TestMagic

ClosureinMoscow · 2009 July 8th, 09:30 PM

Heres my profile:

Undergrad Institution: Small LAC (Well Ranked in Midwest)
Undergrad GPA: 4.0/4.0
GRE: 780Q 540V
Math Courses: Calc I-III, Stats I & II, Diff EQ, Intro to Probability, Linear Algebra (All done by mid December this year)
Econ Courses: Intermediate Micro & Macro, econometrics, public, labor, international, developing
letter of reference: 1 Stanford, 1 University of Illinois, 1 New School
Research Exp: none
Teaching: TA for Macroecon one semester. Employed in Economics Tutoring Lab.

This upcoming fall semester will commence my senior year at my LAC. I was wondering, since I am not crunched for credits, if I should perhaps enroll in a graduate course at Iowa State for the fall? I was thinking of enrolling in one of the following courses:

Schedule of Classes

ECON 500- Quantitative Methods
ECON 501- Microeconomics
ECON 502- Macroeconomics

I believe it says these are "masters" level courses but the courses above them, I.E. Quantitative Methods II, require ECON 500 as a prereq. IA state is a 30 minute drive...would one of these courses be worth taking?

Note: Staying back at my LAC and taking more math such as Real Analysis is not an option (not offered). Next semester I am already enrolling in Calc III, Dif Eq, and Intro to Probability. I've contemplated adding a 4th math class (Mathematical Reasoning-Proofs), but it just seemed like it would be too much.

Any advice?

Thanks!

nat_resource · 2009 July 8th, 09:51 PM

I certainly think a grad level micro course would be a good feather in your cap.

walt526 · 2009 July 9th, 10:39 AM

I agree that of those three grad course, a graduate level micro class will give you the most bang-for-your-buck depending on what text it uses (some adcoms will want you to include that on your supplemental app). It's unlikely that it's MWG, but if it uses Varian's grad micro text, then it will be regarded as superior to something like Nicholson (which is really more an advanced undergrad text than a true grad text).

That being said, Calc III, DE's, and Intro to Probability (assuming it's an upper-division stat theory course, not a lower-division Stat 1 or whatever) is going to be a lot of work. You could find Intro to Proofs or whatever to be a very challenging course depending on the instructor/department (anecdotally, these seem to vary greatly).

At my school, the Intro to Formal Math is widely considered to be more difficult in some ways than Real Analysis. The math department uses it as a screening tool and as something that supposedly does a good job at setting up Algebra and Analysis. Frankly, for the course to be worthwhile, it should kick your butt. I'd talk to some Math majors and try to gauge how tough the course is.

But regardless, taking 4 maths plus the graduate level micro (with a commute) would be a lot. If you did well in Calc II, Calc III should be a piece of cake and DE's isn't that difficult, just very time-consuming and mind-numbingly dull. Probability could be a challenge if it's an upper-division theory. Finally, keep in mind that applying to 6-12 grad schools can be a lot of work and many have deadlines in mid-December (right during finals). As much stuff as you're planning on getting down before the Fall semester starts, there will invariably be unexpected complications that will require your immediate attention (missing letter of reference, transcript, etc). If you're going 110% on courses, not only will you be miserable, but there's a good chance that something will slip through the cracks.

ClosureinMoscow · 2009 July 9th, 08:21 PM

Do you think ECON 500- Quantitative Methods of ECON Analysis, would help?

walt526 · 2009 July 10th, 03:13 AM

Well here are the two catalog descriptions of the courses:

Econ 500. Quantitative Methods in Economic Analysis I. (4-0) critical reasoning. 4. F.Prereq: 301, 1 year of calculus, Stat 401, and permission of Director of Graduate Education. Economic applications of selected mathematical and statistical concepts: linear models and matrix algebra; differential calculus and optimization; integral calculus and economic dynamics; probability distributions, estimation, and hypothesis testing in the analysis of economic data.
Econ 501. Microeconomics. (4-0) critical reasoning. 4. F.Prereq: 301, credit or enrollment in 500 or equivalent background in calculus and statistics. The theory of the consumer, theory of the firm, perfect and imperfect competition, welfare economics, and selected topics in general equilibrium and uncertainty. This is a Master's level course.

It depends a lot on which texts the two courses use, both in terms of sending a signal to adcoms and the utility in preparing you for doctoral-level study. I checked the IA State bookstore and they don't have the info for the two courses yet, but if you emailed the department or instructor they could probably tell you which one they intend to use (or just wait for the bookstore to update the website).

For 500, the text is probably either Chiang or Simon/Blume. If its Chiang, then I wouldn't expect to get a lot out of it (it's really just a review of lower-division math). Simon/Blume is widely respected as the standard math refresher text and even the review chapters are written at a higher level than Chiang and it does a much, much more thorough job at introducing optimization. The class that I took last fall (MA in Economics) used Simon/Blume, but I bought a cheap international copy of Chiang as a reference (although, in retrospect reading it was mostly a waste of time).

