Oxford PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) Students and Applicants

Original post by ibs007

I was thinking E&M as well...I guess im still juggling between the two! But the PPE course is fantastic!!

You know, the Chinese girl there who applied from Australia told me she was in the exact same position and she didn't regret choosing PPE at all as, er, it's sth like "we take the same econ modules as the E&M ppl and we have a richer learning experience". I'm sounding a bit stupid here but she made it sound so much more persuasive!

Did you enjoy the philo and pol talks there though? :smile:

Reply 6242

Original post by candide

.....It'd be nice to see some microeconomic research conducted at the junction with neurobiology and evolutionary psychology.

if this was on fb i'd have clicked the like button a thousand times :biggrin:

i completely agree with you. do you think that psy and neuroscience has a lot more overlap with econ nowadays though, like research on happiness economics, behavioural economics and so on?

Reply 6243

Original post by Bantersaurus Rexx

anyone here wanting to study PPE but with fairly scientific A levels?? :/

It's unusual but I'd say it's probably perfectly doable. sorry to be sounding a bit weird but I'm a potential applicant with mainly scientific A levels as well and having done my research I'd say that ppl have done it (it says that over 40% ppe undergrads have not studied any of the three disciplines on the pembroke website). I understand why ppl would have concerns over not having essay subjects or 2 or more of the 3 subjects but I wouldn't say it's something that would break your application. Of course, as the others say, an essay subject is useful but perhaps it'd not be as important in the eyes of tutors from certain colleges.

I'm pretty confident of that though I'm not 100% sure as I still have to go through the process myself *fingers crossed!* and good luck to both of us (and everyone on this thread!) :biggrin:

Reply 6244

candide

Original post by ak726

if this was on fb i'd have clicked the like button a thousand times :biggrin:

i completely agree with you. do you think that psy and neuroscience has a lot more overlap with econ nowadays though, like research on happiness economics, behavioural economics and so on?

Definetly.

Economics is called the science of choices.

Yet then we had game theory and rational choice theory etc assuming that consumers are perfectly rational agents. This produces pretty theoretical models but, come on, no one can pretend that human mind are simply price calculators.

EO Wilson says that economists, when they dont presume utter rationality, get by with "folk" psychology. That is, they base their studies on 'choice' on flawed intuitive unscientific psychology. I dont understand how any micro-economist could get by without a knowledge of psychology or neuroscience.

Perfect Example. Dominique Strauss Kahn. As an economic agent trying to make a success of his life, surely the rational economically-sound thing to do would have been to ignore the cleaner, and just think of the success that would be the French presidency. Yet he abuses her which, though disgusting in itself, was irrational from his economic perspective. Yet from an evolutionary perspective, giving in to one's libido makes perfect sense.

By the same token, is the IMF's forced austerity in Portugal etc born of its executives' rational thinking, or of their tribal dedication to ideology and fear of going against the consensus?

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I tend to go on a bit! =L

Btw I ordered this the other day. It's an attack on the theory of equilibriums and stuff, in favour of an "evolutionary" model of business.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Economics/dp/0712676619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306866975&sr=8-1

Reply 6245

superhat2

Original post by Bantersaurus Rexx

anyone here wanting to study PPE but with fairly scientific A levels?? :/

I'm doing Chemistry, Maths, Politics and History this year with AS in Physics and Science for Public Understanding. I managed to get an offer so I assume it doesn't really matter as long as your interested in PPE. It may be worth asking at an open day as I know at LSE they seemed to say that Science A Levels were taken in a positive light.

Reply 6246

Original post by candide

Definetly.

Economics is called the science of choices.

Yet then we had game theory and rational choice theory etc assuming that consumers are perfectly rational agents. This produces pretty theoretical models but, come on, no one can pretend that human mind are simply price calculators.

EO Wilson says that economists, when they dont presume utter rationality, get by with "folk" psychology. That is, they base their studies on 'choice' on flawed intuitive unscientific psychology. I dont understand how any micro-economist could get by without a knowledge of psychology or neuroscience.

