Hey guys, I have a question specifically for those who have or have been economics majors in college. I am a 24 y/o Paramedic that enjoys his job. I am seeking to eventually get out of the profession due to low salary and the strenuous demand the sector will feel when the government gets more involved with healthcare. I have an opportunity to get a 3,500 a year scholarship and was wondering if I should go back to school for economics. I have always been very poor in Math I probably couldn't do much more then Algebra at this time. BUT I am very determined and willing to put in alot of hours to learn. I want a econ degree because I might get into politics and I really would like to open a bank. Anyways what do you guys think? If you were me would to do it?
fsk, you will learn much more by actually going to school than reading from books. Did you learn how to drive from a book? Did you learn how to read from a book (lol)? Did you learn math from a book? Did you learn how to play soccer/rugby/football/baseball/lacrosse from a book?
Whether or not you like neoclassical and Keynesian economics, you're far better off learning from neoclassicists and Keynesians than just from books.
Mattes:A full reserve bank? Theres no way that would make any money. I am not a Rothbardian when it comes to banks... I like Hayeks view on Money and Banking better. Fractional reserve bankings occurs naturally in the markets.
Fractional reserve banks are bound to fail in a free market.
"There is only one innate right, freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." - Immanuel Kant
I feel I learned more Math and Computer Science from books than from professors. However, under the pressure of a class, there's more motivation. Actually, when I got to Math grad school, the books weren't well written and the lectures were incomprehensible, so I didn't get much out of it.
Learning economics in school is a waste of time, when all the professors are trolls. Try asking an economic professor about the Compound Interest Paradox or "Is taxation theft?" He probably won't give a coherent answer.
When I first learned about the Black-Scholes formula, my reaction was "This is ****! I claim shenanigans!" I couldn't get anyone else to understand the inherent contradiction of the put/call parity formula. If your assumptions are wrong, no amound of calculation will get a conclusion that isn't nonsense.
If you want to learn to think like a troll, go to a university. If you want to learn the truth, read around and think for yourself.
If your goal is to work at a bank or hedge fund, then you need to learn troll economics. If you want to learn real economics, don't look in a university.
The bottom line is "What's more important to you? Knowledge or certification (piece of paper)?" If you value knowledge, a university isn't the optimal place to look. If you value certification, then a university degree will help convince other trolls that you're worth hiring.
If you're studying Math or Computer Science, a university may be somewhat beneficial. For other topics, it's probably a waste. However, you can save time and $$$$ by buying a book and reading it.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Another reason to go to college that you left out is if you have the desire to teach economics at the college level. You need that piece of paper saying 'phd' to prove your competence.
fsk: If your goal is to work at a bank or hedge fund, then you need to learn troll economics. If you want to learn real economics, don't look in a university.
Even though I went to the University, most of my learning was done on side-projects.
Granted, unfortunately in this world, having those three letters after your name will help you land a job, regardless of skill or talent.
It would be up to the market to decide if a fractional reserve bank or full reserve bank is desirable. The one thing that does baffle me is, assuming a gold backed currency, would not a fractional reserve bank create fiat?
ViennaSausage:The one thing that does baffle me is, assuming a gold backed currency, would not a fractional reserve bank create fiat?
With a gold standard and fractional reserve banking, then the fractional reserve bank is indeed expanding the money supply.
In a really free market, once depositors discover the fraud, they will all rush to redeem their demand deposits. I would not volunarily accept fractional reserve paper at face amount, unless I knew I could immediately redeem it for gold.
The problem is State manipulation of the market. This debate has occurred many times. In a truly free market, fractional reserve banking is an unsustainable business. With free competition between fractional reserve banking and sound banking, fractional reserve banking should lose.
fsk, you will learn much more by actually going to school than reading from books. Did you learn how to drive from a book? Did you learn how to read from a book (lol)? Did you learn math from a book? Did you learn how to play soccer/rugby/football/baseball/lacrosse from a book? Whether or not you like neoclassical and Keynesian economics, you're far better off learning from neoclassicists and Keynesians than just from books.
As an autodidact (taught myself through highschool) I whole heartedly disagree. Books are the best place to start and would give you a great headstart into any college path.
You could always just minor in Economics and major in a related field.
my blog
I am not disagreeing with the fact that you can learn a lot from books. A lot of times, books are superior to our current educational system. On the other hand, if you truly want to understand higher level economics, you have to go to college, period. Nobody can teach themselves to be a modern Rothbard unless you go to college and learn from a professor. There are certain things you'll just never grasp if you learn by yourself. That's why employers don't care how many books you've read, they want to know if you went to college and if so, if you went to a good college.
I am largely self taught right now, but I know from experience in other fields that you can't teach yourself the "higher concepts" without help from a teacher of some sort. Sorry, but that's the plain truth.
If you have to pick up some math and mainstream economics along the way, what's so bad about that? At least then you'll understand where they're coming from.
krazy kaju,
I'm going to call bullshit again. I'm not arguing against the value of being taught in college--I'm just saying it's not the only way to learn "higher concepts."Here's my black swan: Srinivasa_Ramanujan
fsk: If you want to learn to think like a troll, go to a university. If you want to learn the truth, read around and think for yourself. If your goal is to work at a bank or hedge fund, then you need to learn troll economics. If you want to learn real economics, don't look in a university.
