Do not study economics at uni
I was constantly lied to and pressured when I was in sixth form that I should take my LSE economics offer instead of reapplying for maths because Econ at uni is "bAsIcaLlY aPpLiEd mAtHs". I'm not sure if its because they are mathematically challenged and therefore it seems a lot for them, but the maths is so basic, its essentially just basic differentiation over and over and over, and the econometrics side is also just watered down statistics.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
Scroll to see replies
The vast majority of people would kill to study econ at LSE
There are a LOT of careers you will have a head start in
LSE is much more superior than the average for econ anyway
I think you just need a better careers adviser
Kudos to you if you don't feel challenged though - I highly doubt there is anyone else on the same wavelength
There are a LOT of careers you will have a head start in
LSE is much more superior than the average for econ anyway
I think you just need a better careers adviser
Kudos to you if you don't feel challenged though - I highly doubt there is anyone else on the same wavelength
Original post by Forlornsoul
The vast majority of people would kill to study econ at LSE
There are a LOT of careers you will have a head start in
LSE is much more superior than the average for econ anyway
I think you just need a better careers adviser
Kudos to you if you don't feel challenged though - I highly doubt there is anyone else on the same wavelength
There are a LOT of careers you will have a head start in
LSE is much more superior than the average for econ anyway
I think you just need a better careers adviser
Kudos to you if you don't feel challenged though - I highly doubt there is anyone else on the same wavelength
I'm not interested in careers right now so it's irrelevant.
Original post by yzven
I was constantly lied to and pressured when I was in sixth form that I should take my LSE economics offer instead of reapplying for maths because Econ at uni is "bAsIcaLlY aPpLiEd mAtHs". I'm not sure if its because they are mathematically challenged and therefore it seems a lot for them, but the maths is so basic, its essentially just basic differentiation over and over and over, and the econometrics side is also just watered down statistics.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
Tbh this is what they call a "first world problem". Economics at LSE is incredibly respectable and I think you should just be thankful you're finding the course easy, and move on with your life.
Original post by yzven
I was constantly lied to and pressured when I was in sixth form that I should take my LSE economics offer instead of reapplying for maths because Econ at uni is "bAsIcaLlY aPpLiEd mAtHs". I'm not sure if its because they are mathematically challenged and therefore it seems a lot for them, but the maths is so basic, its essentially just basic differentiation over and over and over, and the econometrics side is also just watered down statistics.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
(edited 2 weeks ago)
Original post by BenRyan99
Imagine doing an economics degree and then finding out that it has less rigorous maths than a maths degree.... Absolutely shocking! Who could've ever foreseen such a development?!?
It's so Mickey Mouse in comparison though such a bad degree
Original post by yzven
It's so Mickey Mouse in comparison though such a bad degree
are you in first year? of course it will be quite easy if you are, I'm sure most of your peers are finding it easy too. modules that come later tend to be more difficult
Original post by jsof112
are you in first year? of course it will be quite easy if you are, I'm sure most of your peers are finding it easy too. modules that come later tend to be more difficult
I have looked, and compared to maths/physics/engineering its trivial
Original post by jsof112
i don't understand why you would assume econ is similar in difficulty to those subjects though? its a SOCIAL science at the end of the day
That's debatable, the Austrian school of economics believes that economics is a social science and that maths has no place in Econ. The other mainstream schools like the Monetarists like to use heavy mathematical models in their economics.
Original post by yzven
It's so Mickey Mouse in comparison though such a bad degree
At early undergrad level, sure. But most professional economists outside the government economic service have master's or PhDs too. Undergrad is merely the stepping stone towards the training required to be a professional economist, so I wouldn't read too much into it personally.
Moreover, while I have reservations about some of the popular methods/models used in proper real-world economics, ultimately the thing you're modelling is likely a lot more difficult than in some STEM fields, so the bar for analysis is always going to be lower. For example, imagine how tough physics would be if every atom had feelings and different emotional responses to external forces? This is why economics isn't a proper science in the same way that other subjects are, but you're still building a toolkit to help tackle important issues that affect billions of people
(edited 2 weeks ago)
Original post by IM7031
Bro came all the way from Reddit to spread the word
Haha, maybe they weren't getting the replies that they wanted over there?
"Bro everyday you come on this sub-reddit to talk about how much you hate economics. Why tf did you pick it."
"Your mindset is very unique and not in a good way"
"You’re clearly an academically bright person but I’ve no idea what you’re talking about"
More positively I see that they commented that they are looking to switch to Maths w/Econ.
