Frustrated by TCD freshman economics

Frustrated Fresher · 20-10-2014 11:20pm #1

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?

Grolschevik · 20-10-2014 11:29pm

It's the first few weeks of first year. It'll get harder during the year and in subsequent years. Also, the exams will be looking for a different level of analysis than Leaving Cert.

Relax. There's time enough to get to the hard stuff.

Lawliet · 21-10-2014 12:14am

You need to chill. Every course starts off a bit slow, but it'll pick up and you'll likely spend a lot of your degree being 'intellectually stretched'. Try to make the most of the easier lectures and get involved in the rest of college life!

gutenberg · 21-10-2014 10:41am

Just FYI European Studies students do have to take some economics in their first year, as part of an 'Intro to Social Sciences' course. I don't think Intermediate Economics is a very popular second year choice for ES anyway.

I can only echo what the others have been saying, it's still early in the year and they need to bring everyone up to approximately the same level, as not everyone will have done LC economics. Frustrating for you I know, but I suppose just use the time to consolidate your basics; you can always read around a bit more widely using the sources mentioned in the textbook, for instance.

Frustrated Fresher · 21-10-2014 11:14am

I understand what you guys are saying, but we've so far done four of twenty-two teaching weeks (almost twenty percent!) and I would have expected the difficulty to be a good deal higher than it is. I'm no maths or economics whizz yet I'm finding this tedious. I know the difficulty will pick up (certainly in the sophister years judging by exam papers) but why can't it be testing from the start?

None of that explains, either, why I have to take Intro to Econ Policy! It's a course that is taken by MSISS, Law and Pol/Bus, and a few other non-econ courses...plus many of those who will go on to do single honours economics! It's as if they needed another ten-credit module to make up TSM's requirement so just threw us in there.

I wasn't aware of the economics element of first year European Studies, but looking at the past exam papers, it is entirely un-mathematical, doesn't cover microeconomics, and seems more based on economic policy than fundamentals.

I'll let you know after the first semester how I'm finding it!

Frustrated Fresher · 21-10-2014 11:15am

I understand what you guys are saying, but we've so far done four of twenty-two teaching weeks (almost twenty percent!) and I would have expected the difficulty to be a good deal higher than it is. I'm no maths or economics whizz yet I'm finding this tedious. I know the difficulty will pick up (certainly in the sophister years judging by exam papers) but why can't it be testing from the start? A friend doing maths (who *is* a whizz) says that the difficulty is substantially up on lc.

None of that explains, either, why I have to take Intro to Econ Policy! It's a course that is taken by MSISS, Law and Pol/Bus, and a few other non-econ courses...plus many of those who will go on to do single honours economics! It's as if they needed another ten-credit module to make up TSM's requirement so just threw us in there.

I wasn't aware of the economics element of first year European Studies, but looking at the past exam papers, it is entirely un-mathematical, doesn't cover microeconomics, and seems more based on economic policy than fundamentals.

I'll let you know after the first semester how I'm finding it!

Frustrated Fresher · 21-10-2014 11:17am

Apologies for duplicate ^. I'm not able to edit posts for some reason.

Bears and Vodka · 21-10-2014 9:19pm

I think you should reserve all judgment until after the Intro to Econ midterm. Wait and see what your mark is, and then form some benchmarks regarding the module's difficulty. I did those modules (except Policy) in first year, and yes Intro starts off kind of like LC Econ, but even after reading week you start going into things you have never done before like Game theory and Nash equilibrium. Macro next semester will be very unlike Leaving Cert. You will primarily looking at basic economic models like IS-LM (short run), AS-AD (medium run), and the Solow Model (long run).

Stats in the second semester will start off ok, but you will do a lot of topics you never encountered before like confidence intervals and hypothesis testing which will be a big part of your summer exam.

In Senior Freshman year, intermediate micro will step up quite a notch where you will be doing more advanced and increasingly abstract topics (still not too difficult though), and macro will be a more involved examination of again the main macroeconomic models like IS-LM, AS-AD and Solow.

Advice:
1. Stop having an attitude of not being challenged enough. That will come back and slap you hard in the future. Treat your coursework with respect and attention it deserves.
2. Go out and do extra-curricular things while you have the time. Get involved in societies (cliche phrase, isn't it?), particularly take a look at Trinity Economic Forum, Trinity SMF and things like that. You would want to have your face around their events so that you can become a committee member in your second or third year, which WILL help you a great deal with your internship applications. Take a longer term view and plan ahead.

Frustrated Fresher · 21-10-2014 9:39pm

Thanks for detailed breakdown of course.

Responses:

1. I *am* treating it with the respect that it deserves, and I'm not complacent. But I'll take your advice and be guided by my mid-term results. I hope I do really well and can boastfully post them here!

2. I'm involved in the second and on the mailing list of the first!

andrew · 22-10-2014 2:14pm

Like you said in your original post, the course has to cater for a very wide range of abilities. You can't expect them to have taught an entire intro to Economics (i.e. the entire LC course) and moved onto more advanced stuff after 4 weeks, given most people there have never seen Economics before. What kind of stuff were you expecting to have covered by now?

In any case, the thing about college is you're meant to teach yourself. There's nothing to stop you from picking up a copy of 'Intermediate Microeconomics' by Varian and going through it if you feel you're up to it , though I'd suggest enjoying the fact that it's easy now and having fun, because that may not last.

Frustrated Fresher · 22-10-2014 3:14pm

andrew wrote: »

Like you said in your original post, the course has to cater for a very wide range of abilities. You can't expect them to have taught an entire intro to Economics (i.e. the entire LC course) and moved onto more advanced stuff after 4 weeks, given most people there have never seen Economics before. What kind of stuff were you expecting to have covered by now?

