YoungEconomist

Ok, that makes sense. Ok. Makes sense. Wouldn't the masters in econ potentially have it's benefits over an MBA in some respects? Like in a finance job, it'd be helpful to understand how to run regressions (even if you didn't do it yourself, it'd be helpful when analyzing someone else's). What about a masters in econ and an MBA? I find this kind of hard to believe. Intelligence should help one get ahead and get the kind of results that help one get promoted. Seems like intellect and the ability to put in long hours would be a key component of obtaining success in the business world.

Add very little what? Signaling? Wouldn't getting into a PhD program and taking very rigorous courses send a very strong signal? Also, it's funny you say that about MBAs because economists tend to believe that MBAs are mainly about signaling (because supposedly they don't learn anything).

Pics? Just playing :p You start your PhD program in the fall right? If she's moving with you, then she could take important undergrad courses and apply during your second year for the same PhD program. Or if your school has a masters, maybe she can start next year (or the year after).

Interesting, I'll try to read it later. I think it's funny he just says macroeconomists, because I think you could say the same thing about many economists (antitrust, development, etc).

What about signaling?

Economists try to act like engineers all the time. I think it is very appropriate to analogize economics to engineering (and many economists have done so). We're constantly thinking we can intervene and make markets better. Implement this tax, subsidy, law, etc... Economists as a whole are often social engineers, or some have even said policy doctors.

Very good son. Now you are officially an economist. :D

Possibly. I think you said it was the main factor, right? One could just as easily say, "To pass off any person's rejection from a top school or slight deficiency in profile to just not being intelligent enough is, I feel, short-sighted." I'm not saying that intelligence is unimportant, because we all know it is. I'm just saying that I think it often gets overemphasized and there's so many other important factors in being successful at anything. Some students go out 3 - 4 nights a week. Other students study or relax on Friday and Saturday night. Some students skim through material the night before a test. Other students push themselves hard the few days before and really try to understand the material. Some study 30 hours a week, while other study 60. If you don't think that these sort of differences are common, then I think you haven't hung out with a wage enough range of students. Do you really think TMers are that much more intelligent than college students as a whole? Maybe we are, but it seems to me that most TMers are successful because they're driven and have foresight (so they find out what classes they need to take to get ahead, work on getting solid LORs, etc) and I imagine most TMers work pretty hard (putting in the hours, being focused when studying, etc) and making sacrifices (not partying too much, not drinking too often, etc).

Is that very compelling though? I can think of plenty of arguments that explain why SAT tutoring has a limited effect on scores that don't have a lot to do with intelligence. By the way, I'm not saying intelligence doesn't play a role because it surely does. What I'm saying is that I think economists (for some strange reason) think it's more important than it truly is.

I think that's what we call presumption. How do you know that grades, GRE, and LORs are not factored largely on work ethic or passion or efficiency or...?

Don't med schools have fairly low attrition rates? I'm not saying attrition rates are the by-all-end-all of rigor, but when I hear that law school is tough and that over 99% of people who start law school finish, I have a hard time believing it's that difficult. Thoughts?

http://www.aae.wisc.edu/aae320/Micellaneous/What%20it%20takes%20to%20be%20great.pdf

I skimmed through real quick (will read the whole thing later). I hope they're not right about sleep. That's the one thing I don't want to compromise, because I'm really ineffective when I'm tired.

Sorry for missing that. :D Thanks to everyone for all the comments.

I meant in "typical" years. Obviously. Tell me something I don't know. :)

As many of us get ready to begin our first year of PhD studies, the pressure of prelims is constantly in the back of our minds. I'm wondering what private sector jobs are available to those of us who fail prelims and are forced to leave with a Masters in Econ and no work experience? I'm particularly interested in hearing about jobs that relate to finance.

Thank you very much!

You might be correct about my definition of practical being narrow, but could you explain what you mean a little bit more? Are you saying it's narrow because I usually think of practicality as related to policy or business? If so, what other practical outlets are there for economics?

I think Wilmott makes many great points. This is not a hard science and our ability to understand the real world in detailed ways is severely limited. I think this is most clear in the policy area, where we often don't have consensus on the effects of many policies. Or in policy areas where we think a tax or subsidy is useful, but we can't quantify the size. I'm reminded of the general equilibrium theorists and large number of economists who thought that socialism was ideal because we could use economic theory to set price equal to marginal cost. On a related note, many economists seem more interested in showing off their technical skills (whether theoretically or empirically) rather than being relevant to the real world. Unfortunately, there seems to be a large incentive to play this game, because that's mainly how academic economists get promoted. It's also sad that there seems to be a lack of practical use for our knowledge. Our ability to provide useful advice in the policy area or business world seems pretty limited. P.S. Here's a Wilmott blog article related to the one the OP posted: Paul Wilmott's Blog: Results and Ideas: Two classical putdowns

This is an awesome podcast I wanted to share with you guys. It's about David Levine and Michele Boldrin's book on Intellectual Property. Boldrin on Intellectual Property | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

I'm confused what you're saying. Maybe I'm confused because I haven't really been following this thread. Why is gender irrelevant in economics? We find gender differences with respect to wages, educational attainment, fields of study, desired occupations, etc. I think we also find differences within academic economics in terms of tenure. Now, there are many perspectives on why we observe these differences (discrimination, child rearing, etc.), but nevertheless there are differences and I'm confused why you're saying we should ignore them.

The word "macho" doesn't really come to mind when I think of the economics profession. :hmm:

The Economic Way of Thinking by Paul Heyne. Great intro textbook!

LOL! Glad I'm not the only poker player on this site. :D

True. We shouldn't. Keep in mind though, that the point of economics is to understand the real world (see my signature). True. But if you lack the ability to help businesses increase profit, this might be indicative of how well you understand the real world (i.e. how useful our theories and tools are). I'm not saying it's a bad thing if economists fail to work on more consulting projects. They should do whatever they want with their time.