badasseconomist

Oh Humanomics, that is utterly wrong! There is a field called Theoretical Physics where they develop models mathematically. Ever heard of string theory, QFT? they use heavy amount of algebraic geometry and topology, lie theory, representation theory, functional analysis and a bunch of other stuff having frightening names lol. Physics is not all about Linear Algebra, Calculus & DEs, in fact not even engineering is - at a higher level. Take a look at this book for example - Lectures on Advanced Mathematical Methods for Physicists: Sunil Mukhi,N. Mukunda: 9789814299732: Amazon.com: Books It uses all the frightening stuffs I mentioned above, and more. But, you are right - physics or economics or business, they are basically observations, but if it is only observation it is not 100% science, it needs to be theorized at some point and the theory needs to be experimented eventually to prove its validity. If it's going to be pure observation then science would not have developed after Aristotle's Metaphysics.

That's one fine analogy there, it's really hard to believe, but I assume that's how it is since a lot of weight seems to be on math...Real Analysis. But the way I see it, this is how science developed. Any science, Physics for example, has been developed so much not just because of the ground breaking observations, but also because of the way of their presentation, mathematically. Economics, which is hanging as a last contender in the string of "sciences" MUST go through the same path, IMO, so I think placing the weight on the mathematical maturity is inevitable for the development on this field, but I am not talking about the grade one can secure in real analysis or whatever, I'm referring to the overall mathematical maturity and how to theorize USING math. Math is a language tool in economics (and more so in other fields).

Thank you Integral! Humanomics: I'm not interested in research and I have no clue whatsoever how research in done in economics (or in any related areas). But, I might be interested in doing a PhD in the future and the leaflet I mentioned above was supposedly given to entering PhD candidates in Economics & Finance at Columbia GSB. I felt exactly the same way as you did, to quote: "I do not understand people who want to become academics and do not have already an abundance of burning questions they want to explore more fully. But I get the sense there are lots of people who lack even seeds of ideas, and I wonder how they make it into graduate programs strictly on technical skills demonstrated almost solely through coursework, at the expense of people who think insatiably about the world beyond their textbooks, and the caveats and ideas implied in between the lines of them." Quite frankly I felt better after reading this because I thought I am the only naive one, it's good to know there are many us, some lack the technicality and some are clueless about how research is actually done.

I would like some advice on this too. Only yesterday I was reading the PhD guide of Columbia GSB and came through this: While passing the field exams and obtaining good grades in coursework is essential in the first two years of the program, excessively concentrating on coursework may be detrimental in research progress if students do not learn to develop their own ideas and proposals. Similarly, excessive time devoted to RA or TA appointments may not allow the student’s own research to develop. However, the field exams are demanding, so while you are doing coursework and preparing for exams, do not underestimate the effort and preparation required. Since I don't have experience in writing thesis (only a full-time RA type of work, nothing more than writing reports) I also would like to know how to balance this. Concentrating & working the head off for 2 years on the coursework and suddenly starting to think of research seems a bit daunting to me, I'd appreciate any advice on how to balance this.

That's the thing about math, it's not science, it's a language of science. There's a very huge debate going on out there among physicists whether science can be separated from math and still make the arguments as water tight as it used to be? If you take set theory for example, during it's initial phase (1000s of years ago) it was developed only through logical statements, but, at when things go deeper there were so many contradictions, hence it's been developed axiomatically, that would make the arguments tighter. Theory is not cheap, never in math.

Hahaha Humanomics you are hilarious, bu I know what you mean, I was there at some point...it's not unusual. But, if you can appreciate the philosophical underpinnings then you have crossed more than half of the river, now all you have to do is to present them in a mathematical language.

Hey magicalstreet, I'm pretty sure you are aware of this already, but, in case if you are not, MSR B'lore offers internships (I know people from IISC attended this in tha past-MTech & PhD people, not sure about BTechs), but, I'm pretty sure that if you already have research experience, then you can get try applying for it. Good luck!

