Cambridge Economics Students and Applicants

Thanks for the info . Yeah they mentioned it on the options day. Is that bad? I imagine Germany would be quite interesting to study, having looked at it from a historical perspective, but not a thorough economic one. Having said that it could be quite like economic history this year, which is proving to be a lot of work. We'll see how next week goes...
Unfortunately I am also slow and easily distracted . I reckon I would be able to do it though, whereas I need to make sure that I am capable of doing the maths.

Short question,
a banking internship in which department is considered most useful to demonstrate strong passion for the subject economics?

Short question,
a banking internship in which department is considered most useful to demonstrate strong passion for the subject economics?

Short question,
a banking internship in which department is considered most useful to demonstrate strong passion for the subject economics?

Thank you for your help, although I thought working with economists in a division that predicts the future development of economies and evaluates impacts of different events on them would be really interesting!
The problem is that I'm not quite sure which division does that specific stuff.
But if it's more likely to be a disadvantage for a potential application, then I'll better do some further reading during my vations...

I'd definitely take the internship, and if that's the description of what you're looking for then it would be good experience. I'm just naturally wary because I've seen too many people who don't actually care about the subject and are just using it as a means to an end to get into investment banking, and I worry that this would come across at interview. I'd be curious to hear Alex's thoughts on this though because I do wonder if it's only me that thinks that!

I'd definitely take the internship, and if that's the description of what you're looking for then it would be good experience. I'm just naturally wary because I've seen too many people who don't actually care about the subject and are just using it as a means to an end to get into investment banking, and I worry that this would come across at interview. I'd be curious to hear Alex's thoughts on this though because I do wonder if it's only me that thinks that!

My two cents:

This is an interview with a Cambridge professor on the topic which makes for interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/mar/16/voices-of-finance-oxbridge-professor-economics

Anyway I suspect that admissions people's main concern is how well people will do on the course, and commitment comes second. I realise this is quite a cynical view and one that could well be wrong (for one thing commitment and enthusiasm for economics will factor into performance). I've certainly got the vibe that once you get here, they are quite laissez-faire about your career options and are almost solely concerned with your performance on the tripos.

My two cents:

This is an interview with a Cambridge professor on the topic which makes for interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/mar/16/voices-of-finance-oxbridge-professor-economics

Anyway I suspect that admissions people's main concern is how well people will do on the course, and commitment comes second. I realise this is quite a cynical view and one that could well be wrong (for one thing commitment and enthusiasm for economics will factor into performance). I've certainly got the vibe that once you get here, they are quite laissez-faire about your career options and are almost solely concerned with your performance on the tripos.

I would broadly agree with this. Of course commitment and enthusiasm are probably beneficial ceteris paribus, but they are compliments rather than substitutes for raw ability.

My two cents:

This is an interview with a Cambridge professor on the topic which makes for interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/mar/16/voices-of-finance-oxbridge-professor-economics

I would broadly agree with this. Of course commitment and enthusiasm are probably beneficial ceteris paribus, but they are compliments rather than substitutes for raw ability.

My two cents:

This is an interview with a Cambridge professor on the topic which makes for interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/mar/16/voices-of-finance-oxbridge-professor-economics

Anyway I suspect that admissions people's main concern is how well people will do on the course, and commitment comes second. I realise this is quite a cynical view and one that could well be wrong (for one thing commitment and enthusiasm for economics will factor into performance). I've certainly got the vibe that once you get here, they are quite laissez-faire about your career options and are almost solely concerned with your performance on the tripos.

Probably a bigger effect - and I apologise for dashing the hopes and dreams of any future Cambridge applicants, please still apply - is that a Cambridge degree is really ****ing difficult. It's not clear that you can make it through three/four/six years without having some kind of interest in the subject itself, especially if you're only in it for the cash. I suspect they're already very good at screening these people out and the ones who get through are actually pretty motivated with the subject but are also chasing the money. I don't know that this would be any worse than somebody "pure" in that regard - in fact it's probably better if you've got something significant to shoot for at the end of the degree...

I'd like to do some reporting on why exactly people go into banking at some point soon, but for now this is entirely befuddled conjecture. Sorry about that.

Although the Economics Tripos is difficult, I don't think it is really that difficult - for instance, when I compared the pure Maths we did in the 2nd year option to Mathmos' 1st year linear algebra and calculus the stuff they were doing was on a different level. Of course they didn't do so much of the stats but conceptually that isn't too bad (just too much stuff to remember).


Isn't it pretty obvious that people go into it for the money? I was tempted just for that but have so far managed to avoid it.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant that it was very hard work. Three years of the academic equivalent of hard labour (maybe not for you so much as others) which requires a heck of a lot of motivation to get through. If they think it's a quick and easy way to having money thrown at them, they may be disappointed.

As for whether it's just the money - I've seen some suggestions otherwise (the ease of application, the number of jobs and the opportunity to be around other smart people) but all of these presume that people aren't intending to go into the industry when they arrive at university. That clearly isn't the case with the Cambridge econ course, so I don't know to what extent that would hold.

I remember the question: why do you want to read a degree in Economics?

It seems an age ago now, but I can still remember going off on the route of saying how I'd had personal success at school and enjoyed the applications of mathematics in the subject!

Just to add to the discussion: my interview last December seemed to be a pure assessment of my academic ability -- there were no questions at all about why I'd applied or even why I was interested in the subject, though I suppose that the latter could be gleaned through the discussions we had.
I think there is some merit in looking for candidates who are interested in economics as an academic discipline, but it's also easy to underestimate the ability of those 'in it for the money', as it were, to power through the degree regardless of how much they dislike the work.