« Markets in everything, Jamaican edition | Main | Anna Schwartz on the crisis »
What econ majors think of their major
David Colander and co. give us a whole paper on this topic:
This data suggests that the presence of an unrestricted-entry business program has a positive impact on the satisfaction levels of economics majors. When such programs exist, the economics major is not forced to balance both the goals of students who would rather be in business programs with the goals of students who would study economics either way; therefore the economics major can more easily suit all of its students’ demands.
There are many more tidbits, including the following:
Students generally considered the majors more difficult at liberal arts schools than at state schools. The difference is most pronounced in economics, considered hard by 25.4% of state school students compared to 40.2% of students at liberal arts schools. At research liberal arts school, the major was considered even harder; 44.2% of students considered the economics major hard.
p.7 warmed my heart and p.11 gives the main reason for becoming an economics major: "I did well in early courses, and found it interesting." That Smithian explanation is more important than the quest for job opportunities. The paper is here. Hat tip to Pluralist Economics Review.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 20, 2008 at 06:50 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
I go to a research liberal arts school, and we all consider economics to be one of the hardest majors.
Posted by: Martin at Oct 20, 2008 7:53:51 AM
"I did well in early courses, and found it interesting"
That should be the justification behind whatever major one chooses. Follow your bliss, as they say.
Posted by: Kyle M at Oct 20, 2008 8:14:10 AM
I wonder if the difference between State schools and Liberal Arts in how hard they think Economics is has to do with the presence of an engineering program.
I went to a large State school with a large contingent of engineers (and majored in Econ). Sure Econ was tough compared to Communications or Sociology, but was much easier compared to the Electrical, Mechanical, Chemical Engineering and Math and Physics degrees some of my peers were getting.
Posted by: eccdogg at Oct 20, 2008 8:49:50 AM
I went to a small (for a) state school and Econ was definitely a major of last resort for lots of folks. You could easily "skate by" with easier classes - and lots of folks did. Of course, there were also lots of hard 400 and 500 level seminars for those who wanted to challenge themselves.
Posted by: Kyle S at Oct 20, 2008 9:20:02 AM
We had a saying. Physical chemistry was the hardest course for people who didn't have to take thermodynamics. Organic chemistry was the hardest for people who didn't have to take PChem. We didn't get past organic, probably because we were fed up with all the biology majors who were going to be doctors complaining about organic.
I think job opportunities trump interest. You can do interest on your own time and your own dime. College is an investment that demands a return. That is of course not going to be the popular opinion held by tenured professors and department heads. But, I think the point is to know that career and interest are different and not think you are investing in one when you are really investing in the other.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 20, 2008 9:23:59 AM
Andrew, I have to disagree with you. There are many different types of job opportunities out there, all of which will be torture if you can't sustain any interest in them. Perhaps my opinion is a bit skewed since I get bored easily, but if you're reasonably smart, I think it's preferable to choose something interesting and then figure out what to do with it. There's always grad school for a do-over if you can't find work. However, the less capable one is, the less this approach applies...
Posted by: Greg at Oct 20, 2008 9:46:45 AM
"College is an investment that demands a return." - Andrew
This is true, but hardly in the way you mean it. College is about investing in yourself. If the entire point of your existence is to get a job and work for forty years, then I understand your point of view. If you instead value yourself as more than just a means to an end, I have to question your reasoning.
As to the actual topic at hand, I have to wonder about the caliber of students who attend the different schools. Surely they are not the same, although I would be loath to say which schools attract students of a higher caliber. And let us not forget the variable of program difficulty. I'm certain that some of these "economics" programs are a joke compared to others.
I think these factors are more directly related to whether a major is considered "hard" than what kind of school one attends. Does anyone know if they controlled for these variables?
Posted by: George at Oct 20, 2008 10:02:15 AM
Cornell, easy.