In any case, the thing about college is you're meant to teach yourself. There's nothing to stop you from picking up a copy of 'Intermediate Microeconomics' by Varian and going through it if you feel you're up to it , though I'd suggest enjoying the fact that it's easy now and having fun, because that may not last.

It's four weeks of six lectures and three tutorials per week: thirty-two hours of contact time (accounting for lectures being fifty minutes long) - about a third of an lc year. Plus, this is third level so you'd expect the content to be delivered far more quickly. Plus, as you said, college is about teaching yourself in conjunction with lectures. Assuming that it is not feasible to give enriched econ classes, optional advanced homework, etc, could be given. It's not merely the content, but the way in which it's delivered. We had to calculate each of PED, YED, CPED in the last Intro to Econ lecture. But it's the same method! It took a whole maths lecture to summarise the previous lecture and then to invert two 3x3 matrices. I imagine that there are few other courses in the college where (and I say this without any exaggeration) if you took a fifth year lc student they would not find it a step-up in difficulty, as is so far the case with Intro to Econ Pol. Another gripe I have...the questions for Maths and Stats homework are of the same standard as the tutorial questions. So for those who fully understood the homework, the tutorials are of no use!

I expects to major in economics. I do not think any of my modules should be one taken solely by students for whom it is impossible to major in economics (to clarify: there are three courses through which you can graduate with a degree in economics - BESS, PPES and TSM Econ. Neither of the first two takes Intro to Econ).

I have looked at sophister exam papers, so I fully expect the difficulty to substantially increase. Even looking at JF papers, the difficulty is greater than lectures would so far suggest. Essentially, my objection is that the econ dept is used as an educator of other disciplines for at least first year, to the detriment of prospective SH economists.

gutenberg · 22-10-2014 4:53pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

Essentially, my objection is that the econ dept is used as an educator of other disciplines for at least first year, to the detriment of prospective SH economists.

That's a major problem for other social science departments as well though - both political science and sociology have to provide 'Intro to' classes to Junior Freshmen, to the detriment of people who want to study sociology or polsci as their major. It's because of the nature and number of courses that are supposed to be studying these subjects; Trinity's preference for small, specialised courses means you end up with about 10 different courses in first-year lectures, not to mention having to provide courses such as 'Intro to Social Sciences' to aforementioned European Studies students, and when you have that many people it becomes very hard to provide anything other than the most basic-level courses, because you're looking at a range of abilities and interests. It was a similar situation for those of us who did History & Polsci and Philosophy & Polsci in first year: the only actual polsci you do is that 'Intro to' course! We also had to take sociology and economic policy. Trinity argues it's giving you a foundation in the social sciences, which is true; but it's also because they have absolutely enormous classes in the first year, lecturers have to cover the basics with such big groups, more specialised courses are harder to organise with those numbers, and everyone needs to be at the same level before anything more advanced can be begun. It's similar at very many universities unfortunately.

andrew · 22-10-2014 7:15pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

It's four weeks of six lectures and three tutorials per week: thirty-two hours of contact time (accounting for lectures being fifty minutes long) - about a third of an lc year. Plus, this is third level so you'd expect the content to be delivered far more quickly. Plus, as you said, college is about teaching yourself in conjunction with lectures. Assuming that it is not feasible to give enriched econ classes, optional advanced homework, etc, could be given. It's not merely the content, but the way in which it's delivered. We had to calculate each of PED, YED, CPED in the last Intro to Econ lecture. But it's the same method! It took a whole maths lecture to summarise the previous lecture and then to invert two 3x3 matrices. I imagine that there are few other courses in the college where (and I say this without any exaggeration) if you took a fifth year lc student they would not find it a step-up in difficulty, as is so far the case with Intro to Econ Pol. Another gripe I have...the questions for Maths and Stats homework are of the same standard as the tutorial questions. So for those who fully understood the homework, the tutorials are of no use!

You're going to be surprised at the number of people who end up having to repeat either Economics, Maths and Stats, or both. You'll see it once results are up; to the extent that people ever have repeats in BESS, it's due to one or both of those subjects almost exclusively. Not that it's difficult (in first year it absolutely isn't), but a lot of people do seem to find it very hard.

Frustrated Fresher · 22-10-2014 10:48pm

gutenberg wrote: »

That's a major problem for other social science departments as well though - both political science and sociology have to provide 'Intro to' classes to Junior Freshmen, to the detriment of people who want to study sociology or polsci as their major. It's because of the nature and number of courses that are supposed to be studying these subjects; Trinity's preference for small, specialised courses means you end up with about 10 different courses in first-year lectures, not to mention having to provide courses such as 'Intro to Social Sciences' to aforementioned European Studies students, and when you have that many people it becomes very hard to provide anything other than the most basic-level courses, because you're looking at a range of abilities and interests. It was a similar situation for those of us who did History & Polsci and Philosophy & Polsci in first year: the only actual polsci you do is that 'Intro to' course! We also had to take sociology and economic policy. Trinity argues it's giving you a foundation in the social sciences, which is true; but it's also because they have absolutely enormous classes in the first year, lecturers have to cover the basics with such big groups, more specialised courses are harder to organise with those numbers, and everyone needs to be at the same level before anything more advanced can be begun. It's similar at very many universities unfortunately.

I agree that it's a problem for all those departments, but I suggest it's more significant for economics. Four reasons: 1) the mathematical nature of economics (and the v. low maths requirement - OC3) means that the range of standards is very wide and it's clearly more sensible to cater for a lower standard to the detriment of higher one than vice versa as for the first you have unstretched students but for the second you have floundering students who may fail (game theory!!) 2) the fact that Pol, Soc are essay and ideas based subjects means that there are far less likely to be students who are entirely unsuited to that type of work 3) the type of content means that a lecture need be much less focused on a particular standard 4) and no one will have studied either before. Still far less than ideal, though. Another solution I thought of might be to ensure that TSMs are grouped in the same tutorials and in which more advanced stuff could be introduced.

andrew wrote: »

You're going to be surprised at the number of people who end up having to repeat either Economics, Maths and Stats, or both. You'll see it once results are up; to the extent that people ever have repeats in BESS, it's due to one or both of those subjects almost exclusively. Not that it's difficult (in first year it absolutely isn't), but a lot of people do seem to find it very hard.

