|
5003 Posts
And just a question, would you go to a different school if given the choice?
Uchicago was the only school i applied to. Knowing all of this, now I would have applied to both MIT and Uchicago thinking about it as an undergrad. But there are definitely some nice stuff about uchicago that I liked, but i think that's more related to my econ/stat nerdiness D:
Uhh... I will be exploring the exciting life of "staying inside when it goes dark" and hopefully I'll be fine. Right Milkis? Right?
Nah. The where "fun comes to die" is kind of a misnomer. We just have fun in more interesting ways overall, I think :3
|
I just graduated from UChicago. Would say that it changed my life, but not sure whether it changed my life better or worse (or more or less so) than if I'd gone elsewhere (like Penn, Stanford, or Columbia).
UChicago is insanely competitive. Make no mistake--people come here to pwn other people academically, and there's a lot of jockeying that goes on in terms of internships (bulge brackets, consulting firms) and "cool things to do" like becoming an RA for a particularly famous econ prof or an aide to a Senator (Durbin) or Presidential Advisor (Goolsbee).
Before coming here I thought I was the shit. Then I got placed into a hum class with a teacher that enjoyed calling people retarded and an econ class with two International Math Olympiad bronze medalists (both Singaporean... go figure). After first year I thought life sucked, but life slowly got better and junior/senior year was a blast in terms of the networking and opportunities that the school provided.
You'll meet some really toolish characters here mixed with some stunningly smart intellectual purists. You'll see people morph from purists to tools and vice versa (though that is more rare).
You'll learn about how the world works--pretty much the entire UofC is a giant factory for "social engineers" in terms of people who want to make an impact on society. However, this social engineering degree is from a very narrow angle, but helpfully the UofC provides enough freedom for you to go forth and conquer if you really wanna do something unorthodox.
FYI--Milkis and I both started in the same year but walked completely different paths, so feel free to PM us if you want more thoughts.
|
On April 20 2011 12:25 theonemephisto wrote:
I'm at Uchicago.
I absolutely love it. In my opinion, it's the school that will most reward hard academic work and interest. I'm actually an econ major as well, so if you have any questions, go ahead and ask.
There isn't much difference between econ major vs. math with econ. The differences are basically that for math with econ, you have to take analysis and algebra, while for econ you take more econ classes and can take math for econ. But even if you go the econ major route, I highly recommend taking analysis if you can handle it, and may people do, so the only real difference is algebra, which isn't particularly useful for almost anything econ-related.
For me, the best route ended up being going with an econ major and taking additional math and stat classes. If you want to take a full complement of econ electives and add in some stats classes, not having to take algebra really frees up your time to do other things.
Also, learn how to do some proofs. It's incredibly useful, will help your studies in econ a lot, especially if you go with the accelerated sequence, and is required for anything past calculus/math for econ majors. If you test into it, I highly recommend taking Calc 160's (Honors Calculus), you'll probably give up some math credits, but it will prepare you for doing proofs better than anything available.
Would you reccomend taking 160's over starting off at 19900 if I score high enough? I have a rudimentary knowledge of proofs, and I'm under no illusion that its perfect, but its credit, and from what I'm reading on the website, it sounds like 1900 also covers proofs.
Thanks for the input!
|
:O
That sounds amazing...I wish there were threads like these on all of the top unis >\\\<
How would you guys say UChicago compares to HYPSM and the like? I've obviously heard of the UChicago business/economics branch, but in which other fields does it excel? Out of curiosity :>
Congratulations! I hope that your time there prepares you well for your life ahead and that your experience there is like none other!
+ Show Spoiler +*cough* what were some of your stats *cough* ;D
|
I graduated from UChicago in '06. I can answer questions, PM me if you got any.
|
On April 20 2011 12:48 LSB wrote:Would you reccomend taking 160's over starting off at 19900 if I score high enough? I have a rudimentary knowledge of proofs, and I'm under no illusion that its perfect, but its credit, and from what I'm reading on the website, it sounds like 1900 also covers proofs.
Thanks for the input!
199 isn't nearly as good for teaching proofs. Also, the work you put into 160's will give you a huge step up over the 199 kids when you get to analysis. But at the same time, it takes 2 more classes to do 160s (also, check course reviews, there are a couple subpar professors in there that you should avoid).
But if you can spare those classes, I can't recommend 160s enough. I came in thinking that I was the shit at math, I took Calc BC, Multivariable, Differential Equations, and Linear algebra in high school (the latter two at UVA) and got A-/A in all of them. And then 160's completely changed my perspective on math and forced me to become infinitely better not only at math, but at thinking in general. It's a really phenomenal course with a really phenomenal textbook, and the fact that you're covering material you already know how to do allows the class to be very in-depth and rigorous proof-wise.
|
On April 20 2011 13:01 Z3kk wrote:
How would you guys say UChicago compares to HYPSM and the like? I've obviously heard of the UChicago business/economics branch, but in which other fields does it excel? Out of curiosity :>
I originally applied because of its physics and math departments which are pretty top notch. The only thing that held me back for a while is that Uchicago doesn't have an engineering school. Of course, thats no longer an issue.
