Economics > Maths Watch

This discussion is closed.
shady lane
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#101
Report 12 years ago
#101
(Original post by ajaj)
merton... engle (although he was physics)... shall i go on???
I'm not talking about major scholars. I'm talking about people I know with degrees in economics.
0
bally
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#102
Report 12 years ago
#102
(Original post by LBC213)
I thought you just said you got to Goldman final round? I also remember you saying other banks names that you'd applied to. And with all due respect, if you are going to claim you are working in a hedge fund, it's only fair you say how you got that job. Its unfair to make a comparison to my position when I acheived my place through the formal routes.



Oh no, I don't think you are an incapable person at all and I am sure there are people on this forum just as, if not more, "talented" as me, I can't deny that. I didn't say that anywhere.

By the way, an offer of a 10 week internship, with flights thrown in to Hong Kong, in credit risk, for a 1st year, is hardly what I'd call "little". Though I'm not trying to pat myself on the back, I don't consider that as my biggest achievment and neither is it something I'm most proud of, I know the competition in IB and in general in finance, and complacency can cost a person a lot.
lol, internships don't exactly give people leverage on such a discussion like this.
0
feanor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#103
Report 12 years ago
#103
For someone to claim what the OP has claimed shows a sense of insecurity over his chosen course.

LBC, you rule. One of the most interesting arguments I've read in this site.
0
Wiseguy.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 12 years ago
#104
(Original post by ajaj)
merton... engle (although he was physics)... shall i go on???
What a daft thing to say. She ask for mathmos not physicists.
0
Wiseguy.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 12 years ago
#105
(Original post by ajaj)
i can't believe i just read that.
I know, some people don't think before they post.
0
CityMonkey
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#106
Report 12 years ago
#106
(Original post by Goodfella333)
What a daft thing to say. She ask for mathmos not physicists.
Ok you want mathmos who turned economists? John Meynard Keynes. If you don't know who he is and you have obviously never read anything about him, are you sure you know which corner it is you are fighting when defending economics?

(Original post by Wikipedia on John Meynard Keynes)
John Maynard Keynes, Baron Keynes of Tilton, CB (pronounced "canes", IPA /keɪnz/) (June 5, 1883 – April 21, 1946) was a British economist whose ideas, called Keynesian economics, had a major impact on modern economic and political theory as well as on many governments' fiscal policies. He is particularly remembered for advocating interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to aim to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. Economists consider him one of the main founders of modern theoretical macroeconomics. His popular expression "In the long run we are all dead" is still quoted.

<a bit further down>

Keynes enjoyed an elite early education at Eton, where he displayed talent in a wide range of subjects; particularly mathematics, classics and history. His abilities were remarkable for their sheer diversity. He entered King’s College, Cambridge to study mathematics, but his interest in politics led him towards the field of economics, which he studied at Cambridge under A.C. Pigou and Alfred Marshall.*
*Himself a mathematician turned economist.

(Original post by Shady lane)
I'm not talking about major scholars. I'm talking about people I know with degrees in economics.
Just because you don't know any, doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know any 100m sprinters, does that mean they don't exist?

(Original post by Kendra)
Regardless of that, I still maintain that most "top" Economists are "failed" Mathematicians (although I think failed is too strong of a word there - most of them studied Mathematics at University to a very high level then transferred into Economics).
I don't agree with that, being a "successful" mathematician doesn't just mean that you do pure maths. Economics is a branch of applied mathematics, so no I don't think that is a "failed mathematician".

(Original post by Goodfella33)
I know, some people don't think before they post.
So physicists are "failed mathematicians" yet economists aren't? You're a joker, on this thread you've basically shown you know very little about this debate yet have tried to put your foot in it. Coming back to your point, yes, some people really do not think before they post.

(Original post by bally)
lol, internships don't exactly give people leverage on such a discussion like this.
Go read what was up for debate at that point of the thread when I said that particular paragraph, it wasn't supposed to be used as leverage for my side of the argument.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#107
Report 12 years ago
#107
(Original post by Kendra)
Regardless of that, I still maintain that most "top" Economists are "failed" Mathematicians (although I think failed is too strong of a word there - most of them studied Mathematics at University to a very high level then transferred into Economics).
I'm sorry, but if you're going to claim that I'd expect some backing.

First, how is studying maths at uni then reskilling towards economics "failing"? It's a change, but it's not failing. Was Einstein a "failed mathematician" because he turned to physics?