That can only be through lack of application, right? Surely no one who got BESS points and who applies themselves can fail to pass basic modules with so much continuous assessment?

I must confess to having perused the posting history of a few of you to see what courses you do. At least two do economics. I wonder could I ask if there's anything you'd change about the econ dept? More contact hours maybe? Or an area of economics? Behavioural economics and economic history seem to be absent. Also, rather than incorporating Game Theory as part of Economic Theory, I think it should be a separate course - likewise Intro to Econ, Intermediate Economics, Maths and Stats I and II should get more specific names - it just looks better on your linkedin! Five-credit modules in the first three years would be cool as well.

Here are a few examples of course offerings for comparison (remove astersiks):

UCD economics: h*ttp://ww*w.ucd.ie/t4cms/ughb2012_13.pdf
Oxford PPE: h*ttp://ww*w.ppe.ox.ac.uk/index.php/course-content-economics
Harvard economics: h*ttp://ww*w.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/courses-exams/courses-instruction/economics

Bucklesman · 22-10-2014 11:36pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

[T]his is third level so you'd expect the content to be delivered far more quickly. Plus, as you said, college is about teaching yourself in conjunction with lectures. Assuming that it is not feasible to give enriched econ classes, optional advanced homework, etc, could be given.

"Third level is about self-directed learning. Why aren't they telling us what to learn?"

Thar's yer problem. Go to the library and read until you don't understand something and feel stupid. Repeat as required.

Frustrated Fresher · 23-10-2014 11:59am

Bucklesman wrote: »

"Third level is about self-directed learning. Why aren't they telling us what to learn?"

Thar's yer problem. Go to the library and read until you don't understand something and feel stupid. Repeat as required.

If that were true, there'd be no lectures. Except for the Humanities, lectures play a key role in a student's academics.

galwayjohn89 · 23-10-2014 4:07pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

If that were true, there'd be no lectures. Except for the Humanities, lectures play a key role in a student's academics.

Lectures in my experience, especially in the business school give the very basics, probably enough to get through the year. It's college, the vast majority of work to get top grades will be done by yourself.

Lawliet · 23-10-2014 6:39pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

If that were true, there'd be no lectures. Except for the Humanities, lectures play a key role in a student's academics.

Lectures are meant as a guide to help you with your own study. You should think of them like the summary page.

To be honest, it doesn't sound like you want more advanced material but rather you want it to be spoon feed to you through the lectures. You need to get out of that mind frame. If you're frustrated by the pace of the lectures there is nothing stopping you from setting your own pace.

Frustrated Fresher · 23-10-2014 11:34pm

Lawliet wrote: »

Lectures are meant as a guide to help you with your own study. You should think of them like the summary page.

To be honest, it doesn't sound like you want more advanced material but rather you want it to be spoon feed to you through the lectures. You need to get out of that mind frame. If you're frustrated by the pace of the lectures there is nothing stopping you from setting your own pace.

Exactly: they're meant as a guide. And covering basic economics and maths at a gentle pace provides little guidance.

I read voraciously, including think tank papers, some academic papers, and economic books and journalism, and bought the text book during the summer in order to do some reading in advance. Trust me, I do not shirk independent work, and am p!ssed off that you would make such a derogatory assumption from what I have said.

I get it...some of you think I'm petulant or whatever to be complaining about this course at this early stage and think I should just do work independently. That's now been expressed in sufficently numerous ways.

Lawliet · 24-10-2014 12:50am

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

Exactly: And they're meant as a guide. covering basic economics and maths at a gentle pace provides little guidance.

For you. Its been mentioned several times that the intro course is aimed a broad audience that are not as advance as yourself.

I read voraciously, including think tank papers, some academic papers, and economic books and journalism, and bought the text book during the summer in order to do some reading in advance. Trust me, I do not shirk independent work, and am p!ssed off that you would make such a derogatory assumption from what I have said.

It wasn't an assumption based on you but on first years in general, the kind of attitude I'm talking about is just a side effect of school. Plenty of people come into college expecting their hand to be held, even if they don't realise it at the time.
And I'm assuming you're a school leaver because most first years are, so no need to get wound up about that if you're a mature student.

I get it...some of you think I'm petulant or whatever to be complaining about this course at this early stage and think I should just do work independently. That's now been expressed in sufficently numerous ways.

I'm not sure what you want people to tell you here. There's really not much else you can do besides study ahead.

Frustrated Fresher · 24-10-2014 2:51am

@Lawliet: Sorry, I over-reacted a little earlier on. My only reason for starting this was to voice my dissatisfaction with the course and see if there were others who agreed.

Bears and Vodka · 24-10-2014 10:39pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

Another solution I thought of might be to ensure that TSMs are grouped in the same tutorials and in which more advanced stuff could be introduced.

That can only be through lack of application, right? Surely no one who got BESS points and who applies themselves can fail to pass basic modules with so much continuous assessment?

I must confess to having perused the posting history of a few of you to see what courses you do. At least two do economics. I wonder could I ask if there's anything you'd change about the econ dept? More contact hours maybe? Or an area of economics? Behavioural economics and economic history seem to be absent. Also, rather than incorporating Game Theory as part of Economic Theory, I think it should be a separate course - likewise Intro to Econ, Intermediate Economics, Maths and Stats I and II should get more specific names - it just looks better on your linkedin! Five-credit modules in the first three years would be cool as well.

Well first off if person A and person B are registered in the same EC1xxx module, why should person A, who is a TSM student be taught different material to person B, who is a BESS student?

