sartre

Linear algebra is one of the necessary courses for getting into a graduate economics program, but at what level ought the course be? I'm currently taking a lower division linear algebra course in which we are using Anton's Elementary Linear Algebra. Amazon.com: Elementary Linear Algebra: Howard Anton: Books Is this course sufficient, or should I take another upper division linear algebra course? For the upper division course, the most commonly used book is Friedberg, Insel & Spence, Linear Algebra, 4th edition, with some teachers using Sheldon Axler, Linear Algebra Done Right. Amazon.com: Linear Algebra (4th Edition): Stephen H. Friedberg, Arnold J. Insel, Lawrence E. Spence: Books Amazon.com: Linear Algebra Done Right: Sheldon Axler: Books

That definition of religion, as others have pointed out, is impotent. What you might mean to point to is dogma, and the economics profession can certainly be dogmatic, as can pretty much any academic discipline. I think that economics attains religious qualities--my background almost automatically makes that a pejorative term--very clearly on shows like CNBC's Kudlow and Company, where basic supply-side mantras are mindlessly repeated and there's constant reference to Adam Smith, as if he was Jesus. But that quality isn't inherent to religion anyway--religion just provides a handy analogy. I see it all the time in internet communities ranging from fans of Green Day to body building to college admissions forums (I'm referring to collegeconfidential here, haha).

The lecture ended after 30 minutes...were you not watching the timer or looking at the clock? Regardless, I thought it was very interesting and thank you for posting that (and exposing me to Yahoo Research, there's some pretty interesting stuff on that website). It doesn't matter whether you find repugnance persuasive or not. Economics as science must figure out how to make markets work given the constraints of reality, and repugnance as it is discussed, is a constraint, whether it manifests itself through social norms or through legislation. If you want to talk about economics as ideology, then you're free to discuss whether repugnance ought to be a constraint on market design or not.

physicsforums.com I'm not too sure how much real analysis help one could get from there since most of the posters seem to be pretty young. There a couple older posters though--I think one has a PhD in math.

Some of you keep talking about whites/non-whites? What does being white have do with being an American? I'm an American, but I'm non-white. Just because my parents were born in India doesn't mean that I'm any less American than any "white" people, and just like anyone heading for a graduate degree, I probably have better English skills than the average "white" person.

In what courses is measure theory usually covered? Upper division probability courses?

I was wondering what level most undergrad intermediate theory and econometrics classes are taught at in terms of mathematics. My school (a UC) offers two versions of those courses, one that just required 1 year (single variable calculus) and another for students looking towards grad school, which requires single variable calc, multi variable, and a 1 semester diffeq and linear algebra class.

I'm in a similar situation, and based on what I've read here, for the content of the stat major at my school (berkeley), Statistics seems like a better option than Math. But it depends on the content of the majors at your school. for me, the applied math major requires: Real Analysis Numerical Analysis Complex Analysis Abstract Algebra Linear Algebra (upper division version in addition to lower division version) three mathemathical econ courses The statistics major has a lot more flexibility. I have to take: Some computation with data course Probability Statistics and I can choose to take: Game Theory Stochastic Processes Time Series and three mathematical econ courses. Since all the core classes for the stat major are recommended, it seems like a better idea to go with statistics and just take analysis as an elective. Again, it depends on the content (and flexibility) of the majors at your school.

Is knowledge of real analysis necessary in EME classes, in the way it is for PhD classes?

[won't let me delete]

You all probably have more experience in the field than I, but I get the sense that while mainstream economics might not be partisan in a conventional political sense, one can hardly deny the inherent premises in economic theory that might feed into other ideological premises. I cringe when people mention the "scientific" "objectivity" of the field. While its true that many ideas can garner validity experimentally, a lot of new research gets incorporated into the field without the potential of modifying its existential structure. Ultimately, the foundations of microeconomics are simply models to help us understand social realities. But I see people use these models as primary tools to explain reality, a process through which aberrations from these models lose the ability to better or make more accurate the models in any profound way. I'm not trying to argue that this method is necessarily bad, but just that it's pretty masturbatory to talk about economics the way we talk about hard sciences like physics. Economics provides us with powerful tools, and we have a responsibility to use these tools judiciously. Perhaps, if we want to be viewed as a science, we ought not mind the political consequences of our findings, but at the very least we ought to mind the implications that the very basis of our science has on society. After all, while complete objectivity can be claimed in neither physics nor economics, its far more sensical to argue that our assumptions in economics can be subjected to a deal of relativity, whereas to argue that in in physics requires delving into a far deeper philosophical conundrum.

How would you compare Financial Engineering programs to Masters in Economics programs for those who wanter to enter the financial industry? I would guess that MFE graduates take quant sales and trading jobs, whereas MS Econ graduates take the same general analyst positions that undergraduates take. Is this incorrect?

If I'm not looking to enter academia, but instead want to do policy work or maybe some private sector work, does the MSc from LSE (both the Econ and the EME one) open a lot of doors? What about Master's degree's in general, including those in the US?