What's up with ECO204

[nameh]

Here's the thing, we have our first midterm on Friday. I have yet to fall behind ; I've been doing my homework, going to lectures, taking notes, etc... for the past two months. I really feel like I understand the material, but I am really worried for a couple of reasons: first of all, the midterm is made up of 4 questions, and is out of a total of 200 marks. That alone scares the living daylight out of me. Secondly, the prof really scares me, lol.

Hes' probably one of the best profs at UofT (best I have ever had) and has a great reputation, but I don't know what to expect.

Question is for anyone who's taken the course: how did you prepare mentally going into the first midterm? Did you underestimate/overestimate how difficult the midterm was going to be? and finally, how did you find the course to be overall??

[globalc]

is this one very pompous, full of himself Lee Bailey?

class averages are generally poor with lots of droppers

[nameh]

lol...actually its ajaz Hussain, wonderful prof.

[nameh]

any one ???:lol:

[HeatEquation]

It's economics - how hard can it be?

[nameh]

intermediate micro is actually not that easy, at least the way its taught at UofT. It's math intensive, and a deep understanding of calculus is required. It's simply one proof after another.

[HeatEquation]

intermediate micro is actually not that easy, at least the way its taught at UofT. It's math intensive, and a deep understanding of calculus is required. It's simply one proof after another.

Give some examples. I'd love to see some of the "proofs" performed in an econ class.

[the_messiah]

simple.

prove walras law. that is for example, in a two good world, that pxX +pyY = W

now this is a basic budget constraint, which is a basic proof, in econ standard. I will not type it out, but here is a link to the proof.

remember, this is one of the EASIER proofs in Micro. Proofs in Econometrics are a completely different story, and completely different level of rigour.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/mbar/ECON605/Walras%20Law.pdf

so just because youve taken a first yr level of econ dont think econ is a fluff.

[nameh]

econ includes plenty of proofs, the majority of which students don't see first hand because formulas are spoon fed to them. I happen to have a prof who feels that understanding underlying proofs is important to understanding major theories in microeconomics. Granted, the proofs aren't excruciatingly difficult, but just because so many profs recklessly overlook them, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Micro deals heavily with calculus. Some profs chose to teach the course through a more mathematical approach, and some (I wold say most) rely on graphical analysis and try as best as they can to ignore the calculus involved, and yes, the proofs that come with calculus.

Micro also deals heavily with stats, and with that comes plenty of proofs. Again most profs ignore them, but I am fortunate that my prof doesn't.

And oh yah, am not talking about an introductory micro course. More like intermediate, and advanced 2nd, 3rd and 4rth year courses.

It's amazing how clueless some are about economics. I have to admit, I always thought economics was about counting the unemployed, and calculating GDP. lol, It's actually a complex fact driven social science, that relies on MATHEMATICAL PROOFS. Problem is profs try to make it as easy a possible, and overlook so many important details.

[nameh]

simple.

prove walras law. that is for example, in a two good world, that pxX +pyY = W

now this is a basic budget constraint, which is a basic proof, in econ standard. I will not type it out, but here is a link to the proof.

remember, this is one of the EASIER proofs in Micro. Proofs in Econometrics are a completely different story, and completely different level of rigour.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/mbar/ECON605/Walras%20Law.pdf

so just because youve taken a first yr level of econ dont think econ is a fluff.
lol, thanks. I am planning on taking econometrics next year..can't wait :lol: ....

[HeatEquation]

simple.

prove walras law. that is for example, in a two good world, that pxX +pyY = W

now this is a basic budget constraint, which is a basic proof, in econ standard. I will not type it out, but here is a link to the proof.

remember, this is one of the EASIER proofs in Micro. Proofs in Econometrics are a completely different story, and completely different level of rigour.

http://bss.sfsu.edu/mbar/ECON605/Walras%20Law.pdf

so just because youve taken a first yr level of econ dont think econ is a fluff.

lol in what year is that taught in economics?

The underlying mathematics of "Walras' law" from the look of it is nothing more than what's taught in the first half of an intro honors linear algebra course - minus the rigor.

