Junior math major needs advice

[BaconPudding]

Hi all

I am currently a junior at Cornell majoring in psych and math. I've finished about half of my psych requirements, almost all of my degree reqs (need to take one history class, which I can do pass/fail), and prerequisites for my math major (lin alg, multivariable calc, Java).

I started out as a psych major since the field was interesting, but soon found out that employment prospects aren't too bright for a psych major unless I combined with something useful, like a MD in order to become a psychiatrist. I took gen chem and bio and did terribly.

I'd like to know more about becoming a quant and working in the financial sector. The thing I'm afraid of is that as a math major, I don't have much background in econ. I did take AP macroecon and intro micro at cornell. During the summer, I'm learning Matlab and reading the textbooks for intermediate macro&microecon. What are some ways that I can find internships and prepare myself for a career after graduation?

Thank you

 

[Ken Abbott]

Read the career guide that has been posted here and Joy Pathak's guide to internships.

 

[bigbadwolf]

The thing I'm afraid of is that as a math major, I don't have much background in econ. I did take AP macroecon and intro micro at cornell. During the summer, I'm learning Matlab and reading the textbooks for intermediate macro&microecon. What are some ways that I can find internships and prepare myself for a career after graduation?

You don't need it and you're wasting your time with it. You need some general background understanding of how the US economy works, how the global economy works, but that will come more from exposure and osmosis than from reading hefty tomes on macroeconomics, which will lead you astray. Perhaps you're confusing economics with finance -- I don't know.

 

[BaconPudding]

Read the career guide that has been posted here and Joy Pathak's guide to internships.

Thank you for referring me to that post. I found it to be helpful.

You don't need it and you're wasting your time with it. You need some general background understanding of how the US economy works, how the global economy works, but that will come more from exposure and osmosis than from reading hefty tomes on macroeconomics, which will lead you astray. Perhaps you're confusing economics with finance -- I don't know.

I've put together a sort of a two-year courseload plan, and there's not a lot of econ involved, except for computational algebra and econometrics. I've looked into joining investment/consulting clubs on campus, but I'm not sure how much osmosis I'll be able to do to be knowledgeable enough in econ. From where do you suggest I expose myself to economics, since none of my courses contain significant economic content.

I think I am confusing economics with finance. I've been studying psych and some math over the last two years, so I'm not the most economically knowledgeable person around. Shouldn't I study at least some intermediate micro/macro econ? I did take econ during freshman year but I didn't get very good grades and I don't remember much.

 

[bigbadwolf]

From where do you suggest I expose myself to economics, since none of my courses contain significant economic content.

I think I am confusing economics with finance. I've been studying psych and some math over the last two years, so I'm not the most economically knowledgeable person around. Shouldn't I study at least some intermediate micro/macro econ? I did take econ during freshman year but I didn't get very good grades and I don't remember much.

Try to read the FT (Financial Times) regularly and try to connect the dots for yourself. The first problem is that both the US and world economy don't follow the principles and ideas professional economists espouse. You can work through regular economics texts and not be any wiser after you finish. I personally like the books of Michael Hudson and I might recommend his latest, The Bubble and Beyond. See how you like his articles at his site here.

The study of the economy can't be divorced from the study of physical resource bases, state power, military force, and geopolitics. A century ago people realised this and the subject was known as "political economy." It's a delusion, a lunacy, a flight of fancy among pedants today that there exist independent "laws " of economics, that economics can be studied and understood in hermetically sealed isolation, and its behavior understood mathematically on the basis of arbitrary principles and frameworks. But this is exactly what you will be exposed to in a classroom setting.

The above is my opinion and others might take vociferous exception to this.

 

[Ken Abbott]

The above is my opinion and others might take vociferous exception to this.

Vociferous? No. But I do have a slightly different take.

Economics - any economics (mercantilism, neoclassical, socialist) - provide models of behavior. Those models may be crappy, but they're models nonetheless. I have found the study of economics to be an excellent framework for finance, particularly notions like utility theory, the microeconomics of taxation, optimal production levels. Others might find other frameworks (eg statistical, mathematical, philosophical) more appropriate.

 

[BaconPudding]

The study of the economy can't be divorced from the study of physical resource bases, state power, military force, and geopolitics. A century ago people realised this and the subject was known as "political economy." It's a delusion, a lunacy, a flight of fancy among pedants today that there exist independent "laws " of economics, that economics can be studied and understood in hermetically sealed isolation, and its behavior understood mathematically on the basis of arbitrary principles and frameworks. But this is exactly what you will be exposed to in a classroom setting.

The above is my opinion and others might take vociferous exception to this.

What you're saying makes sense to me. It's like how many problems in physics textbooks occur in frictionless vacuums with zero air resistance, but in the real world there are more variables to account for. However, econ remains the most popular major in Cornell, and is it wrong that all those students are studying largely theoretical models of resources and behavior that they will use in the real world, where there are more variables to account for than you can name?

I just think that I should study some econ on my own before trying to connect the dots. I appreciate the advice and it makes sense to some degree, but it's like trying to figure out the laws of physics by observing nature. It can work (how else did Newton and those other physicists figure it out before we had textbooks?) and would give you a deeper and more satisfying understanding, but I'm a total novice here with limited time.

While not an exactly vociferous exception to your opinion, I think I'll continue self-studying economics to some degree. i'll also check out FT and try to see what's going on. Your opinion was certainly interesting and gave me a perspective on econ, of how speculative the whole field is.

 

[bigbadwolf]

I serendipitously discovered this recent essay by Paul Craig Roberts a few minutes ago. I don't find much to disagree with. And he says a few good words about Michael Hudson. Macro economics is ideology, not science.