Original post by yzven
I was constantly lied to and pressured when I was in sixth form that I should take my LSE economics offer instead of reapplying for maths because Econ at uni is "bAsIcaLlY aPpLiEd mAtHs". I'm not sure if its because they are mathematically challenged and therefore it seems a lot for them, but the maths is so basic, its essentially just basic differentiation over and over and over, and the econometrics side is also just watered down statistics.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
It is nowhere near as rigorous as a degree in maths, physics, CS, engineering etc, in all of which people are deemed very smart to be doing, and for good reason because the maths is actually challenging. But economics graduates are not seen as such, and I agree, because quite frankly it's a trivial subject compared to something like maths. Ironically, the hardest thing about economics is the intuition because most of the time it is not based in reality whatsoever.
Also, this is the most compelling reason: an engineering, maths, physics, CS graduate can do a masters, PhD in economics, but an undergrad in economics cannot get you anywhere near those other fields because it is just not mathematically rigorous. Also, an engineering, maths, physics, CS grad can do anything an Econ grad can do, and could do more and probably be better at it too. Plus, they're more respected.
So to summarise if you do fm and have good predicted grades etc, please do a quant stem subject (math/CS/Eng/Physics etc) instead they are so much more respected, and will actually challenge you and provide useful knowledge and skills. Otherwise you are wasting potential doing a second rate, laughed at degree.
Everywhere I look when someone is comparing, say, engineering to economics, there is an absolute majority saying engineering is miles above economics in terms of difficulty, its just not seen as a rigorous/respectable degree, especially because every finance bro wannabe in the country does it, which also further tarnishes the name of "Economics" because, quite frankly, I see some quite academically challenged/unserious people choosing to study it, lets just say that.
Original post by thegeek888
Economics at LSE is highly mathematical and requires an understanding of A-Level Further Maths. So, you will still be able to do a Quantitative Finance Masters and Doctorate degrees. LSE is world famous and you won't have any problems getting a graduate role even with a 2.2.
Are you here? Have you done the course? If so I hope you realise it's still nowhere near as mathematical as physics or engineering or even computer science. For the economics modules, it's the same trivial thing each time, optimisation. And for metrics, well it's watered down statistics. And the maths modules? They go so much slower than other university methods courses, we do stuff in year 2 and 3 and maybe even never that other unis do in first year, its pathetic tbh they go slowly yet they require people to have A* in maths and to do fm
Original post by thegeek888
Economics at LSE is highly mathematical and requires an understanding of A-Level Further Maths. So, you will still be able to do a Quantitative Finance Masters and Doctorate degrees. LSE is world famous and you won't have any problems getting a graduate role even with a 2.2.
This kind of nonsense about "highly mathematical" is what allowed me to be pressured into going here when in reality it's nowhere near what everyone hyped it up to be. Plus I swear some people here don't even deserve to be here
Original post by yzven
This kind of nonsense about "highly mathematical" is what allowed me to be pressured into going here when in reality it's nowhere near what everyone hyped it up to be. Plus I swear some people here don't even deserve to be here
Original post by thegeek888
You could always try to transfer to Maths and Economics degree at LSE perhaps?
Its the same problem, the maths modules are very weak compared to any other uni which is half decent for maths
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can I study econcomics at russell group unis without doing it at A-level?
- Help - Stuck on A Level Choices. Physics Maths Economics and/or Biology
- Tier 1 Uni Msc Economics from Open Uni
- Can I do economics at uni without economics a level?
- Film Studies as a third choice?
- 2 courses 1 personal statement
- A-level choices
- Do I have a shot at applying to UCL/KCL for Economics?
- would i be disadvantaged doing an economics degree not having studied A Level maths
- Is this a good combo of Alevels?
- Do I need A-Level maths to study economics at uni?
- IS economics hard? anyone studying it at degree level
- Do unis dislike econ and business combo????
- Unsure on what 3rd A-level to choose??
- A Level subjects
- Economics at undergraduate level
- Will i be looked down upon for doing economics and business a level?
- What A level subjects do I choose ???
- 2 courses, 1 personal statement
- A level combo for Economics, Business
Latest
Trending
Last reply 12 hours ago
LSE Postgraduate 2025 Applicant threadLast reply 12 hours ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2025 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 week ago
LSE Request to Reference for Additional Info - Good Sign?Last reply 1 month ago
International student or home studentLast reply 1 month ago
AP scores for Americans, LSE & moreLast reply 1 month ago
LSE Politics and Economics 2024Last reply 1 month ago
BSc Econ, Finance, and Data Science at ImperialLast reply 1 month ago
application for unis - realistic?Last reply 1 month ago
should i accept LSE or Edinburgh??Last reply 1 month ago
Politics and International Relations - Can I get in?Last reply 1 month ago
Is it worthwhile taking TMUA just for LSE?Last reply 1 month ago
lse economics and economic historyLast reply 1 month ago
Economics and Economic History 2024 Thread
