This whole process is absurd.

[thepeedler]

I think its amusing that it seems like I am the only one that has some faith in the field of Econ, and I dont even have an econ background! I have plenty of faith that the admission process is in fact a meritocracy. After all, adcoms are looking at 20 page packets of info for each person (letters of rec, essays, scores, awards, writing samples, classes, grades). Even placements are just more indication of how well the screening process is working.

It might be an opinion that its sad that most people at Harvard and MIT havent read famous old books, but its like saying its sad that physics students dont read Newton, Feynman, or Einstein. Sure those are important works, but they've been updated, streamlined, and rewritten now in much better forms. And I am guessing that if pretty much all the econ departments stress math, then there is a good reason for it. And not getting into a top school does not mean you wont do some amazing research later in life, but it probably does reduce the likelihood. Sorry.

I hate to be the one flinging the sour grapes here, but the original post just seems to be a bunch of complaining. Unless you are happy to work/live in isolation like that guy who solved fermat's last theorem, you should probably get used to marketing yourself and your ideas.

[kimbanator]

I think its amusing that it seems like I am the only one that has some faith in the field of Econ, and I dont even have an econ background!

Well, that says a lot right there, doesn't it?

[MorgieLilly]

Even placements are just more indication of how well the screening process is working.

And I am guessing that if pretty much all the econ departments stress math, then there is a good reason for it.

This kind of thinking is what the OP is complaining about. Just because something is popular doesn't make it better. I'm not saying it's not better in this case...I'm undecided. But I don't like your logic.

[thepeedler]

Well, that says a lot right there, doesn't it?

Yeah, maybe next year I'll come back here and post something like "what was I thinking going to econ grad school! its awful! All we do is play golf, drink whiskey, and count our money down at the country club!"

[Team3]

I don't think the OP's comments are worth dismissing outright.

After you hang around the planet for a while, you'll find that many (perhaps a majority) of people suffer from extensive focus on personal career progression to the detriment of actual work. Essentially, social recognition becomes a substitute for self-defined/intrinsic value as a measure of psychological worthiness. This is not unique to any singular profession and tends to be a characteristic of herd-oriented animals.

My advice is to understand that you'll find this just about wherever you go, not to let it affect your outlook or behavior, and to adjust your decision-making accordingly. A certain amount of internal compass is valuable to this end.

[Gerter]

I think its amusing that it seems like I am the only one that has some faith in the field of Econ, and I dont even have an econ background! I have plenty of faith that the admission process is in fact a meritocracy. After all, adcoms are looking at 20 page packets of info for each person (letters of rec, essays, scores, awards, writing samples, classes, grades). Even placements are just more indication of how well the screening process is working.

That might be because placements are decided by the same group of people as admissions.

[thepeedler]

This kind of thinking is what the OP is complaining about. Just because something is popular doesn't make it better. I'm not saying it's not better in this case...I'm undecided. But I don't like your logic.

Sure, just because everyone thinks something doesnt make it so. So yes, being skeptical is good. But is the group consensus more likely to be correct or incorrect? I would lean towards correct. I would just say that if all econ programs stress math, you might as well assume there is a good reason for it.

[Noise]

Unless you are happy to work/live in isolation like that guy who solved fermat's last theorem, you should probably get used to marketing yourself and your ideas.

Perhaps you are thinking of Perelman, but he proved the Poincare conjecture. Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's last theorem and neither lives nor works in isolation.

[eigenman]

After you hang around the planet for a while, you'll find that many (perhaps a majority) of people suffer from extensive focus on personal career progression to the detriment of actual work.

Private vices, public virtues, etc

The trick is to implement institutional structures that harness rather than misdirect ambition, right? So maybe you could argue that we have bad institutional design in academic economics. But I don't think it's worthwhile criticizing ambition, because it's unlikely that anyone will be able to jawbone it away.

[thepeedler]

Perhaps you are thinking of Perelman, but he proved the Poincare conjecture. Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's last theorem and neither lives nor works in isolation.

My bad I just remember some picture of a haggard looking guy living in his mom's apartment solving some crazy math problem.