For 501, the text is probably either Nicholson or Varian's Microeconomic Analysis (Varian also has a popular Intermediate Micro text, which is why I'm specifying the title). As I said before, I think that adcoms will be more impressed if you can claim that you successfully navigate Varian than Nicholson. While Varian is less rigorous than MWG, it does a much better at setting up the topic for future study than Nicholson. My program used Nicholson and I was really disappointed with it (I didn't think that it was that much more complicated than the text that I had used in my intermediate micro class as an undergraduate: Perloff's calculus-based version). Halfway through the course I took out Varian from the library and relied mostly on it and wind up writing an email (very polite) to the professor explaining why I thought it would have been a better choice than Nicholson.

Here would be my suggestion in terms of usefulness for future study and sending a signal to adcoms:
- If the choice is 500 with Simon/Blume vs 501 with Varian, I'd go with 501.
- If the choice is 500 with Simon/Blume vs 501 with Nicholson, I'd go with 500.
- If the choice is 500 with Chiang vs 501 with Varian, I'd go with 501.
- If the choice is 500 with Chiang vs 501 with Nicholson, I'd go with 501.

But the last element to consider is "fun." As good as Simon/Blume is, quantitative methods is nowhere near as enjoyable to study as microeconomic theory. Believe me, you'll get more than enough dose of boring computational math from DE's. Given that you're already taking a pretty heavy math load, it's not an inconsequential consideration to opt for something a little bit more engaging. And depending on how tough or recent your intermediate micro class was, Nicholson might be a worthwhile refresher. If you've taken Calc II and Linear Algebra, at least the first third of 500 will be review (and you'll probably be covering vector and multivariable calculus in your Calc III class), so really the only new/fun stuff in 500 would be constrained optimization--which you'll touch on in the Microeconomics class even with Nicholson.

So at the end of the day, I'd pick the Microeconomics course.

NB888 · 2009 July 10th, 07:49 AM

If I were in that situation it would come down to my own cautious prediction regarding how many of those courses I could take and still do well in them. This might be a case where your chance of doing well in graduate micro in fall 2009 is lower than what it will be if you take such a course after taking all the math you have planned for the upcoming year. Personally I would only ask to take a grad level econ course as an undergrad if I've tried out some of the problems in the textbook assigned and am convinced that they're not beyond my current skills.

Econ 500 will probably have some overlap with courses you have taken or are taking. Not sure if there's much value added by taking that. A PhD program in which you end up would probably have their own course like that. So, if you take Econ 500 this fall, there might be cases where you are taught the same math three times. That is fine, but it might not be all that valuable either.

2009 July 8th, 09:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
ClosureinMoscow Eager! Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 32	Schedule for Next Fall- Graduate Courses at IA State-Help! Heres my profile: Undergrad Institution: Small LAC (Well Ranked in Midwest) Undergrad GPA: 4.0/4.0 GRE: 780Q 540V Math Courses: Calc I-III, Stats I & II, Diff EQ, Intro to Probability, Linear Algebra (All done by mid December this year) Econ Courses: Intermediate Micro & Macro, econometrics, public, labor, international, developing letter of reference: 1 Stanford, 1 University of Illinois, 1 New School Research Exp: none Teaching: TA for Macroecon one semester. Employed in Economics Tutoring Lab. This upcoming fall semester will commence my senior year at my LAC. I was wondering, since I am not crunched for credits, if I should perhaps enroll in a graduate course at Iowa State for the fall? I was thinking of enrolling in one of the following courses: Schedule of Classes ECON 500- Quantitative Methods ECON 501- Microeconomics ECON 502- Macroeconomics I believe it says these are "masters" level courses but the courses above them, I.E. Quantitative Methods II, require ECON 500 as a prereq. IA state is a 30 minute drive...would one of these courses be worth taking? Note: Staying back at my LAC and taking more math such as Real Analysis is not an option (not offered). Next semester I am already enrolling in Calc III, Dif Eq, and Intro to Probability. I've contemplated adding a 4th math class (Mathematical Reasoning-Proofs), but it just seemed like it would be too much. Any advice? Thanks!