The real question is where you picked up your ability to substitute rational argumentation for ad hominem attacks, University or Self Taught?
And do you even know the definition of a troll in its common usage? From what I've been able to tell it applies to anyone who disagrees with your self-proclaimed 'superior knowledge'.
Or to put it a bit differently;
"You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means."
I have just graduated in Economics, at Cardiff University, UK, and I would strongly advise against doing it. You learn absolutely nothing of worth and is incredibly tedius. All that is wanted is for you to is to manuiplulate equations of the economy. If you want to do a Phd doing political science or philosophy as an undergrad may be better since I am led to believe that they actually encourage thinking then; I could be wrong though. Still, if you are determined to do Economics I suggest doing a joint honours degree at first since if you don't like one of the subjects you can ditch it in the second year and carry on pretty much as normal.
Another of my friends had a similar experience eslewhere in economics.
Here is the criticism I wrote and sent to the head of economics when I left:
My critique will be split into two sections: the degree structure itself and what is taught within it.
One of the main problems with the degree is that the first year gives you practically no idea what the second and third years are going to be like. How ever much you are told how much different and difficult the second and third years are going to be unless you are actually told what this will entail and, more importantly, experience something like it this one will have little idea. This is precisely the situation I found myself in: I greatly enjoyed the first year and then seriously considered leaving the course by November of my second year. I believe the generally low marks in the second year are a result of the disorientation between the first and second year.
To remedy this the weighting of the second and third years could be weighted more heavily towards the third, such as a 70% 30% split, which would allow more scope for orientating in the degree. A more satisfactory change would be to make A levels in Economics and Maths mandatory to enter the course and hit the ground running in the first year; this would possibly allow you to make the first year 10% of the degree to get people to work hard in that year because it's worth something. This way people know what they are going to get from the beginning and so they could change their course if they wished starting the following year and only “waste” that year unlike the possible two in my case. Regarding that however, the fact that you can get a qualification, a diploma of some sort, after completing two years should be made widely known; I only found that out recently and could possibly have meant I exited the course after two years and started a Philosophy degree this year.
The assessment measures ought to be changed- the partial assessment in January for the double modules should be scrapped since it does not give sufficient time to really grapple with the subject and understand the course in its fullness. Also the task of writing short assessed essays, in for example Public Finance and the histories, does not allow you to write a competent answer since you literally don't have space or time- a far better method would be to have one essay of a reasonable length, say 4000-5000 words, in which you could properly address the question and would give leave to demonstrate your analytical skills better.
At this point I will declare that I am biased against most of what is taught since I would consider myself as an adherent of the Austrian school but I don't think this invalidates my criticisms. The main problem with the teaching can be seen with the axing of the Economic Thought and Methodology (ETM) module this year. I know Patrick O'Sullivan left but I am informed that he covered mainly the philosophers proper and could have been replaced by a member of the philosophy department if the will was there. That notwithstanding ETM, or a similar module, should be a mandatory module in the first year not an option in the first. Before studying a subject one needs to understand its nature and following that how it should be studied.; this never been done in my three years. Further, understanding the history of economic thought allows appreciation of different approaches and how ideas changed. Since this has not been done how can any of the students comment on the veracity of the approaches and results taught if they don't have the sufficient tools by which to analyse them?
There are many implicit assumptions made in much of the material which goes unchallenged and is not expected to. One of the clearest examples of this is the mechanism of how money enters the economy: all we say is the government increases it so it shifts the AD curve and it results in x, y, z in the short run however the analysis assumes a deus ex machina introduction of money and ignores the step process of the new money's entrance into the market place which would change the analysis. Another classic one is that the interest rate is the marginal product of capital. In all the macro equations this is assumed although never at once did we investigate the origin and nature of interest. The idea of a causal realist approach has seemingly been abandoned.
Further many concepts are not given a rigorous theoretical treatment, for example expectations formation; the adaptive theory falls prey to the regressus ad infinitum fallacy yet this was never pointed out. All a theory seems to be tested by is its empirical usefulness however if you are not taught the positive economic approach, a la Friedman, this makes no sense. It seems clear now that much of the teaching teaches us how to solve equations, given various assumptions, so that we understand the maths so then we can test them but we don't attempt to test them. Granted there is the Empirical economics and Econometrics modules but the if the whole of the teaching revolves around this then testing should be an integral part of the different modules not just stand alone ones. Given this is what you really want to teach then you should change the degree title to Econometrics to give a hardcore three years training to become a modern economist.
The question though arises should economists be how they are at present or should they be different? The answer to this necessarily involves a value judgement and therefore needs a coherent body of the ethics to justify any position. This leads me neatly on to the implicit utilitarianism throughout the course. Given a certain question- the social cost of the factory is x and the social benefit of the factory is y, what should be done?- requires a value judgement about what the government should actually do. Even if the question has a caveat to “reach the efficient position” assumes really that everyone's ends are really the same which is the bedrock of utilitarian philosophy; since ends are different, and can never in the real world be given, this again requires a value judgement. This issue is just entirely avoided. It is interesting to note here that the concept of perfect competition is a result of Frank Knight's rather strange political philosophy.
In conclusion the first year needs to be more representative of the second year onwards and that the course needs to decide what it wants to be: a hardcore econometrics degree or an older style economics degree which necessarily involves more epistemology and political philosophy.