Secondly, there is a lot everyone would like to change about the econ department, most notably including the people in the econ department themselves. You are saying that you're reading lots of economic papers but you are not thinking like an economist and not realising that the econ department, just like any other department and the college on the whole has budget constraints to contend with. UT were just reporting that the Philosophy department had to lay off seven people. More contact hours = more TAs + more lecturers. A hard thing to do when you don't have that spare cash dolla. A similar argument applies to modules available. I agree that it's not nice to have practically no choice in JF and SF, but in JS and SS you have quite a lot of choice. Students from other courses are very surprised to hear that I had to choose three (being a Joint Hons student) from a list of nine modules offered by the Econ dept. I'd also love it if they offered a module in behavioural economics, but once again you have budgetary constraints etc. Comparing TCD to the likes of Oxford and Harvard is also an unfair comparison. In a way, Econ department does have economic history modules. Economy of Ireland and European Economy have a lot of history in them.

andrew · 24-10-2014 10:44pm

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

... Econ department does have economic history modules. Economy of Ireland and European Economy have a lot of history in them.

There used to be an actual Economic History module 'The History of Monetary Thought and Policy' by Antoin Murphy. It was GREAT, but he's retired now I think.

Frustrated Fresher · 24-10-2014 11:30pm

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

Well first off if person A and person B are registered in the same EC1xxx module, why should person A, who is a TSM student be taught different material to person B, who is a BESS student?

Secondly, there is a lot everyone would like to change about the econ department, most notably including the people in the econ department themselves. You are saying that you're reading lots of economic papers but you are not thinking like an economist and not realising that the econ department, just like any other department and the college on the whole has budget constraints to contend with. UT were just reporting that the Philosophy department had to lay off seven people. More contact hours = more TAs + more lecturers. A hard thing to do when you don't have that spare cash dolla. A similar argument applies to modules available. I agree that it's not nice to have practically no choice in JF and SF, but in JS and SS you have quite a lot of choice. Students from other courses are very surprised to hear that I had to choose three (being a Joint Hons student) from a list of nine modules offered by the Econ dept. I'd also love it if they offered a module in behavioural economics, but once again you have budgetary constraints etc. Comparing TCD to the likes of Oxford and Harvard is also an unfair comparison. In a way, Econ department does have economic history modules. Economy of Ireland and European Economy have a lot of history in them.

It already happens in the philosophy dept where PPES takes two ten-credit modules that are fifteen credits for everyone else - I think they have fewer essays to do, or something. But even if they didn't, considering BESS-economists won't have to Econ Pol (and that European Studies students would have a considerable amount to catch up if they take Intermediate Econ), I don't see why it would be problematic that the only students in the college who have commited to getting a degree in economics from the start would be taught somewhat more involved material.

I said I read *some* papers!! And non-technical ones at that.

My criticism is of of how College makes use of its current resources - slow-placed lectures, tutorials that resemble homework clubs, etc - not of the fact that I share them with other courses. My mates would lol at you saying I wasn't thinking like an economist!

But, what is by far my biggest problem is Intro to Econ Policy! Why can't we take a Broad Curriculum module or one of the BESS ones instead of a course designed for non-economists?

And the thing about changes to the economics dept was a hypothetical one - I just wanted to see what people think would improve the dept. I wasn't comparing the offering to Oxford/Harvard.

I think it's probably almost impossible to study anything in the humanities without some historical background being given. That doesn't make them equivalent to history courses. I know those modules - and The World Economy - but looking at the past papers they're clearly not history courses.

Frustrated Fresher · 24-10-2014 11:31pm

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

Well first off if person A and person B are registered in the same EC1xxx module, why should person A, who is a TSM student be taught different material to person B, who is a BESS student?

Secondly, there is a lot everyone would like to change about the econ department, most notably including the people in the econ department themselves. You are saying that you're reading lots of economic papers but you are not thinking like an economist and not realising that the econ department, just like any other department and the college on the whole has budget constraints to contend with. UT were just reporting that the Philosophy department had to lay off seven people. More contact hours = more TAs + more lecturers. A hard thing to do when you don't have that spare cash dolla. A similar argument applies to modules available. I agree that it's not nice to have practically no choice in JF and SF, but in JS and SS you have quite a lot of choice. Students from other courses are very surprised to hear that I had to choose three (being a Joint Hons student) from a list of nine modules offered by the Econ dept. I'd also love it if they offered a module in behavioural economics, but once again you have budgetary constraints etc. Comparing TCD to the likes of Oxford and Harvard is also an unfair comparison. In a way, Econ department does have economic history modules. Economy of Ireland and European Economy have a lot of history in them.

It already happens in the philosophy dept where PPES takes two ten-credit modules that are fifteen credits for everyone else - I think they have fewer essays to do, or something. But even if there weren't that precedent, considering BESS-economists won't take Econ Pol (and that European Studies students would have a considerable amount to catch up if they take Intermediate Econ), I don't see why it would be problematic that the only students in the college who have commited to getting a degree in economics from the start would be taught somewhat more involved material.

I said I read *some* papers!! And non-technical ones at that.

My criticism is of of how College makes use of its current resources - slow-placed lectures, tutorials that resemble homework clubs, etc - not of the fact that I share them with other courses. My mates would lol at you saying I wasn't thinking like an economist!

But, what is by far my biggest problem is Intro to Econ Policy! Why can't we take a Broad Curriculum module or one of the BESS ones instead of a course designed for non-economists?

And the thing about changes to the economics dept was a hypothetical one - I just wanted to see what people think would improve the dept. I wasn't comparing the offering to Oxford/Harvard.

I think it's probably almost impossible to study anything in the humanities without some historical background being given. That doesn't make them equivalent to history courses. I know those modules - and The World Economy - but looking at the past papers they're clearly not history courses.

Frustrated Fresher · 24-10-2014 11:32pm

Arghh, duplicate again! :DD The second one has two slight alterations that make my case clearer

Bottleopener · 25-10-2014 11:55am

andrew wrote: »

There used to be an actual Economic History module 'The History of Monetary Thought and Policy' by Antoin Murphy. It was GREAT, but he's retired now I think.

Yup he retired this year sadly. Shame! Would've been a fantastic course to do. World Economy has taken it's place as the final year history module!

Frustrated Fresher · 25-10-2014 1:29pm

Bottleopener wrote: »

Yup he retired this year sadly. Shame! Would've been a fantastic course to do. World Economy has taken it's place as the final year history module!

World Economy isn't a new module, and was taught by Kevin O'Rourke before he left for Oxford. Incidentally, O'Rourke used to teach Intro to Econ - that module I so detest - before it was redesigned. The current first semester lecturer, Majella Brerton, told me that general students found it too technical. The World Economy is now taught by Ronan Lyons (PhD in 2013) and Micahel King (PhD in 2012).

Patrick Honahan taught Econ of Less Developed Countries before he left for (central!) banking. It's currently taught by Tara Mitchell (PhD in 2012) and Fadi Hassan (PhD in 2013 (I think)).

This question is entirely independent of the topic of discussion: does Trinity have a problem with the loss to retirement or whatever of experienced lecturers (Philip Lane doesn't teach anymore, as well, I think)? As I said, I am in no way complaining or criticising as I don't know the answer, and it's arguable that from an undergrad's perspective the new generation like Mitchell and Lyons (who, I've been told, are very engaging lecturers) would be preferable.

Bears and Vodka · 25-10-2014 6:18pm

Good researcher =/= good lecturer. Young-ish lecturers in the Economics department are generally very good. They know whassup because in some cases they did their undergrad here too. From the older guys, JO'H and a couple of others are great too. Something tells me you wouldn't like JO'Hs style though.

Also, you're really looking too much into it. You haven't even completed your first semester here and you are looking into what lecturers have taught JS and SS modules over the past years. Channel your energy elsewhere maybe?

Frustrated Fresher · 25-10-2014 8:21pm

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

Good researcher =/= good lecturer. Young-ish lecturers in the Economics department are generally very good. They know whassup because in some cases they did their undergrad here too.

Yeah, I know. I meant from the PoV of the research rep of the department.

From the older guys, JO'H and a couple of others are great too. Something tells me you wouldn't like JO'Hs style though.

:eek: Why?!

Also, you're really looking too much into it. You haven't even completed your first semester here and you are looking into what lecturers have taught JS and SS modules over the past years. Channel your energy elsewhere maybe?

It's not as if it takes much time to google someone's name. And I did that over the summer!

But okay, sir/madam, I'll do my work!

ganon · 19-11-2014 12:58pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

I don't see why it would be problematic that the only students in the college who have commited to getting a degree in economics from the start would be taught somewhat more involved material.

Completely agree with you on this! I'm a JS Econ TSM myself. And yes it did seem frustrating in first year that having studied Economics for LC, and committed yourself to studying it for your degree that there weren't any more opportunities available to you.

It is the usual excuses though- limited resources, catering to a wider audience etc.

The best you can do is do some economics reading (which you say you're already doing, good!) like Varian, bits from the Economist, read the 'Popular Information' for the awarding of Nobel Prizes, things like that.

Second year gets better, you are definitely rewarded for outside reading and more complete knowledge of topics covered in lectures. And come third year you'll have the freedom to pick modules.

So yeah, anyone really interested in Economics will sadly not enjoy it in first year, but it improves!

turbot · 19-11-2014 1:17pm

I did BESS for 1st year and had a similar experience. It was so easy (coming from a-levels) that my first year involved a lot of social fun and working outside college.

But as they say, don't let your education get in the way of your learning. If you have lots of extra time, learn cool stuff under your own direction. Get a kindle app & buy books... attend debates... enter contests... learn advanced excel... teach yourself to code. Don't expect others to stretch you... you have to stretch yourself!

Frustrated Fresher · 21-11-2014 1:47pm

I thought this thread had died and gone to Boards heaven. I'm delighted that someone actually agrees with me! I didn't know about the Nobel Popular Information. Thanks for heads up because they seem pretty good. By "Varian", do you mean the textbook Intermediate Economics? I know that's the prescribed text for next year, but is it known for being especially good?

I gather Econ Pol when Ronan Lyons takes over in the second semester starts to diverge more from Intro to Econ. So the perfect solution under the circumstances is to allow TSM economists to take a Broad Curriculum module in Michaelmas and then the second semester of Econ Pol when it doesn't merely cover everything in Intro to Econ...but slower.

Several people on the thread have said something along the lines of, "this is third level, you should be motivating yourself, etc." And I accept that that is true. But it's very difficult to motivate yourself to study material that's not directed by your lectures in some way. It's easy to say I should read ahead. But read what in particular?! There's so much! Unless I feel there's going to be some direct benefit to my studies, how can it be expected that I would study Varian in my spare time?

We just had our midterms in Into to Econ and Maths. Both were soo easy! I expected that of Maths but I expected the Intro test to at least be similar to the optional homework quizzes (which require that I concentrate in order to get right). But it was a good deal easier. I and some other people were finished after thirty minutes (of a ninety minute exam), but I diligently went back through each question! When I was finished, the hall was probably less than a third full.

andrew · 21-11-2014 2:16pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

I thought this thread had died and gone to Boards heaven. I'm delighted that someone actually agrees with me! I didn't know about the Nobel Popular Information. Thanks for heads up because they seem pretty good. By "Varian", do you mean the textbook Intermediate Economics? I know that's the prescribed text for next year, but is it known for being especially good?

I gather Econ Pol when Ronan Lyons takes over in the second semester starts to diverge more from Intro to Econ. So the perfect solution under the circumstances is to allow TSM economists to take a Broad Curriculum module in Michaelmas and then the second semester of Econ Pol when it doesn't merely cover everything in Intro to Econ...but slower.