Perfect Example. Dominique Strauss Kahn. As an economic agent trying to make a success of his life, surely the rational economically-sound thing to do would have been to ignore the cleaner, and just think of the success that would be the French presidency. Yet he abuses her which, though disgusting in itself, was irrational from his economic perspective. Yet from an evolutionary perspective, giving in to one's libido makes perfect sense.

By the same token, is the IMF's forced austerity in Portugal etc born of its executives' rational thinking, or of their tribal dedication to ideology and fear of going against the consensus?

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I tend to go on a bit! =L

Btw I ordered this the other day. It's an attack on the theory of equilibriums and stuff, in favour of an "evolutionary" model of business.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Wealth-Evolution-Complexity-Economics/dp/0712676619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306866975&sr=8-1

That's what I thought when I first heard about the game theory. It seemed too idealistic to me to assume that everyone is rational. It seems perfect in theory, but I can't help wondering how applicable it is in real life.

However, I just read the introduction of "The Logic of Life: the rational economics of an irrational world" by Tim Harford and it seemed to suggest that taking all of these other things into account, economics is still rational. He seems to be arguing economists use price signals to find out about true motivations people have and values they hold. Seems quite an interesting book on this matter :smile:

When we were studying opportunity cost, my teacher always stressed that the cost of one thing is the value of it. Even if it's £900, the cost is not the £900, but the value of the £900. So perhaps human minds aren't price calculators, but finds the hidden value of every choice and puts them on a scale in comparison.

Dunno, just random thoughts :smile:

Original post by superhat2

I'm doing Chemistry, Maths, Politics and History this year with AS in Physics and Science for Public Understanding. I managed to get an offer so I assume it doesn't really matter as long as your interested in PPE. It may be worth asking at an open day as I know at LSE they seemed to say that Science A Levels were taken in a positive light.

Again, I think it depends what subject the applicant is applying for. They seem to be quite keen on at least one essay subject for politics and econ... (economics don't count as one)

Reply 6247

There are lots of interesting things to read about in this area, which would prepare you well for interview. Good things to look regarding whether the axioms of choice theory hold are the Allais Paradox and the Ellsberg paradox. These have more to do with whether expected utility theory (which applicants certainly don't need to know about) can describe the world, but you can pick up the intuition for why there is 'irrationality' going on.

What is also interesting is that if you give people a choice of lotteries, and ask them to pick one, they will often pick a different one from the one they value the highest when asked to assign monetary values to them.

Reply 6248

Brand New Eyes

2

Original post by Budgie

There are lots of interesting things to read about in this area, which would prepare you well for interview. Good things to look regarding whether the axioms of choice theory hold are the Allais Paradox and the Ellsberg paradox. These have more to do with whether expected utility theory (which applicants certainly don't need to know about) can describe the world, but you can pick up the intuition for why there is 'irrationality' going on.

What is also interesting is that if you give people a choice of lotteries, and ask them to pick one, they will often pick a different one from the one they value the highest when asked to assign monetary values to them.

So many formulas, looking at it is making me confused already! :albertein:

Reply 6249

Original post by Brand New Eyes

So many formulas, looking at it is making me confused already! :albertein:

Don't read the maths - just read the descriptions and try to get the intuition for why what is going on is weird.

Reply 6250

Brand New Eyes

2

Original post by Budgie

Don't read the maths - just read the descriptions and try to get the intuition for why what is going on is weird.

Personally I think Allias made alot of sense. When risk between two options are nearly identical, yet the rewards vary to a larger proportion obviously people would aim for the higher reward option?

As for Ellsberg, oh the beauty of human logic. I guess people like to base decisions on information they know rather than the unknown. So in Gamble A, they know the chances are 30/90 whereas the probability of B could be anything. Likewise for D, the certainty of the probability may be comfort to the gambler?