Posted by: josh at Oct 20, 2008 10:10:33 AM
I also chose economics because I found an introductory course very interesting. Of course I work in technology now, just like I did in college, but I don't regret my choice. Also the lessons of economics are applicable to my daily work much more often than I would have expected.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Oct 20, 2008 10:47:50 AM
Economics is not that difficult. I won't say it is easy, but it is not "hard".
Every course in econ that I ever took seemed no more difficult than my engineering courses. Want to hurt you brain? Take Thermodynamics II. Or Advanced Calculus.
Posted by: Dave Barnes at Oct 20, 2008 11:44:34 AM
The problem with an "easy" subject, or at least easier, is that more people can do it, and there is no way I could out-compete some of them.
So, if I "follow my passion" and get into economics, I imagine beating Tyler at his game. Thinking this possible would be foolish. However, there are things that I can do that some or most people cannot do at all. I don't think such things are typically ensconced in traditional academic departments.
Do people really think that more students need to hear "follow your passion" than they need to hear "make sure you get value for your education investment dollars and time?" I think people really do need to get in touch with their true niche, but I think the traditional education system either cannot help or just does a lousy job.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 20, 2008 11:59:44 AM
I found econ to be very challenging in the beginning, then by the 3rd or 4th course, something clicked for me. I find that some of my AP Econ students face something very similar, which is why I encourage them to stick with it.
Posted by: Meds at Oct 20, 2008 12:11:00 PM
So, as the comments imply, why aren't there econ courses and majors for more mathematically oriented students? At my undergrad (which shall remain anonymous but is the home of a famous new york times columnist and a famous helicopter pilot/bank rescuer), introductory math and physics were divided into tracks for future math and physics phd's, future engineers, future doctors and architects, and "physics for poets". Economics, oth, had only two tracks, basically for people with and without good linear algebra. So, by default, econ gained a lot of varsity athletes and lost a lot of potential future phd's.
Posted by: DK at Oct 20, 2008 12:39:29 PM
DK,
I guess that's what minors are for.
Every time a career services person told a group of us that we could list our major-only GPA several of us burst into laughter. It got funnier every semester.
I was one class from an English minor but gave that up even that to survive engineering.
But, in surviving I have guaranteed myself a lock on a lifetime of receiving letters from the Navy nuclear program.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 20, 2008 2:42:31 PM
Economics-Finance major here. I like the Econ major at my school because it's within the business departments, so I can take econ classes along with marketing and management as opposed to Poli Sci and Gender Studies.
Most of the majors here seem pretty happy with it, though, from my brief experience in the job world so far, economics offers...nothing. Without the finance major, I really think I'd be up a creek.
Difficulty...pretty simple. Most of the mathematics tops out at algebra, so 8th graders could take these classes and theoretically pass. The concepts aren't much tougher, either: I've aced all of my economics classes while putting in comparatively little effort (except econometrics, which was almost entirely about multi-variable linear regression).
Posted by: Robert Olson at Oct 20, 2008 5:13:43 PM
Oh yes, and blast the social awkwardness with econ majors! Getting laid is harder than crossing a damn field
Posted by: Robert Olson at Oct 20, 2008 5:15:14 PM
pure math and physics considerably harder than econ @ university of chicago. econ definitely not easy though, but pure math is a whole new level.
Posted by: at Oct 20, 2008 5:53:50 PM
robert olsen: if you can get through economics without significant use of calculus, you haven't learned how economics actually works.
Posted by: at Oct 20, 2008 5:55:35 PM
Do people really think that more students need to hear "follow your passion"
The problem is not the advice itself methinks, but that what it means to a 21 year old is not the same as it will mean after a person is 35 or so. (Most 21 year olds I know are passionate about the most boring things....)
And most people don't "follow their passion" anyway, they ride a favorite hobby horse (see Tristram Shandy).
For good advice for high school students, I believe Paul Graham wins with his advice to basically follow your curiosity, deal with hard problems, and stay upwind in "What You'll Wish You'd Known"
http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html
Posted by: fish on a bicycle at Oct 20, 2008 6:08:12 PM
"I think the solution is to work in the other direction. Instead of working back from a goal, work forward from promising situations. This is what most successful people actually do anyway."