Several people on the thread have said something along the lines of, "this is third level, you should be motivating yourself, etc." And I accept that that is true. But it's very difficult to motivate yourself to study material that's not directed by your lectures in some way. It's easy to say I should read ahead. But read what in particular?! There's so much! Unless I feel there's going to be some direct benefit to my studies, how can it be expected that I would study Varian in my spare time?

We just had our midterms in Into to Econ and Maths. Both were soo easy! I expected that of Maths but I expected the Intro test to at least be similar to the optional homework quizzes (which require that I concentrate in order to get right). But it was a good deal easier. I and some other people were finished after thirty minutes (of a ninety minute exam), but I diligently went back through each question! When I was finished, the hall was probably less than a third full.

If you'd like more challenging maths, then start going through "Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics" by Chiang and Wainwright. That single book features all the Maths you'll need for your entire undergrad, may as well get cracking now.

Bears and Vodka · 22-11-2014 2:35am

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

We just had our midterms in Into to Econ and Maths. Both were soo easy! I expected that of Maths but I expected the Intro test to at least be similar to the optional homework quizzes (which require that I concentrate in order to get right). But it was a good deal easier. I and some other people were finished after thirty minutes (of a ninety minute exam), but I diligently went back through each question! When I was finished, the hall was probably less than a third full.

We have said time and time again that first year Econ is geared towards BESS, where over half the people have zero interest or aptitude in Econ. You will be surprised when you see how many people will fail Intro to Econ in the summer. SF Econ will be a far cry from LC style "Show the point where marginal utility begins to diminish".

If you really want to study ahead, I can email you SF Econ lecture slides, so you know which topics to pursue in Varian, and likewise in maths/stats.

In general, in the future it would be nice to know the following things:

- Hypothesis testing (you will be doing this in Stats next semester). You will probably just cover z-tests and maaybe t-tests. You will need to know F-tests and Chi-Squared distribution later so get started on that.

- Regression Analysis. Econometrics is gonna be a huge part of what you encounter in economics later on (in terms of study and reading papers etc), so introduce yourself to OLS, simple linear regression model, multiple regression model.

- The Chaing & Wainwright book as someone said above. Also some Linear Algebra would be good. For that all you really need is the Anton & Rorres book. Hamilton has tons of copies.

- Find a more advanced Macroeconomics book than Mankiw (one that actually has formulas in it), and acquaint yourself with IS-LM, AS-AD, Solow models, 'laws', rules and curves of all sorts.

That should keep you busy for a while anyway.

But to be honest, I don't really see your predicament. You find your undergrad easy. Great! Get a 1.1 degree here and move on to bigger and better things.

Frustrated Fresher · 22-11-2014 1:33pm

@andrew: thanks for the recommendation. I see that that is used all the way up to Quant Methods.

@Bears and Vodka: sincere thanks for such a detailed list of forthcoming topics. Could I be cheeky and ask for advice on schol exams? Which paper would you (and others) recommend not sitting (and why)? Any tips?! Schols is famed for difficulty and required application, etc, yet the papers seem to be fairly repetitive - for example 2014's Paper II repeats three questions (almost verbatim) from 2012's. Is getting schols really as difficult as everyone says? I'm not questioning whether it requires work. But if someone with a decent apptiude applies themselves well over the first semester and xmas, do they not stand a good chance of getting it (assuming, of course, no constraints on permitted number awarded).

Athos902 · 22-11-2014 6:12pm

First year economics can be pretty tiresome. I think I got a grade in the high 90s on the EC1010 midterm having barely kept up with the module. I'm not trying to brag; you'll notice a significant drop in lecture attendance after the results come out, suggesting others feel the same way.

If you have the ability, you really could be doing a lot of independent work. Just going to college and getting your degree isn't enough in these days. You need to distinguish yourself as an exceptional student, if you have the ability. You can get relatively cheap subscriptions to The Economist and the Financial Times as a student, it's a good idea to apply you're economic theory to the world around you and attempt to critique the columnists' analysis. Reading academic journals is tedious, in my opinion, there are certainly a few classic articles that are worth reading (e.g the market for lemons paper) but I generally skim them. I like reading "pop econ" books too: The Undercover Economist is a fantastic series, Capital in the 21st Century is a tome but seems to already be considered a classic by many, Donal O'Donovan has a fantastic book on the collapse of the Celtic Tiger, and I suppose I can't mention pop econ without mentioning Freakonomics.

Doing Schols is a great idea. As far as I am aware there are two economics papers and you must do both as an TSM student. The first paper is based on EC2010 and the questions are pretty similar to what you will find on your finals paper though the standard expected is much higher. I think the two Varian books, Intermediate Microeconomics and the more technical Microeconomic Analysis really contain all the material you need. I personally found Richard Somerville's notes for his third year micro course EC3010 (easy to find on the google machine) to be invaluable if you are thinking of anwsering the General Equilibrium question.

The second economics paper is based on Economy of Ireland and Economics of Public Policy. I think only TSM Maths and erasmus students do Economics of Public Policy, so you probably won't have to worry about it. If you do choose to do it, I'd strongly advise answering any of Sean Barrett's questions on the schols paper. I wouldn't trust that man to tie his own shoes, let alone correct my schols paper. John O'Hagan will give you the questions beforehand, but obviously expect a very high standard. The crux of the exam is writing a very good essay with a coherent arguement. Do tonnes of background reading and try to include as many insights of your own as possible. Schols isn't about regurgitating the textbook, you have to be exceptional.

That being said, if you are have as clever as you think you are (no offense) you have a really good shot. It really does just come down to how much work you do.