Congratulations! I hope that your time there prepares you well for your life ahead and that your experience there is like none other! + Show Spoiler +*cough* what were some of your stats *cough* ;D
+ Show Spoiler +
3.9 gpa (unweighted) high ACT and SAT2s many many 5s for APs
Extracurrics in math/science/debate with accomplishmenfs and leadership positions
Killer essay (in my eyes at least)
I hear that the essay is very important for UChicago
Good luck to you for when you apply! And if you already have, good luck on your decisions!
|
On April 20 2011 13:08 theonemephisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 12:48 LSB wrote:Would you reccomend taking 160's over starting off at 19900 if I score high enough? I have a rudimentary knowledge of proofs, and I'm under no illusion that its perfect, but its credit, and from what I'm reading on the website, it sounds like 1900 also covers proofs.
Thanks for the input! 199 isn't nearly as good for teaching proofs. Also, the work you put into 160's will give you a huge step up over the 199 kids when you get to analysis. But at the same time, it takes 2 more classes to do 160s (also, check course reviews, there are a couple subpar professors in there that you should avoid). But if you can spare those classes, I can't recommend 160s enough. I came in thinking that I was the shit at math, I took Calc BC, Multivariable, Differential Equations, and Linear algebra in high school (the latter two at UVA) and got A-/A in all of them. And then 160's completely changed my perspective on math and forced me to become infinitely better not only at math, but at thinking in general. It's a really phenomenal course with a really phenomenal textbook, and the fact that you're covering material you already know how to do allows the class to be very in-depth and rigorous proof-wise.
Yep--definitely regret that I spent most of first year drinking and chasing girls rather than taking 160s and dropping out of 203/204 math sequence.
|
On April 20 2011 13:08 theonemephisto wrote:
But if you can spare those classes, I can't recommend 160s enough. I came in thinking that I was the shit at math, I took Calc BC, Multivariable, Differential Equations, and Linear algebra in high school (the latter two at UVA) and got A-/A in all of them. And then 160's completely changed my perspective on math and forced me to become infinitely better not only at math, but at thinking in general. It's a really phenomenal course with a really phenomenal textbook, and the fact that you're covering material you already know how to do allows the class to be very in-depth and rigorous proof-wise.
Sounds about similar to me, and I'll probably be following your recomendation. Certainly it sounds like it will make my life easier in the 2nd and latter years which always is a bonus. Thanks again!
On April 20 2011 13:14 _romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 13:08 theonemephisto wrote:On April 20 2011 12:48 LSB wrote:Would you reccomend taking 160's over starting off at 19900 if I score high enough? I have a rudimentary knowledge of proofs, and I'm under no illusion that its perfect, but its credit, and from what I'm reading on the website, it sounds like 1900 also covers proofs.
Thanks for the input! 199 isn't nearly as good for teaching proofs. Also, the work you put into 160's will give you a huge step up over the 199 kids when you get to analysis. But at the same time, it takes 2 more classes to do 160s (also, check course reviews, there are a couple subpar professors in there that you should avoid). But if you can spare those classes, I can't recommend 160s enough. I came in thinking that I was the shit at math, I took Calc BC, Multivariable, Differential Equations, and Linear algebra in high school (the latter two at UVA) and got A-/A in all of them. And then 160's completely changed my perspective on math and forced me to become infinitely better not only at math, but at thinking in general. It's a really phenomenal course with a really phenomenal textbook, and the fact that you're covering material you already know how to do allows the class to be very in-depth and rigorous proof-wise. Yep--definitely regret that I spent most of first year drinking and chasing girls rather than taking 160s and dropping out of 203/204 math sequence.
:O. Kk don't drink/chase girls that much, and do that 160s. Thanks for the advice!
|
An old friend of mine goes to Uchicago and she recently got mugged by two other girls for her groceries. Good school though 
|
5003 Posts
On April 20 2011 13:08 theonemephisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 12:48 LSB wrote:Would you reccomend taking 160's over starting off at 19900 if I score high enough? I have a rudimentary knowledge of proofs, and I'm under no illusion that its perfect, but its credit, and from what I'm reading on the website, it sounds like 1900 also covers proofs.
Thanks for the input! 199 isn't nearly as good for teaching proofs. Also, the work you put into 160's will give you a huge step up over the 199 kids when you get to analysis. But at the same time, it takes 2 more classes to do 160s (also, check course reviews, there are a couple subpar professors in there that you should avoid). But if you can spare those classes, I can't recommend 160s enough. I came in thinking that I was the shit at math, I took Calc BC, Multivariable, Differential Equations, and Linear algebra in high school (the latter two at UVA) and got A-/A in all of them. And then 160's completely changed my perspective on math and forced me to become infinitely better not only at math, but at thinking in general. It's a really phenomenal course with a really phenomenal textbook, and the fact that you're covering material you already know how to do allows the class to be very in-depth and rigorous proof-wise.
