“Economics is a science. However, it is not so exact a science as astrology, numerology, or tea leaf reading.”
– “The Mad Economics Primer”
.
Economics: measure with a micrometer, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe.
.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
True. But what makes experimental & behavioral economics so incredibly interesting is that people do tend to act “irrationally” in rather predictable ways. It will take more time and scholarship to integrate the results of experimental economics into rational choice models and games, but hopefully, this will be the way of the world.
[/QUOTE]
And the interesting thing will be that you’ll have to do real experiments to see what people will do, not assume this from pure reason. It’s kind of like what Galileo did for physics.
[QUOTE=shiftless]
On the other hand, some of the math (which is what I studied) is very advanced and difficult, taking in a lot of statistics. Similar to thermodynamics I remember thinking at the time.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, mathematician John Nash’s Nobel Prize is actually in economics, and Nobel didn’t endow a prize for mathematics. IIRC some say math is the queen of the sciences, and others say it’s the handmaiden, so presumably Nobel believed the latter.
[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
I know next to nothing about how economists operate, yet they shape our economic policy. So, how rigorous is economics? Does it reach the level of rigour of physics, astronomy or chemistry? If not, why not?
It seems that any economic debate on the boards (and by extension, the Internet), doesn’t hinge on references to empirical evidence, but rather appeals to reason (i.e. you get claims of the form “but any increase in the minimum wage is bound to reduce an employer’s appetite for hiring, as they’d have to pay more!”). So, I suppose my question is, how empirical is economics?
I put this in GD because I suppose the topic could get contentious.
[/QUOTE]
I would say that a good grounding in basic economic theory, starting with the pioneers, Smith, Say and Bastiat, is absolutely essential. I believe economics should be a compulsory high school subject.
A lack of knowledge and understanding of economics, particularly those that involve the most destructive economic fallacies, can result in politicians adopting policies that, from an economic point of view, will lead to disaster, if not in the short term then certainly in the long term.
The more esoteric doctrines of modern economic theory might look good but it’s not possible to be sure about the results of all those calculations in a dynamic economic system. It’s a bit like trying to be over precise about next week’s weather. The calculations need to be done on a daily basis and trend indicators adjusted accordingly.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Which school? I have a degree in engineering from MIT, my daughter has a degree in economics from the University of Chicago, and she had a lot more and harder math than I ever did.
[/QUOTE]
I find this a little hard to believe. Are we talking about econ graduate degrees? .
A quick search of the U of Chicago site shows a number of options for a Economics B.S. or B.A. - one requires Calc, Dif eq, and mulitvariate analysis - another requires only Calculus. If MIT doesn’t require mathematics beyond basic differential equations of their engineering graduates then, well, I don’t know. I’ve clearly been misinformed anyhow.
Still, I stand somewhat corrected. Long ago, in my college days, it was possible to get a economics degree with no calculus and that seemed wrong to me. Looks like they are doing it right at Chicago. The requirements at my Alma Mata are much less rigorous I am ashamed to say - only requiring Analytic Geometry and Calculus I
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
FWIW, mathematician John Nash’s Nobel Prize is actually in economics, and Nobel didn’t endow a prize for mathematics. IIRC some say math is the queen of the sciences, and others say it’s the handmaiden, so presumably Nobel believed the latter.
[/QUOTE]
Going by memory here…but Nobel did not think crap about Mathematics.
When he was setting up his prizes, there was a real asshole that Nobel hated. He happened to be a prominent Mathematician. Nobel asked his advisors if mr. asshole had a chance of winning the prize if there was a Nobel prize for Mathematics and they said it was possible. So, he didn’t set up a Nobel prize for Mathematics. He hated him that much.
[QUOTE=shiftless]
I find this a little hard to believe. Are we talking about econ graduate degrees? .
A quick search of the U of Chicago site shows a number of options for a Economics B.S. or B.A. - one requires Calc, Dif eq, and mulitvariate analysis - another requires only Calculus. If MIT doesn’t require mathematics beyond basic differential equations of their engineering graduates then, well, I don’t know. I’ve clearly been misinformed anyhow.