[HeatEquation]

econ includes plenty of proofs, the majority of which students don't see first hand because formulas are spoon fed to them. I happen to have a prof who feels that understanding underlying proofs is important to understanding major theories in microeconomics. Granted, the proofs aren't excruciatingly difficult, but just because so many profs recklessly overlook them, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Micro deals heavily with calculus. Some profs chose to teach the course through a more mathematical approach, and some (I wold say most) rely on graphical analysis and try as best as they can to ignore the calculus involved, and yes, the proofs that come with calculus.

Micro also deals heavily with stats, and with that comes plenty of proofs. Again most profs ignore them, but I am fortunate that my prof doesn't.

And oh yah, am not talking about an introductory micro course. More like intermediate, and advanced 2nd, 3rd and 4rth year courses.

It's amazing how clueless some are about economics. I have to admit, I always thought economics was about counting the unemployed, and calculating GDP. lol, It's actually a complex fact driven social science, that relies on MATHEMATICAL PROOFS. Problem is profs try to make it as easy a possible, and overlook so many important details.

Being a math student, I disagree with just about everything you wrote.

The "mathematical proofs" in economics are nothing more than watered down demonstrations of theorems formulated by people (economists) who had a poor understanding of mathematics to begin with - hence why they decided that modelling human behavior with math would be a good idea.

You haven't seen rigorous proofs until you've taken an advanced linear algebra course or Real Analysis.

As for your final point, economics isn't like mathematics at all. In math, barring mistakes, each step is true and indisputable and can therefore be accepted, and forgotten, and you can move on, and others can do the same, using previous results without question. This can't be done with a soft science science like econ. This is because of the flaw in the axioms on which the theorems of economics are based - IE the rational behavior of consumers, being one of many.

[the_messiah]

ughhh, just by your arrogant response you are probly a math/stats/physics major correct?

I agree with you, it is not that tough thats why I said its a basic proof
. Never did I say it was difficult. But implying that economics is easy is just ignorant.


Its a highly quantitative field (at the upper level undergrad/graduate/phd), and its no surprise that those who succeed in top econ Phd programs have a pretty good quant background. But again, those with only quant backgrounds (math/statistics/physics) lack the intuitiveness AND writing skills for econ, and in the end, struggle to go forward.

Thats what makes econ so special, you got be quantitatively inclined like an engineer/math/stats major, but also be able to write papers like an english major.


Clearly I am biased for econ as im doing my Phd in it, but at the same time you got respect any discipline thats not just quantitatively rigourous.

I bet neither you or me would be able to survive in philosophy upper yr courses, with the amount of readings and papers required to complete coursework.

So essentially, stop bashing other majors that arent math related, every major has its niche which makes it difficult.

[quantifinance]

Being a math student, I disagree with just about everything you wrote.

The "mathematical proofs" in economics are nothing more than watered down demonstrations of theorems formulated by people (economists) who had a poor understanding of mathematics to begin with - hence why they decided that modelling human behavior with math would be a good idea.

You haven't seen rigorous proofs until you've taken an advanced linear algebra course or Real Analysis.

As for your final point, economics isn't like mathematics at all. In math, barring mistakes, each step is true and indisputable and can therefore be accepted, and forgotten, and you can move on, and others can do the same, using previous results without question. This can't be done with a soft science science like econ. This is because of the flaw in the axioms on which the theorems of economics are based - IE the rational behavior of consumers, being one of many.

I do agree with what you say mostly..but upper year econ courses are quite mathematical. Especially for masters/phd economics program, you really do need a background in mathematics which proves that econ = quantitative. You should also know that..a lot of quants do have PhD in economics.

Also...the level of difficulty of each school for that particular department is very very different. maybe your school, 'york university'.. has crappy economics department as well as crappy 'mathematics' department?..Maybe the easiness of the school made you so arrogant =D haha

[HeatEquation]

ughhh, just by your arrogant response you are probly a math/stats/physics major correct?

I agree with you, it is not that tough thats why I said its a basic proof
. Never did I say it was difficult. But implying that economics is easy is just ignorant.


Its a highly quantitative field (at the upper level undergrad/graduate/phd), and its no surprise that those who succeed in top econ Phd programs have a pretty good quant background. But again, those with only quant backgrounds (math/statistics/physics) lack the intuitiveness AND writing skills for econ, and in the end, struggle to go forward.

Thats what makes econ so special, you got be quantitatively inclined like an engineer/math/stats major, but also be able to write papers like an english major.


Clearly I am biased for econ as im doing my Phd in it, but at the same time you got respect any discipline thats not just quantitatively rigourous.

