My 1.5 cents:
From what I understand, the analysis is helpful to formalize rigor in proof theory, etc. Epsilon/delta arguments, dealing with sequences/series, and understanding basic topological ideas like open/closed balls, etc come in handy in the heavy proof courses. For some people this may come naturally, but for us mere mortals it is difficult to pick these things up as econ phd courses tend to move quickly. Keep in mind that this is second hand info, and that I have yet to take a PhD level econ course (all my grad work is in math).
I have also heard that some top 50-30 schools will accept people without real analysis in the hope that they can pick up the ideas as they move along (placing the student in an uphill battle from the start).
With all of this said, I would suggest taking RA even if it comes too late for the admissions process. I really don't believe a person can be over-prepared in mathematics. The best voices on this subject are those already in programs. Zavera, Ramlau?, Snappy, etc
hope this is somewhat helpful, or at least entertaining.
Roger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gredow
this is the situation i am in. do you think that in the space of 11 months i can take cal. 2-3, linear algebra & analysis? (while working the whole time)
|
With all do respect, 11 months is impossible. This may be possible in 3-4 semesters, however, depending on your universities prerequisites. In my program, linear requires cal III , and analysis requires cal III and a introductory proof course called foundations of mathematics or possibly discrete math.
Roger