In the graduation-speech approach, you decide where you want to be in twenty years, and then ask: what should I do now to get there? I propose instead that you don't commit to anything in the future, but just look at the options available now, and choose those that will give you the most promising range of options afterward."
The spontaneous order approach to life-planning. Me like it. Thanks.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 20, 2008 6:27:06 PM
Economics graduate from a state school here. I got a BA in Economics from a state school and I'm in the Master's program for Economics at a state school. I can say that Economics is a lot harder the further you go. After your first two years of Economics it takes on a whole new level, a much more mathmatical level. Once you get to Econometric classes/ Money and Banking/ advanced monetary theory, you really need calculas 2 or beyond and a bunch of statistics classes to operate effeciently.
If one is going for a simple undergraduate degree, it's not challenging at all. However, if you decide to take your education to the next level, it is not just memorization of a few principal ideas, you actually have to prove your theories mathmatically and empirically.
At my school we have 2 Economic's programs, one for liberal arts and one for business, I think the business one is much harder, but that's just my opinion.
Posted by: torris187 at Oct 20, 2008 6:33:06 PM
I am curious how many undergraduate Econ programs require a high level of skill in mathematics. I have a B.A. in Economics from the University of Chicago, and I remember the four-quarter introductory sequence required for the major assumed knowledge of partial derivatives and optimization from day one. Many of the upper level elective courses even required a basic knowledge of set theory. For some reason I get the impression that this is atypical for most schools. Am I wrong?
Posted by: at Oct 20, 2008 8:05:47 PM
well you went to U of C. I go to a crappy state school which requires little math for my Econ degree.
My opinion of econ degree: i love love love the subject but the degree seems worthless. All other business related degrees seemed to actual focus on something practical. I on the other hand can decompose a price change and explain the relative elasticity of demand.
Other majors have skills that can be applied. I can tell you what the classicals said, the Keynesians said, the monetarists said; but I can't tell you who is right.
I think the biggest problem is stopping at the intermediates. If they had the micro/macro principles, intermediates, than two more advanced classes, i would feel like i am getting so scammed.
Accounting majors are equipped with the tools to audit etc.
I can talk about the marginal rate of substitution within a 2 good world. LOL!
Posted by: sean at Oct 20, 2008 8:37:22 PM
"robert olsen: if you can get through economics without significant use of calculus, you haven't learned how economics actually works."
That may be, Anon, but you'll have to take that up with the faculty at my university. The undergrad courses aren't very calc-heavy.
This seems to be fairly common at state schools, or so I am gathering from this.
Also, I am not an Olsen twin :P
Posted by: Robert Olson at Oct 20, 2008 11:09:59 PM
I graduated from Yale and took enough econ courses to major in it, but was disinclined to write the senior thesis of 30 pages. (By comparison, 50 pages of history was a walk). I did not know or really need calculus. I took some pretty rugged courses from some pretty famous professors and did just fine. It has been a tremendous background in my profession (law) and in following political issues. Fast forward 30 years: one child at Yale and one at Virginia, both encouraged by me to take econ, both honors calculus students in high school. Each reported that introductory econ was a nightmare course designed to "flush out" students who did not have PhD aptitudes and aspirations. What was happening? I delved deeper. It appears that the economics faculty at each school (and most universities today) are trying to "up their creds" in academia -- to get more prestige. They can't be bothered teaching "tomorrow's leaders" about price theory, market dynamics, world trade, Edgeworth Boxes or, heaven forfend, supply and demand. Is it any wonder our political and media nomenclatura are so dumb about markets, microeconomics, the role of government, taxes, trade, monetary policy, etc.? I will wager that not 15 out of 100 Senators could properly identify how prices are determined in a free market.
Posted by: Senlin at Oct 21, 2008 12:12:59 AM
