A waste if an intelligent person studies economics???

Econ at a top uni is pretty much the thing to do if you want to make it in finance.

No it's not a waste. I hate it when people say that the only subjects worth doing are engineering/medicine etc. 'Sciences' are not the only worthwhile subjects. It is only a waste if you do a subject you don't enjoy. Personally, I wouldn't want to study economics but if that's what you want to do, then do it.

Economics is known as the dismal science presumably because its pretty dismal. I would have more respect for economists if more of them had predicted the credit crunch because a lot of the signs were there couple of years ago.

I would go for natural science if you want to study a subject grounded in real evidence and theory rather than the vagueness of economics.

Rubbish.

Talking **** m9.

I think you are incorrect sweetie.

Economics is an intellectual plaything, it has theories that can't be proved or proved wrong. Economists are only right in hindsight and can't agree on anything such as if bailing out banks is a good or bad thing. Economists adopt "theories" on whim and fashion, not evidence.

They even had to sneak in a fake Nobel prize for it, Alfred Nobel never established an award for economics only Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/physiology, peace and literature.

Here's the thing: I want to study economics at uni and am going to make 4 of his 5 applications to top 10 UK universities. I have now been advised more than once (by a family member and a close friend) not to do economics, because I could do "so much better than that" and because "it'd be a waste of my intelligence"

The alternatives that both were implying was physics and/or engineering... making technological breakthroughs and all that.

Now, it's all well and good if people just said "do what you want to do, what you enjoy" and so on. I just feel like there's a chance that I may one day look back and resent it, because of something that I could have been.

What I really want to hear, is if people genuinely think that economics is a soft science, or whether it rivals the prestige associated with natural sciences. I don't necessarily even want to be an economist, but rather in financial services, and even a lady from such a background told me that she'd "have more respect for someone who had studied physics rather than economics".

Maybe I'm talking rubbish, but it does make you doubt yourself if several unrelated people say the same thing.

Cheers.


EDIT: O ye, and another good point: I said economics is what I want to do, but physics is something I would quite like to do. So, if it was a matter of, urgh, physics I hate, then the choice would be easy. The problem is that I'm interested in both, and in economics, a little more than in physics.

Economics is known as the dismal science presumably because its pretty dismal. I would have more respect for economists if more of them had predicted the credit crunch because a lot of the signs were there couple of years ago.

I would go for natural science if you want to study a subject grounded in real evidence and theory rather than the vagueness of economics.

OK, maybe that was a bit of an over exaggeration, but many bankers, accountants, management consultants and city traders all did economics degrees.

Sure, a maths or physics degree (amongst others) would put you in a good position to pursue some sort of finance based career, but it can't be denied that economics is one of the most relevant, useful subjects in terms of the skills it involves and the knowledge you learn from studying it.

I think you are incorrect sweetie.

Economics is an intellectual plaything, it has theories that can't be proved or proved wrong. Economists are only right in hindsight and can't agree on anything such as if bailing out banks is a good or bad thing. Economists adopt "theories" on whim and fashion, not evidence.

They even had to sneak in a fake Nobel prize for it, Alfred Nobel never established an award for economics only Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/physiology, peace and literature.

I'm exactly in the same potion

It looks like there are a lot of people trying in their various eloquent ways to defend economics. I think it would be more creditable if they actually gave a defence with some evidence rather than be defensive and use intemperate langauge.

Anyway back to the OP, I think economics is a great discipline to do because its so vague and nebulous that when the economy tanks every few years, no-one would blame you and when you do get it right as you will by chance, everyone would think you know what you are talking about.

'Sweetie' Piss off mate.


Stop pretending you know everything, you are literally talking out your arse. Read a book.

Says the person who clearly has no idea what the field of economics is about. Hint: predicting economic conditions is a tiny portion of the field, usually not done by the top economists.

Arguing with an idiot is a pointless task.

Even an idiot can learn new tricks. Or at least learn to some basic research before commenting on something.