2009 July 10th, 03:13 AM	#5 (permalink)
walt526 TestMagic Guru Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,308	Well here are the two catalog descriptions of the courses: Econ 500. Quantitative Methods in Economic Analysis I. (4-0) critical reasoning. 4. F.Prereq: 301, 1 year of calculus, Stat 401, and permission of Director of Graduate Education. Economic applications of selected mathematical and statistical concepts: linear models and matrix algebra; differential calculus and optimization; integral calculus and economic dynamics; probability distributions, estimation, and hypothesis testing in the analysis of economic data. Econ 501. Microeconomics. (4-0) critical reasoning. 4. F.Prereq: 301, credit or enrollment in 500 or equivalent background in calculus and statistics. The theory of the consumer, theory of the firm, perfect and imperfect competition, welfare economics, and selected topics in general equilibrium and uncertainty. This is a Master's level course. It depends a lot on which texts the two courses use, both in terms of sending a signal to adcoms and the utility in preparing you for doctoral-level study. I checked the IA State bookstore and they don't have the info for the two courses yet, but if you emailed the department or instructor they could probably tell you which one they intend to use (or just wait for the bookstore to update the website). For 500, the text is probably either Chiang or Simon/Blume. If its Chiang, then I wouldn't expect to get a lot out of it (it's really just a review of lower-division math). Simon/Blume is widely respected as the standard math refresher text and even the review chapters are written at a higher level than Chiang and it does a much, much more thorough job at introducing optimization. The class that I took last fall (MA in Economics) used Simon/Blume, but I bought a cheap international copy of Chiang as a reference (although, in retrospect reading it was mostly a waste of time). For 501, the text is probably either Nicholson or Varian's Microeconomic Analysis (Varian also has a popular Intermediate Micro text, which is why I'm specifying the title). As I said before, I think that adcoms will be more impressed if you can claim that you successfully navigate Varian than Nicholson. While Varian is less rigorous than MWG, it does a much better at setting up the topic for future study than Nicholson. My program used Nicholson and I was really disappointed with it (I didn't think that it was that much more complicated than the text that I had used in my intermediate micro class as an undergraduate: Perloff's calculus-based version). Halfway through the course I took out Varian from the library and relied mostly on it and wind up writing an email (very polite) to the professor explaining why I thought it would have been a better choice than Nicholson. Here would be my suggestion in terms of usefulness for future study and sending a signal to adcoms: - If the choice is 500 with Simon/Blume vs 501 with Varian, I'd go with 501. - If the choice is 500 with Simon/Blume vs 501 with Nicholson, I'd go with 500. - If the choice is 500 with Chiang vs 501 with Varian, I'd go with 501. - If the choice is 500 with Chiang vs 501 with Nicholson, I'd go with 501. But the last element to consider is "fun." As good as Simon/Blume is, quantitative methods is nowhere near as enjoyable to study as microeconomic theory. Believe me, you'll get more than enough dose of boring computational math from DE's. Given that you're already taking a pretty heavy math load, it's not an inconsequential consideration to opt for something a little bit more engaging. And depending on how tough or recent your intermediate micro class was, Nicholson might be a worthwhile refresher. If you've taken Calc II and Linear Algebra, at least the first third of 500 will be review (and you'll probably be covering vector and multivariable calculus in your Calc III class), so really the only new/fun stuff in 500 would be constrained optimization--which you'll touch on in the Microeconomics class even with Nicholson. So at the end of the day, I'd pick the Microeconomics course.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009 July 8th, 09:51 PM	#2 (permalink)
nat_resource Hiding from work Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: California Posts: 59	I certainly think a grad level micro course would be a good feather in your cap.

2009 July 9th, 10:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
walt526 TestMagic Guru Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,308	I agree that of those three grad course, a graduate level micro class will give you the most bang-for-your-buck depending on what text it uses (some adcoms will want you to include that on your supplemental app). It's unlikely that it's MWG, but if it uses Varian's grad micro text, then it will be regarded as superior to something like Nicholson (which is really more an advanced undergrad text than a true grad text). That being said, Calc III, DE's, and Intro to Probability (assuming it's an upper-division stat theory course, not a lower-division Stat 1 or whatever) is going to be a lot of work. You could find Intro to Proofs or whatever to be a very challenging course depending on the instructor/department (anecdotally, these seem to vary greatly). At my school, the Intro to Formal Math is widely considered to be more difficult in some ways than Real Analysis. The math department uses it as a screening tool and as something that supposedly does a good job at setting up Algebra and Analysis. Frankly, for the course to be worthwhile, it should kick your butt. I'd talk to some Math majors and try to gauge how tough the course is. But regardless, taking 4 maths plus the graduate level micro (with a commute) would be a lot. If you did well in Calc II, Calc III should be a piece of cake and DE's isn't that difficult, just very time-consuming and mind-numbingly dull. Probability could be a challenge if it's an upper-division theory. Finally, keep in mind that applying to 6-12 grad schools can be a lot of work and many have deadlines in mid-December (right during finals). As much stuff as you're planning on getting down before the Fall semester starts, there will invariably be unexpected complications that will require your immediate attention (missing letter of reference, transcript, etc). If you're going 110% on courses, not only will you be miserable, but there's a good chance that something will slip through the cracks.

2009 July 9th, 08:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
ClosureinMoscow Eager! Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 32	Do you think ECON 500- Quantitative Methods of ECON Analysis, would help?

2009 July 10th, 07:49 AM	#6 (permalink)
NB888 Within my grasp! Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 108	If I were in that situation it would come down to my own cautious prediction regarding how many of those courses I could take and still do well in them. This might be a case where your chance of doing well in graduate micro in fall 2009 is lower than what it will be if you take such a course after taking all the math you have planned for the upcoming year. Personally I would only ask to take a grad level econ course as an undergrad if I've tried out some of the problems in the textbook assigned and am convinced that they're not beyond my current skills. Econ 500 will probably have some overlap with courses you have taken or are taking. Not sure if there's much value added by taking that. A PhD program in which you end up would probably have their own course like that. So, if you take Econ 500 this fall, there might be cases where you are taught the same math three times. That is fine, but it might not be all that valuable either.

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests