Search the Community

Hi everyone! I found this set of notes for UC Berkeley's Econ 204 "Mathematical Tools for Economists" for incoming PhD Econ students at UC Berkeley, http://elsa.berkeley.edu/users/cshannon/e204_11/syllabus.pdf The course covers Chapters 1-5 and part of Chapter 6 of Mathematical Methods and Models for Economists by Angel de la Fuente The department has a short description of this Econ 204course, at http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Math_Requirements_for_Fall_2011_admits.pdf ; at the bottom of this note, it says briefly about waiver for Econ 204, " If you have taken a proof‐focused real analysis class, equivalent to Math 104 at Berkeley, with a grade of B or better, you may if you wish apply for a waiver of the 204 requirement " I googled for UC Berkeley's Math 104, and found out that the course is "Introduction To Analysis", and they use the text "Elementary Analysis: The Theory of Calculus" by Kenneth A. Ross. I compared the course content of both Math 104 and Econ 204, and I found that Econ 204 covers much more advanced topics than Math 104. The only thing both courses have in common is they both stress proof-writing skills. So, my question is why so? Why the instructors considers Math 104 using Kenneth A. Ross equivalent to Econ 204 using de la Fuente which emphasizes more advanced topics and also proof-writing skills? If a course is equivalent to another course, it must be the case that it aims to achieve the same goal, but here these two courses look quite different in breath and depth. This leads to a question: If one prepares on her own for 1st-year econ core courses comparable to those at UC Berkeley, s/he can use Kenneth A. Ross's text as a substitue for de la Fuente's text/Econ 204, everything else being equal, right? Any idea? Thanks so much!!!

Not all management school PhDs have to go through this, but some most certainly need to notify their employers about the next step forward. I have been out of school for almost three years, and it would be in my best interest to start get that dust off from DiffEq and Casella & Berger (sorry if I spelled wrong, no offense to the authors) books. I would simply be feeling insecure with the "necessary two-week" math camp. Any thoughts on this topic? Feel free to share your case and possible plans...!

Not all Economics PhD applicants need to go through this, but some most certainly need to make a transition. I have been out of school for almost three years... and need to brush up on math. In my case, just a two-~three-week math camp won't bring back the good old analysis topics... just being honest here. That said, I am thinking mid-march. Also, I would like to visit family, travel around if I can, before getting dominated by math boot camp of my own... Any thoughts on this or feel free share your case?