I bet neither you or me would be able to survive in philosophy upper yr courses, with the amount of readings and papers required to complete coursework.

So essentially, stop bashing other majors that arent math related, every major has its niche which makes it difficult.

lol @ writing skills.

My "writing skills" are superb as demonstrated by this thread. :)

Econ PhD is a different story. But a lot of econ PhD students come from a quantitative background (and no, undergrad econ doesn't qualify).

Confirm.

[HeatEquation]

Also...the level of difficulty of each school for that particular department is very very different. maybe your school, 'york university'.. has crappy economics department as well as crappy 'mathematics' department?..Maybe the easiness of the school made you so arrogant =D haha

Quantify that.

[BornRuff]

Being a math student, I disagree with just about everything you wrote.

The "mathematical proofs" in economics are nothing more than watered down demonstrations of theorems formulated by people (economists) who had a poor understanding of mathematics to begin with - hence why they decided that modelling human behavior with math would be a good idea.

You haven't seen rigorous proofs until you've taken an advanced linear algebra course or Real Analysis.

As for your final point, economics isn't like mathematics at all. In math, barring mistakes, each step is true and indisputable and can therefore be accepted, and forgotten, and you can move on, and others can do the same, using previous results without question. This can't be done with a soft science science like econ. This is because of the flaw in the axioms on which the theorems of economics are based - IE the rational behavior of consumers, being one of many.

Obviously a degree specifically focused on math is more math intensive than an economics degree. I don't think that needed to be pointed out.

Economics can be extremely intensive in math and statistics, especially at higher levels. Have you ever seen the things macro economists are doing these days? It really isn't a debate, it's just a fact.

Again, it is obviously different than purely academic math, but it still draws heavily from that field. Economists just make the jump to trying to apply things to the real world. Working on purely academic stuff is only really worthwhile to a point.

[the_messiah]

Quantify that.

awwwww man you a york math major? lololol

When I saw your arrogance I thought at least you went to a top math program, but york? lol

you're like a lakehead business student claiming to become an investment banker because you're in business hahahahahhaha

[HeatEquation]

awwwww man you a york math major? lololol

When I saw your arrogance I thought at least you went to a top math program, but york? lol

you're like a lakehead business student claiming to become an investment banker because you're in business hahahahahhaha

Why must you continue to prove that economics majors are illogical individuals?

Quantify "top program." This is an order. Provide us with a metric that compares math programs between different universities in Canada. Clearly Waterloo would be #1, but your report should specify exactly how much better Waterloo's program is better than that of other universities, for your illogical claim to be of any substance. Do it now.

Additionally, what kind of tool thinks that undergrad carries so much weight? My education won't culminate with an undergrad degree - I'm going to continue graduate studies in my field (a field which is exponentially more challenging than economics.) My grades up to this point (and my work experience) are good enough to get me into a "top graduate program."

PS, your "writing skills" are atrocious for someone who claims that economists are suppose to be literary geniuses compared to hard science/math majors.

[HeatEquation]

Obviously a degree specifically focused on math is more math intensive than an economics degree. I don't think that needed to be pointed out.

Economics can be extremely intensive in math and statistics, especially at higher levels. Have you ever seen the things macro economists are doing these days? It really isn't a debate, it's just a fact.

Again, it is obviously different than purely academic math, but it still draws heavily from that field. Economists just make the jump to trying to apply things to the real world. Working on purely academic stuff is only really worthwhile to a point.

Actually I own "Advanced Macroeconomics" by Romer - a book that's used in graduate programs. The math required to understand what's going on is nothing more than simple optimization and intro multivariable calculus.

As I said before, I acknowledge that at the PhD level, it gets more quantitative. At that point, the problem becomes that it's too quantitative for a social science. Economics is not physics, regardless of how much it tries to imitate it with regards to its models. I would be hesitant to say that "Economists just make the jump to trying to apply things to the real world" as you put it, given that their axioms are not based on reality. People do not behave rationally, despite the hopes of economists. In physics for example, the subjects that are being modeled are not being influenced by the modelers, but by nature. In economics, you'll always have exogenous factors that randomly affect the interactions consumers and businesses, and sometimes, economic agents act in herds, and their behavior diverges from the accepted axioms - at which point, using those models becomes counterintuitive.