career advice

colgate

hi, i not really an economist but thinkin bout do an economics course may one with 2 years of business then another 2 years of economics and finance (just finished the leaving cert) and just want to know is this leading me down a specific economic path ie can i work in development economics as well as ALL the other economic area

Time Magazine

I don't think there are any jobs where you can work in all areas of economics.

Development economics is a million miles from finance and that's a million miles from communications regulation.

What course are you thinking of doing? Are you good at maths?

colgate

ya i good with maths

like if i ant to work in a not business environment could i do so with a economics and finance degree

Time Magazine

colgate wrote: »

ya i good with maths

As in at least a B at higher level?

like if i ant to work in a not business environment could i do so with a economics and finance degree

Yeah you can, but if you're not sure you want to go the finance route, I'd suggest a more general course where you'll be more exposed to stuff like development economics. Think about single-honours in UCD or BESS in Trinity.

Hang on, you've just done your Leaving... are you thinking of repeating or something?

andrew

The Economist wrote: »

As in at least a B at higher level?

Surely not all economics courses require you to be very good at math? I would've said a pass at HL or at least an easy A at OL? It varies a lot a suppose.

Think about single-honours in UCD or BESS in Trinity.

I don't know about the UCD course, but +1 to the BESS suggestion. I'm doing it; there probably isn't a better course if you want to do something businessy and/or economics-y, there's a lot of scope in BESS in terms of choice. I think that eventually though, if you want to persue a career in economics you'd eventually have to specialise in a specific subset of economics. I'm not sure if it's possible to be just some sort of 'general economist.'

Time Magazine

andrew wrote: »

Surely not all economics courses require you to be very good at math? I would've said a pass at HL or at least an easy A at OL? It varies a lot a suppose.

90% of modern economics is mathematical. There are some parts, such as survey design within behavioural economics, where you'll get by without maths. But they're exception. Economics is a form of applied maths. Econometrics, which is probably about half of economics at this stage, is maths through and through.

there probably isn't a better course if you want to do something businessy and/or economics-y

Maths and Economics TSM is better.

if you want to persue a career in economics you'd eventually have to specialise in a specific subset of economics. I'm not sure if it's possible to be just some sort of 'general economist.'

There sort of is in the civil service etc. But that's not really economics as such, more using the bit of logic economics gives you.

The Economist

The Economist wrote: »

90% of modern economics is mathematical. There are some parts, such as survey design within behavioural economics, where you'll get by without maths. But they're exception. Economics is a form of applied maths. Econometrics, which is probably about half of economics at this stage, is maths through and through.

Maths and Economics TSM is better.


There sort of is in the civil service etc. But that's not really economics as such, more using the bit of logic economics gives you.

I would disagree - I'm weak at maths and I've gotten ok - both in terms of academic results and in the work experience that I've done. If you aren't afraid of maths and got at least a B3 in Pass (what I got) you should be fine but its going to take a lot of work to keep up with the others. It makes sense in the end though!
Matrix algebra and statistics are what you want to know quite well at the end of first year. If you have the basics the rest will be a lot easier, especially econometrics.
Don't forget that the quants level required for 'professional economists' would be lower then 'academic economists' or researchers.

You are right though, TSM Maths / Economics is the best course for a future in economics. Quite a few guys on my MSc have that or something quite similar and they are walking away with some excellent grades and job/PhD offers.

nesf

The Economist wrote: »

90% of modern economics is mathematical. There are some parts, such as survey design within behavioural economics, where you'll get by without maths. But they're exception. Economics is a form of applied maths. Econometrics, which is probably about half of economics at this stage, is maths through and through.

Yeah, but it's fairly easy maths when you get down to it compared to say Maths or Physics at college level. If you're going into empirical research it's more about statistics and honestly you don't need much of a grasp of mathematics to use statistics just patience and some hard work. Much modern economics is simplistic linear modelling to be brutal about it. You can choose to take on the more complex mathematical parts of the discipline but it's hardly mandatory that you do so at undergrad (or even Masters) level.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but it's fairly easy maths when you get down to it compared to say Maths or Physics at college level.

