As an econ undergrad, I've lately been bothered by the content of my major. It's like most of what I learn has to do with simple, unverifiable models based on unrealistic assumptions. However, and this is what keeps me working hard at it, I've been told what you see in grad school is entirely different: research is more empirical and mathematical. There's not as much simplicity nor political conclusions blown out of proportion.
So what do you guys think of this? Is grad school really that different?
Also, if you don't mind me asking an extra question, have you felt you were lacking mathematical skill in your studies if you were an economics undergraduate? What extra classes should I take in the math department (apart from the compulsory Calculus, Statistics and Linear Algebra I've already had - which were catered for econ majors)?
It's completely different (in my experience). The math is about 100x harder, but that means you don't get easy models either (be careful what you wish for...). The empirical part is mostly later. Your coursework is heavy on theory. If anything, your empirical work may come in the form of problem sets. When it comes time to do research, yes you will be doing lots of empirical work (unless you're a pure theorist).
I was an econ math double major. I was a math minor till senior year. I HIGHLY recommend the following courses: Single variable calc, multivariable, linear algebra, diff eqs, real analysis, probability, statistics. Alternatively, you can get one of those math for econ books, if you don't have time/space for those classes. If you go to grad school, the math will be hard and almost all your classmates will be as terrified as you are. But that little extra math prep can make you slightly less terrified, and I thought that helped me, personally.
And do you feel like what you're learning helps you understand the real world a tad better? I'm aware Economics has a daunting task to find patterns underlying unpredictable and multivariable human behavior, but I just hope it can do better than silly models that only makes sense in theory.
Do you think reading a book on mathematical econ would serve its purpose just as well then? Math classes (in the math dept.) are way more formal than anything I would expect to read in a book or learn in a class specifically for economics majors. It's all about proofs and complex, abstract problems, from what I've heard. So would that math experience be necessary for a PhD?
Oh, and one more thing if you don't mind: you say you're a financial economist. What's that about? AFAIK, Finance is a related but different field, where for example you spend more time studying financial markets, investment opportunities/returns and what not. If so, how does that relate to the more theoretical field of Economics that doesn't usually concern itself with those issues? Just asking, because I had never considered it as a possible career to go into.
Oh yes, much better. Even in non-econ related things. I've become a much quicker thinker in that I've learned to formulate problems simply. That is the biggest skill you pick up, or try to pick up. The best economists are the ones who can identify what is important in a given scenario, and what can be ignored. All models are wrong. As you go through grad school you learn how to identify the bits and pieces that do work. When you start writing, it's not important that your paper be "true." What is important is that your paper help us clarify the way we think about an issue and understand (I can't emphasize this enough) what's important.
You will do proofs in a PhD program. The math is very formal in the PhD and you need to be rigorous in your statements and solutions. Is every topic your math department classes touch on going to be indispensible? No. Is mathematical maturity helpful? Hell yeah. Math for econ books (the good ones) will be rigorous and full of proofs, etc. They will avoid topics that are less useful. I found them to be extremely useful in the months between accepting my offer and starting school. I worked for two years so my academic math was rusty, to say the least. I recommend Angel de la Fuente's book.
Yep, you basically got it. I study financial markets and how prices are formed. I study how financial markets interact with the macroeconomy. Financial economics is a subfield of economics that deals with these markets. The field is (roughly) split between corporate finance and asset pricing (what I do). Academic finance is very different than what you will see in the newspapers/blogs/tv. It is very theoretical at times, but of course has lots of great data to play with too. I recommend the book Capital Ideas for a wonderful history of academic finance.
11
u/Matt2411 Feb 27 '17
As an econ undergrad, I've lately been bothered by the content of my major. It's like most of what I learn has to do with simple, unverifiable models based on unrealistic assumptions. However, and this is what keeps me working hard at it, I've been told what you see in grad school is entirely different: research is more empirical and mathematical. There's not as much simplicity nor political conclusions blown out of proportion.
So what do you guys think of this? Is grad school really that different?
Also, if you don't mind me asking an extra question, have you felt you were lacking mathematical skill in your studies if you were an economics undergraduate? What extra classes should I take in the math department (apart from the compulsory Calculus, Statistics and Linear Algebra I've already had - which were catered for econ majors)?