Either this or you could see the beauty of math for its own sake, which is what pure math is all about. It has nothing to do with intelligence or smartness, it's all about how much time you can spend with it outside classrooms and homework sessions. This is not the quickest way to learn math (especially theoretical stuffs), but, it will payoff well when you start to appreciate the inherent beauty of it. If you are new to proofs, I suggest you to read books like Polya's How to Solve it. Take very simple problems at the beginning and don't try to prove anything, look at it, stare at it, try to add or delete one step and see what it becomes, play with it, treat it like your basket ball. If you find an interesting problems (I'm sure you have many since you are into puzzles), try to think of more than one solution to it without looking at the answer. Ask yourself as many questions as you can, don't get convinced easily. These are all some quick tips that would help you with problem-solving and proofs. But as everyone else said, it's a pretty rough road until you get a grip on what's going on.

I think 560 is a pretty good score and you need not worry about GRE anymore.

Thank you OOG!

Hi, thank you for this excellent post I found it immensely useful. I saw your profile you have taken advanced math courses like Func Anal, Measure, etc., what is your opinion about the difficulty of the grad level economics & metrics courses as compared to the advanced courses that you have taken? I know there is no straight forward answer, but, I just want to have an idea about it. Thanks again and good luck.

Yep, exactly. Also she's a more serious student than I am, so it all gets boring for me, in other words: it's very difficult for me to "show off" how intelligent I am. maybe I could do that after a PhD in Economics lol, because this is totally not her thing!

Well in that case I'd bet my real money on you!

My future wife is a Physicist (to be) and I'm pretty happy about it. Although I'd like if she is some sort of an artist... dance, music, paintings, designing or anything like that. I'm a complete duffer in those areas and I admire those things, also I like women that are creative. Nice topic, btw!

Your introductory math proof class should do the necessary trick to deal with more proof based courses, but discrete math also works along the similar lines, so I'd be indifferent between those two (depending upon the syllabus of course).

I don't understand this. I have seen people whose has mediocre skills in English score well in the GRE, after reading your posts it's not hard to judge your level of command in the language, but where did it go wrong? Kinda scares me...I know adcoms are not very rigid about verbal scores, but still...

Humanomics, I can't thank you enough, you are a life saver, you really are. thanks a million!

I agree with anonecon, if you can cover upto chapter 8 or so in baby rudin then that is pretty much all you need for a math department styled RA course.

Could you tell us the name of the uni that said you are eligible to be considered for admission? Or could you give us some info on the syllabus and texts used in the 1st semester of MS Math/ Stat? I think that's the only possible way to see if you can handle it and come out of it as a better student or will suffer and quit. Are there any pre-masters preparation program or anything like that which helps fill the gap? I definitely think you should post the course information.

Yes, i agree with chateauheart. Usually you need to have atleast one course in Abstract Algebra, RA, Topology to enter a math masters.

PROFILE: Type of Undergrad: BS (Honors) Math/ Minor in Theoretical CS Undergrad GPA: 9.8/ 10 (don't know the correct American version, different ways of converting left me confused) GRE: Not taken yet (I've also registered for Math subject GRE, not sure if I will take it though) Math Courses: Algebra I-IV (whole Artin book and parts of some other books), Calculus & ODEs (I-III), Discrete Mathematics, Game Theory (applied to CS), Real Analysis, General & Algebraic Topology, Complex Analysis, ODE, PDE, Diff Geometry, Diff Topology, Alg Topology, Math Logic in CS (advanced level course). Math Grad Level: Prob & Math Stat, Commutative Algebra, Measure Theory, Functional Analysis. Econ Courses (undergrad-level): Micro, Macro, Metrics. Other Courses: Python, Haskell, C, Humanities, Environmental Studies and 2 Physics courses. Letters of Recommendation: All 3 are from math profs, must be very strong. Research Experience: 1 term paper in Physics (basically litreature review and critical analysis), summer RA for a prof at a French institute (Analysis). Teaching Experience: I have tutored kids for math olympiad at regional and national level. TA for programming in C. Research Interests: - SOP: explained why i am interested in economics, wrote about the math RA work. Concerns: 3 year ug, only 3 economics courses. Other: i have ranked within top 5 in all 3 years. ours is a very small uni with 50 students (2 of them are IMO medalists and 3 are regional level olympiad medalists). Applying to: master programs only - LSE EME 2 year, Oxford MPhil, BGSE, CEMFI, Tufts, ISI, Delhi School of Economics, Tilburg, Tinbergen. i'm also applying for a couple of math MS programs in my country.

Taking abstract algebra would make you a better mathematician, if you want that then don't waste your time with PDE or Numerical Analysis.

Gotcha!

What does that supposed to mean???