Frustrated Fresher · 22-11-2014 8:55pm

Athos902 wrote: »

First year economics can be pretty tiresome. I think I got a grade in the high 90s on the EC1010 midterm having barely kept up with the module. I'm not trying to brag; you'll notice a significant drop in lecture attendance after the results come out, suggesting others feel the same way.

If you have the ability, you really could be doing a lot of independent work. Just going to college and getting your degree isn't enough in these days. You need to distinguish yourself as an exceptional student, if you have the ability. You can get relatively cheap subscriptions to The Economist and the Financial Times as a student, it's a good idea to apply you're economic theory to the world around you and attempt to critique the columnists' analysis. Reading academic journals is tedious, in my opinion, there are certainly a few classic articles that are worth reading (e.g the market for lemons paper) but I generally skim them. I like reading "pop econ" books too: The Undercover Economist is a fantastic series, Capital in the 21st Century is a tome but seems to already be considered a classic by many, Donal O'Donovan has a fantastic book on the collapse of the Celtic Tiger, and I suppose I can't mention pop econ without mentioning Freakonomics.

Doing Schols is a great idea. As far as I am aware there are two economics papers and you must do both as an TSM student. The first paper is based on EC2010 and the questions are pretty similar to what you will find on your finals paper though the standard expected is much higher. I think the two Varian books, Intermediate Microeconomics and the more technical Microeconomic Analysis really contain all the material you need. I personally found Richard Somerville's notes for his third year micro course EC3010 (easy to find on the google machine) to be invaluable if you are thinking of anwsering the General Equilibrium question.

The second economics paper is based on Economy of Ireland and Economics of Public Policy. I think only TSM Maths and erasmus students do Economics of Public Policy, so you probably won't have to worry about it. If you do choose to do it, I'd strongly advise answering any of Sean Barrett's questions on the schols paper. I wouldn't trust that man to tie his own shoes, let alone correct my schols paper. John O'Hagan will give you the questions beforehand, but obviously expect a very high standard. The crux of the exam is writing a very good essay with a coherent arguement. Do tonnes of background reading and try to include as many insights of your own as possible. Schols isn't about regurgitating the textbook, you have to be exceptional.

That being said, if you are have as clever as you think you are (no offense) you have a really good shot. It really does just come down to how much work you do.

Thanks to everyone who gives such long and constructive responses. I really appreciate it. I've PM-ed you, athos902 (to ask a specific thing about her/his post, not to exclude!).

In case you didn't know, TCD students can access the FT for free through a link which can be found by searching for it in the library catalogue.

I didn't realise O'Hagan gives essay titles in advance. Does he give all of them or a list from which a certain number appears?

@Bears and Vodka: you said earlier in the thread that you thought that I wouldn't like O'Hagan's style. Why is that? Also, I stalked your profile...based on your performance in them, I would really value your opinions on schols.

Bears and Vodka · 22-11-2014 10:39pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

@Bears and Vodka: you said earlier in the thread that you thought that I wouldn't like O'Hagan's style. Why is that? Also, I stalked your profile...based on your performance in them, I would really value your opinions on schols.

Oh wow, I'm glad I'm worthy of your audience

Yeah, John is the kinda guy who will talk about his eventful life and his illustrious students in high places rather than teach. He kind of assumes you come to the lectures to listen to his chats, and then you go home and actually learn some economic theory. Then you are expected to produce The Economist style essays on the titles that he lists. Then you go and rote learn them by heart and a bunch of them appear in the exam which you duly write down and hope for the best.

Most people like his classes though, myself included. The rote learning essays bit not so much.

Frustrated Fresher · 22-11-2014 11:12pm

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

Oh wow, I'm glad I'm worthy of your audience

Yeah, John is the kinda guy who will talk about his eventful life and his illustrious students in high places rather than teach. He kind of assumes you come to the lectures to listen to his chats, and then you go home and actually learn some economic theory. Then you are expected to produce The Economist style essays on the titles that he lists. Then you go and rote learn them by heart and a bunch of them appear in the exam which you duly write down and hope for the best.

Most people like his classes though, myself included. The rote learning essays bit not so much.

I only said that cause it looked like - when you "thanked" Athos's post - you were going to decline my explicit invitation to opine on them!

That's old-school lecturing! I lol at the image of a time-worn Tara Mitchell treating her class to a meandering anecdote about distinguished past pupils.

Thanks

ganon · 23-11-2014 10:13am

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

I thought this thread had died and gone to Boards heaven. I'm delighted that someone actually agrees with me! I didn't know about the Nobel Popular Information. Thanks for heads up because they seem pretty good. By "Varian", do you mean the textbook Intermediate Economics? I know that's the prescribed text for next year, but is it known for being especially good?

I gather Econ Pol when Ronan Lyons takes over in the second semester starts to diverge more from Intro to Econ. So the perfect solution under the circumstances is to allow TSM economists to take a Broad Curriculum module in Michaelmas and then the second semester of Econ Pol when it doesn't merely cover everything in Intro to Econ...but slower.

Several people on the thread have said something along the lines of, "this is third level, you should be motivating yourself, etc." And I accept that that is true. But it's very difficult to motivate yourself to study material that's not directed by your lectures in some way. It's easy to say I should read ahead. But read what in particular?! There's so much! Unless I feel there's going to be some direct benefit to my studies, how can it be expected that I would study Varian in my spare time?

We just had our midterms in Into to Econ and Maths. Both were soo easy! I expected that of Maths but I expected the Intro test to at least be similar to the optional homework quizzes (which require that I concentrate in order to get right). But it was a good deal easier. I and some other people were finished after thirty minutes (of a ninety minute exam), but I diligently went back through each question! When I was finished, the hall was probably less than a third full.

