bailout reader. It was a pleasant experience but still didn't make lessons on market externalities or government intervention any easier to sit through.
P.I.G.S? Why are you separing with points?? UE? Nice way to call these countries, S.I.G.P.? By the way, what are you talking about?
socialdtk:To my surprise a few weeks into the semester my professor brought each of us a copy of a Mises.org article discussing Fannie and Freddie and provided us all with links to the bailout reader. It was a pleasant experience but still didn't make lessons on market externalities or government intervention any easier to sit through.
Wait, what? lol.
But she's not an Austrian? Or is - but still teaches the same tripe?
Conza88: Wait, what? lol. But he's not an Austrian? Or is - but still teaches the same tripe?
But he's not an Austrian? Or is - but still teaches the same tripe?
She teaches what she is required to teach while at the same time reminding students that there are competing theories. I don't think she would stay employed very long if each and every student that took economics under her left an anarchist.
socialdtk: She teaches what she is required to teach while at the same time reminding students that there are competing theories. I don't think she would stay employed very long if each and every student that took economics under her left an anarchist.
Well anarchism is political philosophy. What about if her students left as followers of the Austrian School of Economics?
Never mind - I know the answer. ;p
socialdtk:It was a pleasant experience but still didn't make lessons on market externalities or government intervention any easier to sit through.
What was bad about them? Or are you not interested in them?
My teacher's specialization was in quantitative models.
I did hate those regressions and calculus stuff so bad.
He, obviously, did not see a bubble until it bursted.
scineram:What was bad about them? Or are you not interested in them?
I'm in my senior year at Laval, I've actually enjoyed my stay. The school actually has a separate program for "mathematical economists" and while I'm very good at math, I'm glad I didn't go into it. I think the school is making a big mistake starting students off with principles but, apart from econometrics and environmental economics (as well as some aspects of price theory), I've enjoyed most of my classes.
I'm a Mathematical-Eco major about to graduate in May. The math really sucks, and all of my professors are hardcore socialists (the eco chair is a Neo-Marxist/Post-Keynesian).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."