Pure Math, Applied Math or Stats

[zaiva]

One question I have:

 

Beside Economic Major or any other major in any other field, which one from these is the best overall preparation for a Phd in economics.

 

1) Pure mathematics

2) Applied Mathematics

3) Statistics

 

 

P.s:

Thanks a lot for the information and help you guys gave me in my previous thread.

[user_name]

One question I have:

 

Beside Economic Major or any other major in any other field, which one from these is the best overall preparation for a Phd in economics.

 

1) Pure mathematics

2) Applied Mathematics

3) Statistics

 

 

P.s:

Thanks a lot for the information and help you guys gave me in my previous thread.

 

The best preparation would be a combination of all three, in which applied mathematics (calculus, linear algebra, linear programming, etc.) probably features most prominently. I would lump statistics and applied mathematics together, because statistics is just an extremely applicable branch of mathematics.

 

The line between pure and applied math isn't clearly defined, especially with respect to their applicabilities in economics. What I mean is that the most important thing you learn from a pure math class (except for Real Analysis) is how to prove a theorem, but some instructors have the tendency to turn every math classes (even applied ones) into proof-based classes. If that's the case, there's no reason to take, say, Algebraic Geometry, for the sole purpose of learning proving skills because you can learn that as well as some other useful stuff from a course in, say, Linear Programming.

[jahizbarlas]

if you want to do more applied work, go for stats obviously.

theoretical? then pure.

in general though, to pass the first yr, you need a nice combo of all.

[maths_bonn]

The question seems to be: what do u think is applied maths and what is pure m. I.e. in Bonn, Functional Anaylsis is counted as an applied maths subject, but there are other schools in germany that count it as a pure subject.

I hve the feeling that applied maths in US terms means, that u don't proof anything in these courses...Is this assumption correct. If so, then every math education in germany for example would be pure for the biggest part, even if u do numerical analysis for example.

So I would say, learn how to do proofs pretty early in your education, because there are countries where this is just normal (and I think the former SovietUnion countries have the best education in this field), and it'll be a lot esier to do if u learn the "How to proof this or how to proof that" as early as possible.

[zaiva]

I know I won't have the requirements to enter a top 20 school for phd in econ.

 

I asked at my University (I'm in Canada) and they told me they will give me a second degree in math ( Pure, Applied or Stats ) if I do 2 more years in that field (66 credits.. they will credit me the rest... ). Altought, it won't be an Honors degree.

 

Basically, with 2 more years, I would have 2 Undergrad degrees.

 

It will not be a B.sc but a B.A in math.

Also, the courses at my university are the same between B.A and B.sc.

 

Do you think it is worth to do these 2 extra years... Will it open me some closed doors at top 20 ( and why not, top 10 ) universities.

 

I think it would help, but there is some kind of long opportunity cost there.

 

Anyway, thanks for information.

[zaiva]

Also, the courses at my university are the same between B.A and B.sc.

 

Correction: For the math department, other departments, I don't think so.

[zaiva]

well no answer for that?

 

2 years for an extra undergrad degree.... worth it or not?

 

or maybe would it be a better idea to get into a masters econ, and after re-apply for top 20 schools.

 

what do you think.