Grad Macro Vs. Undergraduate Math

[genericname]

Hi everyone,

I am planning on applying next cycle for fall 2011 programs. I'll post my complete profile later. For now I just have ANOTHER one of those "which course to take" type of questions.

This coming fall, my schedule looks like:

Grad Micro
Grad Math. Econ
Advanced Calc
Probability
Topology - (auditing for the 1st half of the semester)

I've already had a probability class that I did fairly well in. I've also already taken and done well in an intro. to real analysis course that covered similar material to the course that people were recommending that ASULeadTrumpet take. (Don't have the link of the thread but he/she asked about an advanced calc course and another higher level course)

What does everyone think about taking grad macro instead of the probability class?

[AppliedEcon]

I think it's a good idea if you have already had a probability class (it had statistics in it, as well, right?). Assuming you do well, it shows the adcoms that you are capable of grad level material. However, make sure you are willing and able to handle that course load as it already seems tough. Others may know more about this than I do, but maybe you should replace topology with grad macro instead of probability. I'm not sure how helpful it will be in grad school, but I could be mistaken.

[genericname]

Thanks for the reply,

The probability class didn't have statistics, but I have taken a stats class as well as an econometrics class. I basically took a two course sequence of prob. and stats, and I was planning on taking another two course sequence of more advanced courses. That was the plan initially before I considered grad macro.

Yes, the difficulty of the course load is something I've been thinking about. As far as replacing topology instead, I'm only planning on sitting in on the topology class for half the semester. I looked at a previous semester's syllabus and only the material in the first half looks somewhat interesting.

I was only considering replacing probability or advanced calc. and out of those if I had to get rid of one, it would be probability. I'm back and forth about trying to take all 5, but I think it might be too overwhelming.

[AppliedEcon]

As you will already be taking two other graduate courses, you may want to stick with your current schedule. Taking a graduate level course is only beneficial if you do well. You could try to get some research experience in if you are worried about not having a strong enough background. I don't know what your spring schedule will be, but that could be another opportunity to get a graduate course in.

[Hammer456]

Don't drop probability. That class is very very important and will be useful in the future. I would skip topology if you want to change one of your classes.

[claphands]

did your previous probability course involve calculus? if so, then maybe you don't need the one you're taking now. otherwise I'd take it

[_nanashi]

Unless you have a particular love for Macro, I wouldn't advise taking graduate Macro ( I love macro).

The major reason is that there is no standard topics for a first semester course in Macroeconomics, and the courses are highly personal. Anyone in a Macro program will eventually expect to learn Time Macroeconomic modeling Series, 4 to 8 different ways of Discrete and Continuous time Dynamic Progamming. However, there is no particular sequence that people will see this stuff in. The actual economic topics vary entirely teacher to teacher. So much that I'm reapeating a secon semester course that I've taken next year, simply because a different professor is teaching and his approach to teaching is very different. The teacher I had this term covered Keynesian and New Keynesian economics from Romer, the professor next year covers papers written in the last 20 years and uses Dynamic Programming.


What does this all mean for you?
1. As a signal Graduate Macro is less valuable than Micro simply because Micro is standardized. There are more or less 4 texts that most schools use. Top 1-30 will all use Mas Collell and supplement with a easier text
2. Top 30 down will use a Mixture of Mas Collell and Varian or substitute Varian with a book like Jehle Reneye, or Kreps.
3. Nearly all first semester Microcourses will cover Consumer, Producer Theory or Both.
This means that Micro is very evaluatable school to school. The same is true of a first semester Econometrics course which will focus on OLS, GLS, and maybe get to GMM Estimators. Again there are two or three common books (Greene, being most common at lower ranked schools)


1. An introduction to topology course is fairly valuable in my opinion. I took my first Analysis course this term, after I had taken PhD micro. I happned to take Real Analysis II before I took 1 simply because the teacher focused on Multivariate Analysis (Limits, Continuity, Differentiability, and introduction GEneral topology) instead of single variable. Now I'm studying for quals and rereading Varian and acually starting to see what theorems are drawn from Analysis.

2. I think taking additional probability courses are valuable. It will help you directly with econometrics. Even though I'm doing theory, I wish my fluency in statistics was better. I wouldn't discount the value of taking as much lower level statistics as possible. 95% of economics research. ( all private sector, nearly all government jobs, most research done at lower ranked universities) is applied economics. What does applied mean, it means not theory, and econometrics is the central to the paper. So what does that mean? After your first two years of course work (even the first year) courses like Econometrics and Probability are going to be 10 times more valuable, then having an thorough knownledge o pure mathematics (though that will certainly make coursework and deepen understanding of literature)

[Charis]

Considering everyone else taking those three grad courses would be just taking those three grad courses I think realistically speaking if you at all want to take all three you'd better drop both probability and topology from your to do list since doing well in them takes priority over everything else, and by everything else I also mean doing well in advanced calc. Also, you may or may not have already calculated this in, but also include in your time constraint considerations that you'll be busy filling out a ton of apps too. All in all, considering some people's input about the relative usefulness of grad macro considering you'll already be signaling your ability to take grad level classes with grad micro, I wouldn't do it, but I'm highly risk aversion.

[genericname]

Thanks for the responses everyone,

I think I'll keep my schedule as it is in the 1st post.

[A'ight]

Unless you have a particular love for Macro, I wouldn't advise taking graduate Macro ( I love macro).

The major reason is that there is no standard topics for a first semester course in Macroeconomics, and the courses are highly personal.

SAY WHAT?

I never understood why everyone and their mother thinks that the standardization of grad micro and the diversity of grad macro classes imply that the former is better to take than the latter while an undergrad. Yes, it means that grad micro is a more reliable signal, and if the only reason you ever do anything in undergrad is to signal to grad schools how smart you are, then sure, the decision is clear. But the diversity of macro classes means that taking grad macro twice will make you learn more than taking grad micro twice (I repeat: learn more). Is it such a bad thing if your professor in graduate school teaches macro differently than the professor at your undergraduate institution, and you thereby get two different perspectives? That strikes me as a feature, not a bug. Saying otherwise, as everyone here seems to, strikes me as anti-intellectual.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of taking grad micro while an undergrad, both as a signal and for practice/reinforcement. But I don't think the decision between grad micro vs. grad macro is as clear as everyone makes it out to be.

(Granted, Nanashi did make the caveat, "unless you have a particular love for Macro," so it's possible we're in more agreement than I thought, but still, what she said is said so often on these forums, often without any such caveat, with the contrary position never being said, as far as I know, that I felt I had to get this off my chest regardless!)