Jump to content
Urch Forums

econosaur

1st Level
  • Posts

    43
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

econosaur last won the day on August 4 2006

econosaur had the most liked content!

Converted

  • My Tests
    No

econosaur's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. "What would be considered impressive in law?" I know, I can't think of anything either.
  2. "The best in anything is still better than the worst in anything else, in my opinion." So you'll take the best special education student in New York, I'll take the worst Harvard grad student. Stick to law school; logic like yours won't make it very far in economics.
  3. Interesting that you chose two lawyers who are remembered solely as mathematicians (and who practiced before economics was an established field). How about a lawyer who did something impressive in his actual field? As for supreme court opinions, I find nothing novel in that writing. It is simply just interpreting man-made laws. Putting lipstick on a pig, for lack of a better phrase. While they certainly aren't dumb people, I wouldn't give them much of a chance at getting tenure at a decent economics department. I'll take Becker or Heckman in a battle of wits against any attorney, any day. Another thought experiement: who would you pick in a contest of intelligence, the worst graduate student in Harvard's economics program or the best student in its law school. I'll take the former and laugh all the way to the bank since you clearly don't appreciate real intelligence.
  4. I think you'd have a hard time convinving most people that economists are more arrogant than lawyers. A wild thought, I know. I find it very amusing that claiming economists are, on average, more "intelligent" than lawyers has been so controversial. What is it exactly that has made everyone feel lawyers are bright? Their ability to count the number of people sitting around a table (evidently a very important skill for attorneys, as seen in law schools' reliance on the LSAT)? Their ability to memorize cases? Scouring documents for punctuation errors? I guess it may be hard to hear that the profession you've chosen for yourself is full of not so bright individuals, but such is life. Just content yourself with exploiting inefficiencies of society to suck gobs of money from hardworking people. As a final little thought experiment, please name one attorney who has made an original, lasting contribution to society. I can think of a few dozen economists without any effort at all.
  5. "Loving economics" is not nearly enough. You must love economic theory. And, from my experience, those who truly love economic theory would never dream of pursuing a career outside academia. Those that end up in the private sector are not usually there by choice; they simply could not hack it in the competitive world of academics. So, what I'm really trying to say is, if you go into graduate school with the ultimate aim of a private sector job, you won't have the passion and desire to compete with the theory guys who study for the prelims as if their entire lives depend upon the results. Because they do for them, and you will soon see why Ph.D. programs train researchers and not practitioners. May I suggest you save yourself the heartache and go the masters route?
  6. Would you happen to have an average-travel-per-month type number? Even just a casual observation would be informative. Thanks.
  7. Well, I said it in jest, though it seems to have ruffled a few feathers. From my casual observation, though, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any lawyer who even belongs in the same class as an economist at a top-flight department in terms of intelligence. Lawyering just happens to command different skills and abilities (social adroitness, ability to read through tedious documents looking for commas, unabashed greed, etc.) than economics. You can make value judgments based on that statement at your own peril. And, as far as raw brain power is concerned, I think you'd find few economists who would disagree with the statement that theoretical mathematicians and physicists have a relative abundance compared to economists. Anyway, anyone have a response to the travel question?
  8. How much traveling is required for econ consultants? As for lawyers, I think we can all agree that any Ph.D. is smart enough to go to a top law school; very few lawyers (approaching measure zero?) are intelligent enough to get a Ph.D. from even the lowest ranked programs. I would say the pay difference is almost entirely attributable to a compensating wage differential of a large magnitude.
  9. Thought this advice for writing a paper was funny.
  10. Check out what people are saying about the new 2007 US News College Rankings here.
  11. Check out what people are saying about the new 2007 US News college rankings here.
  12. A couple Northwestern econ grad students just started a good one: http://fairlyobviousobservations.blogspot.com/
  13. One indirect way to see how competitive your first year is going to be is to look at how big entering classes usually are. The bigger the class, the more people the department needs to drop. Very few programs can find funding for more than 15-20 people. So, if your class starts at 40, you can reasonably expect that 50% will be cut by prelims. If it starts at 25, then your chances are probably much better.
  14. Does anyone have worked/ready solutions for excercises in Fudenberg & Tirole's Game Theory? I would be willing to trade/pay for it. Thanks in advance. I know I am scum for asking, but I'd really like to learn this material. Feel free to PM me instead of posting a reply here.
  15. I will throw my thoughts into the ring. Having completed 2/3 of my first year, I may be able to offer more advice than mere speculation. For math, Simon and Blume is much too basic. At any top program it will be assumed that you know everything in the book. They will "review" some concepts in math camp, but if you're not familiar with them already, you will not be able to learn them from the cursory review they give. de la Fuente is a better bet, especially since it reviews correspondences (i.e. UHC/LHC which many people haven't seen before) and dynamic programming for macro. Glance through MWG's math appendix for an overview of every topic you should be familiar with. But don't get too worked up about all this. The amount of actual math you need to be able to recall on the spot is quite low. Most topics that the average student doesn't know will be covered in your classes. You will not use topology in any way the first year. As for more econ type review, definitely skim over MWG. Find out what macro you'll be using and skim over that too. For metrics, you might think it will be fun to get a head start on measure theory, but you most likely won't be able to learn it on your own. And you probably won't need to anyway. For a solid probability review, check out Grimmett and Stirzaker. It is at the level of a first year grad course and you can buy the solution manual too. If you have a chance to really (and I mean really) learn a subject before classes start, make it probability. You will use it in every course and they never go over it thoroughly. Getting a handle on the fundamentals will really pay off in probability.
×
×
  • Create New...