Still, I stand somewhat corrected. Long ago, in my college days, it was possible to get a economics degree with no calculus and that seemed wrong to me. Looks like they are doing it right at Chicago. The requirements at my Alma Mata are much less rigorous I am ashamed to say - only requiring Analytic Geometry and Calculus I
[/QUOTE]
Econometrics is also a math class, and it’s possible that the various upper-level econ courses his daughter took also involved a great deal of advanced math.
[QUOTE=shiftless]
I find this a little hard to believe. Are we talking about econ graduate degrees? .
A quick search of the U of Chicago site shows a number of options for a Economics B.S. or B.A. - one requires Calc, Dif eq, and mulitvariate analysis - another requires only Calculus. If MIT doesn’t require mathematics beyond basic differential equations of their engineering graduates then, well, I don’t know. I’ve clearly been misinformed anyhow.
Still, I stand somewhat corrected. Long ago, in my college days, it was possible to get a economics degree with no calculus and that seemed wrong to me. Looks like they are doing it right at Chicago. The requirements at my Alma Mata are much less rigorous I am ashamed to say - only requiring Analytic Geometry and Calculus I
[/QUOTE]
Calc at UofC, at least when I was there, is very extensive. My friends at UofI stopped Calc I after Newton’s derivative formula, though they did proof it, and apply it with geometric variables, and multi-variable polynomials. We went well into integration.
Also, my friends at UofI engineering (no slouch of an engineering school) took diffy q as the highest math. I’m not sure what more math an engineer would need, practically speaking.
My degree in economics from Florida State University did not require much math.
Here are the current requirements for an undergraduate degree. The econometrics course was not required when I was there in the early 1990s.
I took a business calculus course, and two classes in statistics.
Honestly, it wasn’t a very rigorous program. Any fantasy I may have had about graduate school were shot by seeing how inadequate my prepartion was.
[QUOTE=BlinkingDuck]
So, he didn’t set up a Nobel prize for Mathematics. He hated him that much.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting story, but to my understanding completely apocryphal. Is there any hard evidence on it?
.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
FWIW, mathematician John Nash’s Nobel Prize is actually in economics, and Nobel didn’t endow a prize for mathematics. IIRC some say math is the queen of the sciences, and others say it’s the handmaiden, so presumably Nobel believed the latter.
[/QUOTE]
Regardless of the reason for omitting mathematics from his will, Alfred Nobel didn’t endow a prize for Economics either.
.
[QUOTE=andros]
Regardless of the reason for omitting mathematics from his will, Alfred Nobel didn’t endow a prize for Economics either.
.
[/QUOTE]
But then what was Nash’s prize for? Or is that Nobel Prize endowed otherwise?
Regarding the general topic, aren’t there different flavors of economics–some tending more towards “soft” social sciences and others that are more mathematically rigorous? And wouldn’t the school you attend have some impact on the content? I’m guessing that the major at MIT would be different from the major at UCLA, to pick a name at random.
Do math departments ever offer an applied math degree focused on economics?
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Do math departments ever offer an applied math degree focused on economics?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve never seen one. Given that a graduate economics degree essentially is an applied math degree, it seems likely that any math department trying to offer said degree would be competing with all the economics departments out there.
The one exception is that there are at least a few math departments out there that offer a focus on financial economics. But even then, students have the option of pursuing degrees in finance as well.
And of course, any individual math student can study anything that they can get their advisor to sign off on, so the lack of programs won’t be stopping anyone from doing what they want.
[QUOTE=andros]
Interesting story, but to my understanding completely apocryphal. Is there any hard evidence on it?
.
[/QUOTE]
Nope…Heard it from 3 sources: A Prof, a news article in the Star Tribune and a book I was reading long ago.
Doesn’t make it true though.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
But then what was Nash’s prize for? Or is that Nobel Prize endowed otherwise?
[/QUOTE]
Because the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was endowed by the Bank of Sweden in 1968. It is commonly called the Nobel Prize in Economics, but that isn’t its official name.