Secondly, who? The only mathmos who turn to economics are those that do mathematical economics, which is where the boundaries of what is maths and what's economics become blurred. It's like saying someone studying fluid dynamics has turned from maths to physics. They're studying mathematical physics (or mathematical engineering). The boundaries are very blurred, and at those boudaries, you find people who've studied both subjects.

Thirdly, it's factually incorrect. While many economists did study maths, *most* studied economics. Those who do political economics, development, transition, and most pure theoretical economists studied economics. A few of the latter studied maths, and quite a large proportion of econometricists or other mathematical economists studied maths.

You spoiled what was a very intelligent post by a silly and quite clearly untrue comment at the bottom. A shame.
0
Wiseguy.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 12 years ago
#108
(Original post by Drogue)
I'm sorry, but if you're going to claim that I'd expect some backing.

First, how is studying maths at uni then reskilling towards economics "failing"? It's a change, but it's not failing. Was Einstein a "failed mathematician" because he turned to physics?

Secondly, who? The only mathmos who turn to economics are those that do mathematical economics, which is where the boundaries of what is maths and what's economics become blurred. It's like saying someone studying fluid dynamics has turned from maths to physics. They're studying mathematical physics (or mathematical engineering). The boundaries are very blurred, and at those boudaries, you find people who've studied both subjects.

Thirdly, it's factually incorrect. While many economists did study maths, *most* studied economics. Those who do political economics, development, transition, and most pure theoretical economists studied economics. A few of the latter studied maths, and quite a large proportion of econometricists or other mathematical economists studied maths.

You spoiled what was a very intelligent post by a silly and quite clearly untrue comment at the bottom. A shame.
You mean econometrician.
0
Wiseguy.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 12 years ago
#109
(Original post by LBC213)
Ok you want mathmos who turned economicists? John Meynard Keynes. If you don't know who he is and you have obviously never read anything about him, are you sure you know which corner it is you are fighting when defending economics?



*Himself a mathematician turned economicist.



Just because you don't know any, doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know any 100m sprinters, does that mean they don't exist?



I don't agree with that, being a "successful" mathematician doesn't just mean that you do pure maths. Economics is a branch of applied mathematics, so no I don't think that is a "failed mathematician".



So physicists are "failed mathematicians" yet economicists aren't? You're a joker, on this thread you've basically shown you know very little about this debate yet have tried to put your foot in it. Coming back to your point, yes, some people really do not think before they post.



Go read what was up for debate at that point of the thread when I said that particular paragraph, it wasn't supposed to be used as leverage for my side of the argument.
What is this world turning into, you would expect someone who's doing physics at uni to have more sense. I don't understand, shady lane asked ajaj to name mathmos who converted to economics. But hey, ajaj goes and names a physicist, and I say thats daft as she was asking for a mathmo, and you come up an attack me. Stop trying to defend yourself for doing a physics degree, because its not as suited to IB as other degrees. At the end of the day painfully i would have to say maths is probably better for IB than economics, however not by a big margin. My rankings would be:

1) Maths/Stats
2) Economics/Econometrics (higher than finance because it incorporates finance in the degree)
3) Finance/Quant Finance
4) Computer Science
5) Physics
0
CityMonkey
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#110
Report 12 years ago
#110
(Original post by Goodfella333)
What is this world turning into, you would expect someone who's doing physics at uni to have more sense. I don't understand, shady lane asked ajaj to name mathmos who converted to economics. But hey, ajaj goes and names a physicist, and I say thats daft as she was asking for a mathmo, and you come up an attack me. Stop trying to defend yourself for doing a physics degree, because its not as suited to IB as other degrees.
Ok, lets show this whole forum how stupid you are:

Kendra first posted this:

(Original post by Kendra)
Regardless of that, I still maintain that most "top" Economists are "failed" Mathematicians (although I think failed is too strong of a word there - most of them studied Mathematics at University to a very high level then transferred into Economics).
Then, ajaj, through his/her disbelief at this statement, posted this:

(Original post by ajaj)
i can't believe i just read that.
Go look down and see ajaj's post, s/he has clearly quoted the above Kendra statement when saying this, so this means s/he has disagreed at that statement made by Kendra.

To this statement by ajaj, you then replied:

(Original post by Goodfella333)
I know, some people don't think before they post.
To which, I assume, you agreed with ajaj and in so doing disagreed with Kendra's remark that economists are "failed mathematicians".