Agreed entirely.

If you're going into empirical research it's more about statistics and honestly you don't need much of a grasp of mathematics to use statistics just patience and some hard work.

I wouldn't agree with that entirely. You can do mundane econometrics without much maths, but once you get into complicated issues about identification, or God forbid something about nonlinear estimation with long memory, well, you'd want to have done higher-level.

Much modern economics is simplistic linear modelling to be brutal about it. You can choose to take on the more complex mathematical parts of the discipline but it's hardly mandatory that you do so at undergrad (or even Masters) level.

The issue is that the majority of first year undergrads will struggle with linear modelling unless given plenty of warning about it. Leaving Cert economics is about learning definitions of different sorts of budget deficits. I remember thinking wtf has calculus to do with economics as a fresh-faced undergrad.

nesf

The Economist wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that entirely. You can do mundane econometrics without much maths, but once you get into complicated issues about identification, or God forbid something about nonlinear estimation with long memory, well, you'd want to have done higher-level.

You can avoid the latter though, which is my point.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

You can avoid the latter though, which is my point.

This is true. The maths you need to get by in economics, at least to a reasonable level, doesn't require anything more than potential for about a B at higher level LC. However, and perhaps things have changed in the past five years or so, LC'ers have a view of economics as being less mathsy than the Irish Oral.

nesf

The Economist wrote: »

This is true. The maths you need to get by in economics, at least to a reasonable level, doesn't require anything more than potential for about a B at higher level LC. However, and perhaps things have changed in the past five years or so, LC'ers have a view of economics as being less mathsy than the Irish Oral.

I've seen plenty of people with pass Maths do fine in Economics. They had to work harder but it's perfectly doable. Bear in mind that a B at higher level is viewed by many lecturers I've spoken to as the minimum to do pure Maths at college which is a far more difficult prospect than Economics maths wise. I think you are overestimating the difficulty of the mathematics in Economics to be honest.

Time Magazine

nesf wrote: »

I've seen plenty of people with pass Maths do fine in Economics. They had to work harder but it's perfectly doable. Bear in mind that a B at higher level is viewed by many lecturers I've spoken to as the minimum to do pure Maths at college which is a far more difficult prospect than Economics maths wise. I think you are overestimating the difficulty of the mathematics in Economics to be honest.

Perhaps. In any case, good for people to hear opposing views.

Flamed Diving

nesf wrote: »

I've seen plenty of people with pass Maths do fine in Economics. They had to work harder but it's perfectly doable. Bear in mind that a B at higher level is viewed by many lecturers I've spoken to as the minimum to do pure Maths at college which is a far more difficult prospect than Economics maths wise. I think you are overestimating the difficulty of the mathematics in Economics to be honest.

I think the word 'potential' is important in his post, to be fair.

nesf

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I think the word 'potential' is important in his post, to be fair.

True.

Hasschu

Paddy O'Sullivan who was an admiral in the US navy was taking a bunch of PHDs that included Robert McNamara on a tour of a naval base near Norfolk Virginia. He explained to them that since the inception of computers the system was now designed by geniuses to be run by idiots. Economics has now advanced to the point where mega financial institutions within gov't and in the private sector have similar systems in place. There are the mathematical geniuses with the computer programming geniuses and the computer hardware geniuses with few exceptions all have doctorates. Down below you have middle management and customer contact reps who do what the screen allows them to do. This is where a 3 or 4 year degree or at middle management level a Masters would be employed. The state of the art became public when the geniuses at LTCM went bust. The CDS, CDO, SIV field owes its popularity, fast roll out and eventual implosion to automation. A good grasp of 2 or more languages, a degree in economics, commerce or accounting and sales ability should get you a job. Think Dublin, London, New York, Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich.