Perfect Econ application

but the advantage of Physics is that if, after your AS exams, you want to do something different your choices will still be ideal for maths, computer science, physics, engineering and others. Whereas History only leaves gay possibilities like history, politics, philosophy and **** like that.

The choice ultimately comes down to studying something that's real and meaningful in every sense of the word (physics) or studying something that's made up and usually "proven" wrong every few years, something which is just completely trivial in the grand scheme of the universe (economics).

So why, then, do you study it?

My life is far too pointless to do anything else.

My life is far too pointless to do anything else.

A-level physics is a joke

Thanks for clearing things up.

Also what did you mean by it's a joke?

I've always thought that Further Maths is very useful and strengthens you application, is that not the case?

And is the jump at A2 in terms of workload huge, or manageable ?

Yeah it is I'm sure, but personally I know people that have made it to Oxbridge for economics without further maths. F.M will definitely help but at the end of the day you have to make a choice, and if yours is too keep your options completely wide open then choose phys and history.
If you just want a strong uni application-which is respectable- choose further maths and history.
I also have 3 friends in further maths who don't actually need to gain a grade in it at A2- it doesn't count. The main advantage is getting an A level in maths at the end of AS.
Good luck, hope all goes well!

Depends on what exactly you mean by "grand scheme of things". Are professional physicists socially more valuable than professional economists? No doubt. But actually studying physics requires poring over the minutiae of some obscure process you might really not give a **** about. The end result in economics is less meaningful, but I think being a part of it is potentially more fun.

Surely economists have a far greater effect on most people's lives than physicists? And by definition, economists who do their job right - bring development, 'happiness' and so forth - are infinitely more socially valuable than whatever Edward Witten has been up to lately? I mean: the economist who gets things right keeps millions out of unemployment, makes sure resources are distribruted accordingly, stops countries from collapsing. The physicist did once upon a time create the theories which underpinned electricity etc but in the modern day I don't honestly believe that your average Tesco-shopping Briton is effected in any way by academics at the LHC. Academics at the LSE, on the other hand, influence the government to try and build a better Britain... (I cringed at that last sentence too)

You assume that economists know how to do any of the things you list. Open up the politics/business section of any newspaper and you will realise that they don't. As an example, the IMF has spent the last few decades ****ing up the world based on what has passed for mainstream economic thinking. So yes, they do have an impact, and it's not always negative, but it's almost always accidental.

Economics is an interesting subject, it's fun to study and gives you useful skills, but it's not a science. Most of its claims, especially in macroeconomics, cannot be verified. Econometrics makes a noble attempt I suppose, but is itself based on assumptions that bear little resemblance to real world conditions. Economic systems just aren't particularly amenable to scientific scrutiny.

History has shown time and time again that theoretical physics research that was derided as "useless" or "ivory tower" at the time can prove to have vital applications later on. The biggest changes in your life in the next 20 years will be effected by scientists, not economists. (again I'm really not trying to hate on economics, I just think economists need to be more realistic about what they can achieve).

The choice ultimately comes down to studying something that's real and meaningful in every sense of the word (physics) or studying something that's made up and usually "proven" wrong every few years, something which is just completely trivial in the grand scheme of the universe (economics).

I think decent pragmatic keynesian theory can stop an economy crumbling aparrt. The problem lies with the free market idelogues who believe in perfect markets.

See that's where you're wrong. You can't put money into the economy without taking it from the economy. Every pound must ultimately, be borrowed. Free markets work, provided they're actually free.

I guess this just illustrates how economics can turn into murkey territory, this constant debating is what makes people, I guess start to believe it's meaningless as a discipline.

See that's where you're wrong. You can't put money into the economy without taking it from the economy. Every pound must ultimately, be borrowed. Free markets work, provided they're actually free.

I guess this just illustrates how economics can turn into murkey territory, this constant debating is what makes people, I guess start to believe it's meaningless as a discipline.