However, in your previous posts on here, through a personal issue you had with me, you said that in being a physicist I am a "failed mathematician". Now, in my disbelief that you would say a physicist is a failed mathematician but then go on to say an economist isn't, I posted this:

(Original post by LBC213)
So physicists are "failed mathematicians" yet economists aren't? You're a joker, on this thread you've basically shown you know very little about this debate yet have tried to put your foot in it. Coming back to your point, yes, some people really do not think before they post.
Is that too hard for you to understand pumpkin? Or do you need me to break it down even more for you? With every post you make on this thread you make yourself more and more of a fool.

My advice to you is just stop, go have a breath of fresh air, relax your mind, stop trying to defend yourself and your silly views, and let people who actually have a structured argument debate this topic.
0
Kendra
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#111
Report 12 years ago
#111
(Original post by LBC213)
I don't agree with that, being a "successful" mathematician doesn't just mean that you do pure maths. Economics is a branch of applied mathematics, so no I don't think that is a "failed mathematician".
As I said in my post I did think failed was too strong of a word, but I still can't think of a decent substitute word, but if you do look at most of the Economists, they did start with Mathematics, for whatever reason decided to branch out into Economics, you could argue there are (at least) two reasons for this, they enjoyed political aspects and Economics can encompass that or they were semi good at Mathematics, not exceptional, Economics seemed a more ideal way for them to become exceptional at something.

Perhaps maybe I'm wrong having done a little bit of google (result for failed mathematician):

Most conventional economists, at least in the United States, do not care about economics. (1) How could they? More and more, a "good economist" is defined by the "economics profession" as someone with daunting mathematical skills. Where do "good economists" come from? More and more they are failed mathematicians who shift to economics (it's easy!) after they have picked up a B.A. and maybe an M.A. in math. If you cannot stuff "it" into an equation or a model, chances are the "good economist" cannot conceive of "it" as economics.
But he then does go on to say:

As the classical economists (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx) understood the matter, economic analysis depended upon a careful reading of history, the understanding of social forces, a shrewd assessment of political tendencies, and ultimately, a careful diagnosis of power. Power, history, political realities, social structure, and dynamics are the constituent components of economic analysis. Strip them away, as does conventional mainstream economics with glee, and you have the jabberwocky that now passes as economic knowledge.
So going from that, would the trade prefer a "good economist" or a good economist? Who knows.
0
Wiseguy.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 12 years ago
#112
(Original post by LBC213)
Ok, lets show this whole forum how stupid you are:

Kendra first posted this:



Then, ajaj, through his/her disbelief at this statement, posted this:



Go look down and see ajaj's post, s/he has clearly quoted the above Kendra statement when saying this, so this means s/he has disagreed at that statement made by Kendra.

To this statement by ajaj, you then replied:



To which, I assume, you agreed with ajaj and in so doing disagreed with Kendra's remark that economists are "failed mathematicians".

However, in your previous posts on here, through a personal issue you had with me, you said that in being a physicist I am a "failed mathematician". Now, in my disbelief that you would say a physicist is a failed mathematician but then go on to say an economist isn't, I posted this:



Is that too hard for you to understand pumpkin? Or do you need me to break it down even more for you? With every post you make on this thread you make yourself more and more of a fool.

My advice to you is just stop, go have a breath of fresh air, relax your mind, stop trying to defend yourself and your silly views, and let people who actually have a structured argument debate this topic.
No, don't try and change what i said, i said you were probably a failed mathematician, not physicists. At the end of the day you don't like me, and i don't like you, so there is no point replying to each other. It looks like i have to be bigger man.
0
CityMonkey
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#113
Report 12 years ago
#113
(Original post by Goodfella333)
No, don't try and change what i said, i said you were probably a failed mathematician, not physicists.
And on what basis did you come to that conclusion then? I'm assuming you called my university up and asked them for my results? Or you obtained my school exam results? Or perhaps you talked to all my maths teachers from primary school up to university? Hmm..I'll tell you why you said that. It was a defence mechanism, I argued my points and backed up my argument, you didn't have one and it also now transpires you don't even know what it is you are arguing for. So instead of being the "bigger man" and accepting what I was saying (not that I want you to or I'm saying you can't have your own opinon, but because you couldn't come back and prove my points wrong), you resorted to personal attacks on me, which is exactly what calling me a "failed mathematician" was.

