Frustrated by TCD freshman economics

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

@Sgro: it was never thought that Intermediate Economics could be taken in first year by European Studies students; it was raised because they can take it in second year without first having done the introductory econ module (begging the question of why TSMs were required to take it).

I do TSM, so if I intend to major in economics my modules will be very much decided for me: I will be required to do Econ Theory and Econometrics in third year, and if I want to take Quant Methods in fourth year, the remaining module has to be Mathematical Economics. That said, I have considered switching to single honours economics in third year (i.e. BESS), which would allow me to take the policy modules you mention.

Thanks for the cynical advice! Looking at the past papers, it's amazing how big a technical leap there is between Intro/Intermediate and Analysis/Theory. I very much hope that it suits me.

Btw, I've had two people tell me that Econometrics is the most difficult of all the modules. Does anyone disagree?

I did Bess and graduated just over a year ago in single honours economics. Bearing in mind that the information I can provide may be a bit stale, here is my take on the above discussion on 3rd and 4th year modules.

In third year I was still waisting my time doing business and well as economics, so I only took three Economics modules: Economic Analysis, Econometrics and Maths.
Economic Analysis has a fairly dry micro section, but it introduces certain topics such as insurance and behavioural economics that I found interesting (especially if you don't do Martin Fellenz's second year business course, where I got introduced to a lot of interesting behavioural material). The macro part of the course more than makes up for it though, it is quite challenging but it really forms the backbone of your economics knowledge. In my opinion this is a fundamental course, and I found it particularly useful for professional exams I am currently doing (CFA), where these models come up time and time again, albeit at a fairly dumbed-down level.
Econometrics was probably the module I enjoyed the most in my four years at trinity: I am not sure if it is still taught by Carol Newman and Gaia Narciso, they made it into an outstanding module. It is challenging but it introduces you to something entirely different that will stay with you for life. Again, to me this is a fundamental module, and alone it will give you the quantitative credentials to apply for masters degrees. The same thing applies re professional exams and this sort of material popping up time and time again.
Maths is where I may have done things wrong; I did maths mainly to be able to do quantitative methods in 4th year, and it wasn't worth it. The course itself isn't bad, but looking back I wish I had done some policy-oriented subjects that add more depth to your economics knowledge. I did this course and quantitative methods mainly because I don't like maths and have struggled with it in the past and wanted to prove to myself I could do it. I think to some extent I was also influenced by the quantitative fetish of contemporary economics. It wasn't an awful course, but I took it for the wrong reasons and as such I recall very little of the material.

Fourth year now: I did Quantitative Methods, Economic Theory, International Economics and Economics of Financial Markets (this is a business course).
Quantitative Methods was a bit of a let down: econometrics isn't remotely as interesting as 3rd year, and I don't recall any of the material, and maths is also quite challenging. Most of the class found the lecturers quite difficult to follow, and especially for maths the course is a combination of material drawn from so many sources you really don't have anything to help you catch up. Personally this course was a struggle, and wasn't worth the effort. I would only take it if you are a particularly quantitative person, or if you need it for a post-graduate degree (bearing in mind that post-graduate degrees in the UK are often designed with 3-year degrees students in mind, that typically only cover third-year econometrics material, so this sort of knowledge is not necessarily expected).
Economic theory has an interesting macro part, that I found really interesting and is fundamental if you are serious about your economics knowledge. The micro part is all game theory, which is interesting to some extent, but quite dry and hard to study. Overall, I would recommend taking this course.
International economics is very interesting, not so much the part on trade but the second part is fundamental in my opinion. It was taught by Philip Lane when I did it; while he is not the warmest of lecturers, I found it inspiring just to be in front of someone like that and again the material I covered is quite useful in my studies.
Economics of financial markets was not very enjoyable as a course itself, a lot of the material is coming back to haunt me so I am glad I did it, but I am fairly indifferent about it.

Overall I was quite happy with my degree and find it is a good background to have for a number of careers. However, my main issue with it is that I don't think assessment is consistent across modules and departments. For instance, in my final year some people were doing a certain business module where a 2,500-word group project accounted for 25% of the grade, whereas in other modules individual 1,500-word projects accounted for as little as 4-6% (there were multiple). The modules are really skewed towards finals; four exams accounted for 80% of my overall grade and I don't necessarily agree with it. Several people I know missed out on offers for masters degrees because they didn't get the grade required (and we are talking of an average of around 65, not a first), and I can't help thinking that this was in part due to choosing some of the above modules. To maximize your grade, the smartest thing to do would have probably been to take certain modules that were regarded as quite easy such as transport economics, but I don't think that the department of economics should really make you choose between courses that you want to do and courses where you can do well with less effort.

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

The content is also more complex and delivered more quickly.

It's because it's different from the Leaving Cert, not really that much more difficult.

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

However, he seems not to be aware of what was taught in the micro part and what is in the textbook, and has therefore left holes between the two. Could anyone recommend a more advanced though still introductory macro text? Is Blanchard appropriate?

Yeah why not, Blanchard is the SF Macro textbook. Khan Academy has pretty good material for JF Macro as well.