I think lots of people will tell you that you have access to a world of information, online and in the library, and so in theory you could teach yourself anything. But in reality there's probably a very small proportion of people out there that actually have that kind of motivation it takes to completely teach yourself something from scratch (as opposed to a bit of light reading in an area you like). But not being able to do that doesn't make you lazy! If you're like me then you're someone who pushes themselves into a situation where someone else will push them (if that makes sense)

Yep Varian Intermediate Economics is prescribed for 2nd year Intermediate, it's a pretty good book. You could start doing some reading around Oligopoly, Game Theory, General Equilibrium if you're interested in that, and they often come up as full questions on Paper I for schols.
Although, that said- For schols you'll have a choice (i'm fairly sure..) between Paper 1 (EC2010), Paper 2 (EC2020) and whatever the Maths/Stats one is called. Definitely do the Maths/Stats one, that's usually what brings everyone's grade up. I'd say if you like EC2020, and more importantly if you're good at essay writing and the kind of critical-thinking John O'Hagan likes, do that over EC2010.

Yeah 2nd term Intro to Econ and Econ Pol are different, Intro to Econ gets harder. I had different lectures so could be different material, but I've heard Ronan Lyons is very good.

Frustrated Fresher · 23-11-2014 2:00pm

ganon wrote: »

I think lots of people will tell you that you have access to a world of information, online and in the library, and so in theory you could teach yourself anything. But in reality there's probably a very small proportion of people out there that actually have that kind of motivation it takes to completely teach yourself something from scratch (as opposed to a bit of light reading in an area you like). But not being able to do that doesn't make you lazy! If you're like me then you're someone who pushes themselves into a situation where someone else will push them (if that makes sense)

Yep Varian Intermediate Economics is prescribed for 2nd year Intermediate, it's a pretty good book. You could start doing some reading around Oligopoly, Game Theory, General Equilibrium if you're interested in that, and they often come up as full questions on Paper I for schols.
Although, that said- For schols you'll have a choice (i'm fairly sure..) between Paper 1 (EC2010), Paper 2 (EC2020) and whatever the Maths/Stats one is called. Definitely do the Maths/Stats one, that's usually what brings everyone's grade up. I'd say if you like EC2020, and more importantly if you're good at essay writing and the kind of critical-thinking John O'Hagan likes, do that over EC2010.

Yeah 2nd term Intro to Econ and Econ Pol are different, Intro to Econ gets harder. I had different lectures so could be different material, but I've heard Ronan Lyons is very good.

Yeah, well expressed. I am able to motivate myself, but I have to feel like I can achieve something by it. And the thought of reading one of several 500+ page books on a topic without guidance doesn't make me feel like I can.

Thanks for info on schols. I'm gonna struggle in choosing between Econ I and Econ II, I think. I'm good at essay writing and enjoy macro more than micro, but can't help but feel that Econ I is purer economics and also that a period of intense and advanced (at that level) micro study would stand to me in the summer and subsequent modules.

Frustrated Fresher · 24-11-2014 6:25pm

Results from Intro to Econ midterm:

Score % Percentile (rounded)
40/40 100 98
39/40 97.5 95
38/40 95 88
37/40 92.5 77
36/40 90 68
35/40 87.5 60
34/40 85 55
33/40 82.5 47

A median score of 82.5%! I presume only a hadfull will get that in the summer.

andrew · 25-11-2014 8:29pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

Results from Intro to Econ midterm:

Score % Percentile (rounded)
40/40 100 98
39/40 97.5 95
38/40 95 88
37/40 92.5 77
36/40 90 68
35/40 87.5 60
34/40 85 55
33/40 82.5 47

A median score of 82.5%! I presume only a hadfull will get that in the summer.

C'mon tell us what you got so that we can lay into you if you got anything less than 40/40

Frustrated Fresher · 25-11-2014 8:57pm

I got two wrong.

Be gentle.

andrew · 27-11-2014 10:53am

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

I got two wrong. Be gentle.

AND AFTER ALL THE ADVICE WE'VE BEEN GIVING YOU.

I'm not mad, just dissapointed.

Frustrated Fresher · 27-11-2014 5:16pm

andrew wrote: »

AND AFTER ALL THE ADVICE WE'VE BEEN GIVING YOU.

I'm not mad, just dissapointed.

All I ever wanted to do was make you happy.

Bottleopener · 28-11-2014 12:42am

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

Yeah, well expressed. I am able to motivate myself, but I have to feel like I can achieve something by it. And the thought of reading one of several 500+ page books on a topic without guidance doesn't make me feel like I can.

Thanks for info on schols. I'm gonna struggle in choosing between Econ I and Econ II, I think. I'm good at essay writing and enjoy macro more than micro, but can't help but feel that Econ I is purer economics and also that a period of intense and advanced (at that level) micro study would stand to me in the summer and subsequent modules.

Pick Econ 2 if you can only take one of them. And just do the Economy of Ireland questions. Best course you'll ever take taught by in my opinion the single best lecturer in the college.

Bears and Vodka · 28-11-2014 2:02am

Bottleopener wrote: »

Best course you'll ever take taught by in my opinion the single best lecturer in the college.

JO'H

Frustrated Fresher · 28-11-2014 4:20pm

Bottleopener wrote: »

Pick Econ 2 if you can only take one of them. And just do the Economy of Ireland questions. Best course you'll ever take taught by in my opinion the single best lecturer in the college.

Wow, high praise. I look forward to his lectures then. I think, though, considering that I would still be doing the module and answering on the same questions in the summer exam were I not to sit Econ II, I should decide based on in which I'm more likely to do well. And, unless I struggle with it, I suspect Econ I allows for higher scoring.

Kbeg3 · 28-11-2014 10:09pm

Frustrated Fresher wrote: »

Wow, high praise. I look forward to his lectures then. I think, though, considering that I would still be doing the module and answering on the same questions in the summer exam were I not to sit Econ II, I should decide based on in which I'm more likely to do well. And, unless I struggle with it, I suspect Econ I allows for higher scoring.

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.

Frustrated by TCD freshman economics

Comments