Wonder how extensive/ quality of the test sample was though

Reply 6251

wishiknew

Hi,

I'm just wondering about anyone's experience of the Gov Economic Service. I had a quick look at their website at the eligibility is for at least 50% of your course must be economics. Does PPE count?

Thanks

Reply 6252

cambio wechsel

20

Original post by wishiknew

Hi,

I'm just wondering about anyone's experience of the Gov Economic Service. I had a quick look at their website at the eligibility is for at least 50% of your course must be economics. Does PPE count?

Thanks

It will count if more than 50% of your course is in economics.

The first year of PPE sees you study the three elements in equal proportion. Thereafter you can tailor the course and the weightings to your own tastes.

In finals you will sit 8 papers (or 7 and submit a dissertation). You can take 2 or 3 of the three subjects in PPE and must study for at least two papers in any subjects you take. So, the most you could do in a first preference subject would be 6 papers: 6+2+0 = 8.

Reply 6253

probably not

4

don't you still have to do at least 3 papers in each if you're bipartite? 2 core and 1 option. so most you can do is 5 economics

admittedly the more observant ones among you will have noticed that 5 is more than 50% of 8

Reply 6254

Original post by wishiknew

Hi,

I'm just wondering about anyone's experience of the Gov Economic Service. I had a quick look at their website at the eligibility is for at least 50% of your course must be economics. Does PPE count?

Thanks

Yes, if you choose to do at least 4 of 8 finals modules in it. The maximum you can do is 5, or, if you choose politics, you can do Labour Economics which is a crossover Politics / Economics subject and so kind of go 6/2.

If you go 5/3, PPE is sufficiently economics heavy for GES and Bank of England, or for getting onto a top postgraduate economics course.

People tend to forget that most PPEists aren't still doing all three by the time they do Finals. After the first year, most people drop one, with the result that you can specialise quite heavily. The great thing about PPE is how radically you can tailor your degree to your tastes.

Reply 6255

Poppyxx

11

Original post by Budgie

The great thing about PPE is how radically you can tailor your degree to your tastes.

And it's got even better because if you're a tripartite PPEist, you now only have to do 2 out of 3 Econ core papers.

Although it does mean you can't pick an Econ paper as one of your 2 options, unless you do the final core paper, with the exception of Labour Economics which, as mentioned, comes under Politics too.

Reply 6256

made_of_fail

1

Original post by Poppyxx

And it's got even better because if you're a tripartite PPEist, you now only have to do 2 out of 3 Econ core papers.

Although it does mean you can't pick an Econ paper as one of your 2 options, unless you do the final core paper, with the exception of Labour Economics which, as mentioned, comes under Politics too.

does that mean you can get an economics degree without taking one of micro, macro or metrics? :confused:

Reply 6257

Original post by made_of_fail

does that mean you can get an economics degree without taking one of micro, macro or metrics? :confused:

I'm not familiar with the changes that they are making, but I presume it means you can do only two out of three of Microeconomics, Macroeconomics and Quantitative Economics as a Finals course if you are a tripartite PPEist.

You wouldn't have done no Macro or Micro if you avoided one of these, as you would have taken the Introductory Micro and Introductory Macro courses in the first year. However, it looks like you can avoid any econometrics. That's not particularly new - Oxford only introduced the QE core course last year. Previously only micro and macro were the core papers.

Also don't forget that people who drop economics entirely after first year still get a degree in "Philosophy, Politics, and Economics". So it's not as bad as them! In any case, if you're going for any economics job with a PPE degree they will look in detail at which modules you have taken.

Reply 6258

Poppyxx

11

Yep it applies to the FHS papers. Perhaps should have made it clearer - was just carrying on from the above comments which were about FHS papers.

Interesting they've changed it again so quickly, considering no one has sat the Quants paper yet. Also an incentive (I suppose) to do tripartite if you dislike Quants (i.e. me!).

Reply 6259