Is there such a thing as less math-intensive programs?

[Legatus]

Open up the top journals in any subject and you'll find that math is the language of economics. While math per se isn't a substitute for thinking about economics, we communicate our results with mathematical models. Now since that is the reality, why would you want to enter a program that isn't set up to push you to learn the level of math required to enter the discussion. I once had a prof tell me that you can't enter the room without the mathematics, but once you're inside the math takes a back seat to the economics.

You have your whole career to decide what school (heterodox or orthodox) you want to make your contributions in, so why shut yourself out of the mainstream before you even get started. Also, remember that those best poised to bring down the orthodoxy are usually from the inside.

[fp3690]

Originally Posted by Diplomer

Just a question about the very definition of heterodox economics. What about all these heterogenous agent models and "econphysics"? If I am not wrong, they count to heterodox economic models as well, don't they? If so, this stuff is even more mathematical than standard economics. A reason might be that it is normally done by mathematicians and physicists.

Heterogeneous agents models is nothing but heterodox, it's found in macro all the time. Homogeneity of agents is just a convenience.

[tangsiuje]

Unless you're specializing in theory, I have a hard time seeing how math skills would really be an obstacle to anything but admission. Sure, it might potentially help you getting through the first-year core material but what you really need to know in terms of maths for that is just a few results which are applied over and over again (Kakutani fixed point theorem anyone?). At the end, doing economics is all about generating brilliant ideas. Look at Donaldson, for example. He's a star, how mathematical is his work?

[SquareSquare]

Two points, as I understand grad programs:
1. Non top-20(50) are significantly less math-intensive. You'll do math, but you won't be expected to do very advanced stuff.
2. After the comps, your math intensiveness depends on chosen field. Experimental economics is not that math intensive. Development is fairly straightforward math. Maybe labour economics...

[unitroot]

Originally Posted by saltwatersally

Are there any non top-20 programs that have slightly less focus on math or are less math-intensive? I thought I recalled reading on this topic about a year ago....

It seem that work in many applied subjects is not very technical. Specially, when it involves reduced form econometric models. A lot of applied research is basically about finding a good data set for your questions and running canned econometric analysis routines. Of course, you still need to know enough math to do well in the first year theory courses and pass the prelims. If that worries you, I would suggest to consider applying to agricultural and applied economics PhD programs at the universities with top 50 economics departments. Those programs often drop the macroeconomics requirements, some even teach their own econometrics and micro theory courses.

[davejohn]

it would be nice to see a paper that demonstrates that increased complexity of mathematics has turned out more useful results.

the most recent models of the economy were very useful, until we realised that we left out the banking sector!

[Gecko]

economic history is not too mathematical also, haha.

[Explorer]

Economists need to integrate qualitative methods into their research if they are to come up with any useful result to the real world. Economists are not guilt-free as far as all the economic turmoil out there.

[TruDog]

Originally Posted by Explorer

Economists need to integrate qualitative methods into their research if they are to come up with any useful result to the real world.

There is some use for qualitative methods in economic models, namely in developing research questions or designing quantitative surveys. 'Mixed methods' has its (limited) place in economics.

Originally Posted by Explorer

Economists are not guilt-free as far as all the economic turmoil out there.

What most economists do is entirely unrelated to the economic turmoil. Sociologists and other qualitatively minded folks often confuse monetary econ/finance with macro theory and the vast universe of microeconomists. Only a small subset of the universe of economists deals with applied macro.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by TruDog

Only a small subset of the universe of economists deals with applied macro.

Precisely!