At the end of the day you don't like me, and i don't like you, so there is no point replying to each other. It looks like i have to be bigger man.
No, I don't not like you, I don't even know you so I won't make assumptions on you like you have done with me, however, I don't like the way you approached this debate. You couldn't argue a point so you resorted to personal attacks, you will find that in the world of work, that kind of behaviour will get you fired. You be the "bigger man", makes no difference to me, I'm not here to climb onto some moral high horse just when it seems I have been proved wrong.
0
Wiseguy.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 12 years ago
#114
(Original post by LBC213)
And on what basis did you come to that conclusion then? I'm assuming you called my university up and asked them for my results? Or you obtained my school exam results? Or perhaps you talked to all my maths teachers from primary school up to university? Hmm..I'll tell you why you said that. It was a defence mechanism, I argued my points and backed up my argument, you didn't have one and it also now transpires you don't even know what it is you are arguing for. So instead of being the "bigger man" and accepting what I was saying (not that I want you to or I'm saying you can't have your own opinon, but because you couldn't come back and prove my points wrong), you resorted to personal attacks on me, which is exactly what calling me a "failed mathematician" was.



No, I don't not like you, I don't even know you so I won't make assumptions on you like you have done with me, however, I don't like the way you approached this debate. You couldn't argue a point so you resorted to personal attacks, you will find that in the world of work, that kind of behaviour will get you fired. You be the "bigger man", makes no difference to me, I'm not here to climb onto some moral high horse just when it seems I have been proved wrong.
:rolleyes: o.k.....
0
ajaj
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 12 years ago
#115
(Original post by Goodfella333)
What a daft thing to say. She ask for mathmos not physicists.
physics is applied maths..... i got the impression that shady was more generally indicating a transition from maths or heavily applied maths subject to econ

(Original post by Goodfella333)
Stop trying to defend yourself for doing a physics degree, because its not as suited to IB as other degrees.
why do I read this forum........................... ......

(Original post by LBC213)
ajaj, through his/her disbelief
his

(Original post by KENDRA)
As I said in my post I did think failed was too strong of a word, but I still can't think of a decent substitute word, but if you do look at most of the Economists, they did start with Mathematics, for whatever reason decided to branch out into Economics,
decent substitute word, I don't know, maybe transitioned? And I believe the reason is more to do with interest than ability... stuff like topology,group theory etc just isn't everyones idea of fun (especially at the research frontier), not that they are not aren't clever enough to learn and possibly further the subject, but its just too abstract for people to enjoy. Trying to model the crazy world we live in, though, could seem far more fun to a lot of people (myself included).
0
shady lane
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#116
Report 12 years ago
#116
(Original post by Goodfella333)
shady lane asked ajaj to name mathmos who converted to economics.
No I didn't. I said "I don't know any economists who started out as mathematicians."

I never said they don't exist, and I never asked for examples. I don't know any. There's not much argument about that :rolleyes:
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#117
Report 12 years ago
#117
(Original post by Kendra)
As I said in my post I did think failed was too strong of a word, but I still can't think of a decent substitute word
It's not too strong, it's false. A mathematician that chooses to go into mathematical economics is the same as one whon chooses to go into physics. It's a choice. Nothing about failing at all.

(Original post by Kendra)
but if you do look at most of the Economists, they did start with Mathematics,
As I've already said, no they didn't. Please provide some evidence before you start making assertions like that. Most economists today studied economics.

Many a long time ago studied maths, since the study of economics wasn't invented. Similarly in the early 20th century, many physicists studied maths, as physics was still not really studied on it's own. Indeed, Einstein was considered a mathematician early on, rather than a physicist.
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#118
Report 12 years ago
#118
(Original post by Goodfella333)
You mean econometrician.
I do indeed
0
Wrangler
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#119
Report 12 years ago
#119
(Original post by ajaj)
...stuff like topology,group theory etc just isn't everyones idea of fun (especially at the research frontier), not that they are not aren't clever enough to learn and possibly further the subject, but its just too abstract for people to enjoy.
Just thought I'd pop my head in to say that the underlying theory which is used in Finance goes very deep and very abstract. Anyone who would call themself a decent mathematician-turned-economist, would have to know some pretty deep stuff too understand and develop models used in finance. I certainly wouldn't call anyone who's gone into that area a failed-mathematician.

...whoosh, and now I'm gone.
0
Johan C
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#120
Report 12 years ago
#120
I really don't want to get involved into this noxious debate, but I strongly disagree with the notion that most Economists were originally mathematicians (+1 Drogue ). No they weren't, where's the proof anyway, and I do believe that nowadays Economics is a sufficiently varied and deep discipline to justify its particular study rather than branching out of something else. Also, IMO, Maths and Econs are two great, highly employable and prestigious degrees. But it is true that Econs isn't just equations, and that if you strip out the politics, history and sociology that underlie it, it doesn't make sense anymore.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a role model?

Yes - I know them personally (294)
26.09%
Yes - they're famous (286)
25.38%
No I don't (547)
48.54%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise