Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Frustrated by TCD freshman economics

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    Kbeg3 wrote: »
    Probably quite the opposite. Econ 1 is marked pretty hardly. Last year results in Econ II would definitely have been better on average than Econ 1.

    Really? I'm surprised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭ganon


    Yeah you'd think because micro is more mathematical and clear-cut there'd be more of a chance to score highly in Econ I. In reality the questions can be way too broad, like "Monopoly v Oligopoly. Go!" You've to try and cover everything, and think outside of the box as well, but the box is too big to even know what that is

    With Econ II you make your own box. You literally take a question and decide exactly how you want to answer it and what you want to discuss. You need only brush over the theory and content covered in lectures, if you spend the majority of the essay coming up with an original economic argument, using your own examples, highlight an interesting insight- that's what'll get you a good mark.
    I somehow managed a first in that paper with badly-written essays that had no intro/conclusion, really bad flow of argument but had 'good ideas' in the words of JO'H. He's an absolute pro at seeing through what you've written to whether you've an economic head or not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    ganon wrote: »
    Yeah you'd think because micro is more mathematical and clear-cut there'd be more of a chance to score highly in Econ I. In reality the questions can be way too broad, like "Monopoly v Oligopoly. Go!" You've to try and cover everything, and think outside of the box as well, but the box is too big to even know what that is

    With Econ II you make your own box. You literally take a question and decide exactly how you want to answer it and what you want to discuss. You need only brush over the theory and content covered in lectures, if you spend the majority of the essay coming up with an original economic argument, using your own examples, highlight an interesting insight- that's what'll get you a good mark.
    I somehow managed a first in that paper with badly-written essays that had no intro/conclusion, really bad flow of argument but had 'good ideas' in the words of JO'H. He's an absolute pro at seeing through what you've written to whether you've an economic head or not.

    Very interesting. I'd love to see the results from previous years. I asked in the dept about seeing the results from summer exams but they were in no way forthcoming!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭Bears and Vodka


    I asked in the dept about seeing the results from summer exams but they were in no way forthcoming!

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    I'm a fresher taking economics as part of a TSM having studied economics for leaving cert. I'm really frustrated with the content. I take three economics modules: Intro to Economics, Intro to Economic Policy and Maths and Stats. The first is a basic introduction to economics which, after four weeks, hasn't even flirted with being more advanced than lc. The second is a module which is sub-lc in terms of difficulty and which seems to duplicate much of what is in Intro to Econ. A group project where students summarise a part of the textbook and present it at their tutorial forms part of the assessment. The lecturer made a comment about how those who did economics for lc could use it as a sort of relaxing class. The third module has so far largely been merely a refresher of basic lc maths.

    The department is in a tricky situation because first year economics modules are taken by BESS, PPES, MSISS, Social Studies, Sociology and Social Policy, Business and Computer Science, Business and language, Law and Business/Politics, Geog and Politics, and possibly more, so it needs to cater for a very wide range of interests and capabilities.

    But I just read today that those doing European Studies can take Intermediate Economics which is the core senior freshman economics module. In other words, the dept is willing to allow them to forgo the prerequisite of Intro to Econ. I can understand that they may do that for some courses, but for one for which there is no mathematics requirement and which has nothing of a mathematical nature?!

    I feel really hard done by and don't think I'm being intellectually stretched. Anyone else have opinions or are in the same boat?

    Its only first year. Join a few clubs and societies. Go to parties. You will never have this time again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Care to explain? Are you commenting on my interest in the results or on my thinking that they would give me the results?

    Saipanne wrote: »
    Its only first year. Join a few clubs and societies. Go to parties. You will never have this time again.

    I have done those, and am particularly active in one society. Doing those doesn't preclude me from working. The student contribution was less affordable for me than it was for others and I would therefore be somewhat dismayed if first year is the "party year".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Care to explain? Are you commenting on my interest in the results or on my thinking that they would give me the results?




    I have done those, and am particularly active in one society. Doing those doesn't preclude me from working. The student contribution was less affordable for me than it was for others and I would therefore be somewhat dismayed if first year is the "party year".

    Just try to have fun, is my point. University isn't just books and grades. Its a unique experience. Don't miss it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    Fair enough. It's just that I hated the lc and thought that college is when intellectual exploration begins. So bit disappointed on that front. Thanks for advice.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Fair enough. It's just that I hated the lc and thought that college is when intellectual exploration begins. So bit disappointed on that front. Thanks for advice.

    Oh, it is. Join the philosophy society, for example.

    Unfortunately, at bachelor level, they pitch the course to the mean student. So if you are above that level, you might be bored, early on.

    One piece of advice I would give. University is what YOU make of it. So if you want intellectual stimulation, go out and find it. There's plenty of it on offer at tcd.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    Saipanne wrote: »
    Oh, it is. Join the philosophy society, for example.

    Unfortunately, at bachelor level, they pitch the course to the mean student. So if you are above that level, you might be bored, early on.

    One piece of advice I would give. University is what YOU make of it. So if you want intellectual stimulation, go out and find it. There's plenty of it on offer at tcd.

    I know it is, but thought it would happen from the beginning. The "is what you make of it" line has been given above. And I agree. But, I've two objections: the first, the lectures aren't even giving me a platform to work from*; so, second, I may as well not be paying to be in college and instead do it from home - I know I wouldn't, but I don't won't to pay for merely motivation.

    Thanks a lot, man.


    *Maths and Stats has since started introducing new stuff like partial differentiation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    I know it is, but thought it would happen from the beginning. The "is what you make of it" line has been given above. And I agree. But, I've two objections: the first, the lectures aren't even giving me a platform to work from*; so, second, I may as well not be paying to be in college and instead do it from home - I know I wouldn't, but I don't won't to pay for merely motivation.

    Thanks a lot, man.


    *Maths and Stats has since started introducing new stuff like partial differentiation.

    Believe me, it will hit your level soon, and you'll be under a mountain of work, dreaming of days like today, when you were bored. That's why I say just try enjoy yourself now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48 Sgro


    *Apologies if this was already stated*
    European Studies students AREN'T able to take Intermediate Economics in 1st year, they can take it in 2nd year like every other economics student. You may be confusing the fact that in some courses in 3rd year they can take Intermediate Economics despite it being a '2nd year' EC course.

    Also seriously, do not sweat the pacing. I'm 3rd year BESS now (Econ & Business) and the pace picks up a lot in 2nd year. In my 3rd year now I wish I was back in 1st year where I could just waltz through economics. I'd note though however that the macro part (semester 2) of 1st year is actually quite difficult in the sense that very little LC material covers it. Honestly by next year you'll be wishing that you had it this easy.

    Also purely anecdotal but; only pick modules in later years that you feel you'll enjoy most and are most relevant to the real world. I only take one policy module this year and I wish I took more. After 2nd year the theory becomes so 'theoretical' if you get my drift that it might as well be philosophy, it offers no insight into social science or indeed real economic phenomena. It's far less enjoyable than even 2nd year economics. If I was you I'd avoid Economic Analysis in 3rd year and from what I hear Economic Theory is the same thing in 4th year.

    Also - don't let module names throw you off - the names are v. misleading. Intermediate Economics/Economic Analysis/Economic Theory are all just theory courses as the years go on. Any courses John O Hagan teaches (Economy of Ireland/Economics of Policy Issues/European Economy) are generally just policy modules increasing in depth, they're also generally the most liked courses due to the fact he's a good lecturer and the content is both intriguing and also the most relevant to the real world, if I was you I'd take his two modules in 3rd year and *maybe* Econometrics if you need it or another module like Economics of Less Developed Countries (half of which taught by Michael King who founded the SUAS charity, you might have him for statistics in 1st year).

    This might sound really cynical but take modules that look easy and you think you'll get the best grades in. Honestly I feel a lot of people, myself included, who once thought they'd be really passionate about economics are just jaded now. Even within the academic circles in economics there's a huge call to rehaul how economics is taught. If you really are passionate about economics after 2nd/3rd year, there's nothing to stop you reading a book on the topic (lectures are just chapter summaries, if you read the books religiously you could probably not go to lectures and still get a 1st) - but I'd keep it to just picking up a book and pick the modules which will give you the best grades so you can get decent graduate opportunities.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    @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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭Bears and Vodka


    Sgro wrote: »
    Also seriously, do not sweat the pacing. I'm 3rd year BESS now (Econ & Business) and the pace picks up a lot in 2nd year. In my 3rd year now I wish I was back in 1st year where I could just waltz through economics. I'd note though however that the macro part (semester 2) of 1st year is actually quite difficult in the sense that very little LC material covers it. Honestly by next year you'll be wishing that you had it this easy.

    Also purely anecdotal but; only pick modules in later years that you feel you'll enjoy most and are most relevant to the real world. I only take one policy module this year and I wish I took more. After 2nd year the theory becomes so 'theoretical' if you get my drift that it might as well be philosophy, it offers no insight into social science or indeed real economic phenomena. It's far less enjoyable than even 2nd year economics. If I was you I'd avoid Economic Analysis in 3rd year and from what I hear Economic Theory is the same thing in 4th year.

    Also - don't let module names throw you off - the names are v. misleading. Intermediate Economics/Economic Analysis/Economic Theory are all just theory courses as the years go on. Any courses John O Hagan teaches (Economy of Ireland/Economics of Policy Issues/European Economy) are generally just policy modules increasing in depth, they're also generally the most liked courses due to the fact he's a good lecturer and the content is both intriguing and also the most relevant to the real world, if I was you I'd take his two modules in 3rd year and *maybe* Econometrics if you need it or another module like Economics of Less Developed Countries (half of which taught by Michael King who founded the SUAS charity, you might have him for statistics in 1st year).

    This might sound really cynical but take modules that look easy and you think you'll get the best grades in. Honestly I feel a lot of people, myself included, who once thought they'd be really passionate about economics are just jaded now. Even within the academic circles in economics there's a huge call to rehaul how economics is taught. If you really are passionate about economics after 2nd/3rd year, there's nothing to stop you reading a book on the topic (lectures are just chapter summaries, if you read the books religiously you could probably not go to lectures and still get a 1st) - but I'd keep it to just picking up a book and pick the modules which will give you the best grades so you can get decent graduate opportunities.

    Speak for yourself. If you find yourself 'jaded' now, then you probably don't really like Econ to begin with. Personally, I find it increasingly interesting (granted I don't do Analysis this year) because we are finally at a stage where you are being introduced to models and concepts that are actually used in real life research versus the stuff that you see is blatantly over-simplified (aka anything in first year). It's honestly not as scary as it seems, but everyone's different I guess.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Speak for yourself. If you find yourself 'jaded' now, then you probably don't really like Econ to begin with. Personally, I find it increasingly interesting (granted I don't do Analysis this year) because we are finally at a stage where you are being introduced to models and concepts that are actually used in real life research versus the stuff that you see is blatantly over-simplified (aka anything in first year). It's honestly not as scary as it seems, but everyone's different I guess.

    The introductory models are oversimplified for oversimplified minds.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    Speak for yourself. If you find yourself 'jaded' now, then you probably don't really like Econ to begin with. Personally, I find it increasingly interesting (granted I don't do Analysis this year) because we are finally at a stage where you are being introduced to models and concepts that are actually used in real life research versus the stuff that you see is blatantly over-simplified (aka anything in first year). It's honestly not as scary as it seems, but everyone's different I guess.

    Lol. It sounds like Sgro is in college for the wrong reasons.


    *in my previous post, I ofc meant that I would be required to take *Analysis* in third year


  • Registered Users Posts: 38 igiveup2


    @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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 167 ✭✭Lynchy747


    Saipanne wrote: »
    The introductory models are oversimplified for oversimplified minds.

    Wow, so MSISS, PPES and the like have simple minds. Had a good laugh about this.

    Dear OP: I did Intro to Economics back in 2012. I had no background in Economics or any intention of continuing in it. I understand if you completed it for LC it can seem as if you are not learning anything more. However we were warned (LC students were warned) not to sit back as there are minor differences between LC and how the course is taught.

    The course is more like a "Here's what economics is kinda like" and then you can choose it in 3rd year in my course (MSISS) or 2nd year BESS if I remember correctly?

    Best of luck anyway, I'd imagine you aced the midterm!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Lynchy747 wrote: »
    Wow, so MSISS, PPES and the like have simple minds. Had a good laugh about this.

    Dear OP: I did Intro to Economics back in 2012. I had no background in Economics or any intention of continuing in it. I understand if you completed it for LC it can seem as if you are not learning anything more. However we were warned (LC students were warned) not to sit back as there are minor differences between LC and how the course is taught.

    The course is more like a "Here's what economics is kinda like" and then you can choose it in 3rd year in my course (MSISS) or 2nd year BESS if I remember correctly?

    Best of luck anyway, I'd imagine you aced the midterm!

    You seem unable to understand to point.

    That, my boy, made me laugh loudest of all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


    Lynchy747 wrote: »
    Best of luck anyway, I'd imagine you aced the midterm!

    Thanks. As was said, unfortunately I got two questions wrong!


    We have Fadi Hassan for macro part of Intro. Only had two lectures, but I think he's great so far. Really interesting lecturing style - walks up and down the sides of the theatre and down empty rows of seats, and asks direct questions to people, brandishing a microphone. The content is also more complex and delivered more quickly. 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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,249 ✭✭✭Bears and Vodka


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 34 Frustrated Fresher


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


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

    I'm not saying it's difficult, but I think it's objectively more complex than last term's micro (i.e. not merely different from LC). My reasons for looking for a book, though, are just that his notes are incomplete and what he's covered isn't in Mankiw Taylor.

    Thanks for advice.


Advertisement