Adding onto this -- if you're really interested in thinking this way -- take the IBL of 160s. Expect to spend about 20+ hours a week though.
Basically, this all comes down to the fact that what you learn out of UChicago depends on how hard you want to work, of course ;p
|
On April 20 2011 13:16 LSB wrote:Sounds about similar to me, and I'll probably be following your recomendation. Certainly it sounds like it will make my life easier in the 2nd and latter years which always is a bonus. Thanks again!
No problem. Also, keep in mind that if you decide to take a more rigorous econ major, it will involve many classes with a heavy proof element.
For an econ major, there are a many choices which will make your life easier or harder:
Math for econ (I think 196/197?) vs. analysis (203-204 with 205 optional)
Stat 234 or stat 244, with stat 244 being much more proof-heavy
Regular econometrics vs. honors econometrics
(If you take honors metrics, that usually involves taking stat 251 and 244, which are both proof-heavy)
Regular 200-203 vs. intensive/accelerated/whatever-they-call-it 200-203
And then the various econ electives, which have wildly varying difficulties. My point is that, without a strong base in proofs, pretty much every class on the right-side of these choices (except the last one) will be difficult to handle. You certainly don't NEED to be able to do them to get an econ major, but without that ability it cuts out quite a few options, many of which are very interesting and rewarding.
EDIT: And about IBL, I didn't take it, but it's a pretty special class. From what I've heard, it's basically regular 160's, except without a teacher, so the majority of the class is discussion/student run. As he said, it's even more time-intensive and difficult (regular 160's is already pretty tough).
|
Hmm I see...I'm sort of an overzealous perfectionist, so whenever I smell anything remotely like college applications, I ask a ton of questions hehe I'm actually a sophomore right now; partially thinking I have time, while at the same time feeling as if time is running out (impending doom, etc.)... ._. Thanks LSB!
I'm planning on taking BC junior year (skipping AB--is this a wise choice w/ or w/o x sort of preparation?) and linear algebra/multivar senior year (both at a community college probably), and I'm starting to get a bit scared... mephisto, how were those classes? I honestly do not think I am that good at mathematics (above average for sure, otherwise I would be blatantly delusional to consider this), but am willing to put in the work for once, as I do have an interest in it. The only thing I have going for me is a perfect SAT I score back in Oct, but the material there is obviously far, far, far, far, far inferior to the more advanced topics/applications of the science/math...
To make this a bit more relevant to LSB's blog questions (^^') and perhaps not limited to a PM, how would you say the 160s changed your perspective on mathematics? You sound very adept at math (very much the shit), so it must have been a truly profound change.
|
5003 Posts
Maybe I should reveal my ultimate build order for people interested in Econ Academia/Serious Econ :O :O :O
|
On April 20 2011 13:26 Z3kk wrote:
Hmm I see...I'm sort of an overzealous perfectionist, so whenever I smell anything remotely like college applications, I ask a ton of questions hehe I'm actually a sophomore right now and partially thinking I have time, while at the same time feeling as if time is running out (impending doom, etc.)... ._. Thanks LSB!
I'm planning on taking BC junior year (skipping AB--is this a wise choice w/ or w/o x sort of preparation?) and linear algebra/multivar senior year (both at a community college probably), and I'm starting to get a bit scared... mephisto, how were those classes? I honestly do not think I am that good at mathematics (above average for sure, otherwise I would be blatantly delusional to consider this), but am willing to put in the work for once, as I do have an interest in it. The only thing I have going for me is a perfect SAT I score back in Oct, but the material there is obviously far, far, far, far, far inferior to the more advanced topics/applications of the science/math...
To make this a bit more relevant to LSB's blog questions (^^') and perhaps not limited to a PM, how would you say the 160s changed your perspective on mathematics? You sound very adept at math (very much the shit), so it must have been a truly profound change.
BC without AB isn't particularly difficult, it's just very time-crunched. It's just difficult for the class to have enough time to fit in all the material, so you end up spending minimal time on some stuff. Wasn't too bad.
Multivariable isn't difficult at all really. Probably 50% of it is just doing what you did in BC, but doing it twice. I don't remember all of it, but I didn't find it hard at all, especially not at a community college.
Linear algebra depends a lot. It can get pretty proof-heavy, but it can also be pretty simple, I think depending a lot on what the class is structured towards. Most of the actual solving stuff isn't too hard though, just getting use to working with matrices.
And 160's showed me a side of math that I'd never seen before. It's not about solving formulas or finding volumes or etc., but it's about making arguments. You learn that math is almost identical to writing, in both you set up a conclusion and attempt to make an argument for or against it. The only difference is that math uses very precise language and definitions with little to no ambiguity. As I said, it made me a better thinker because it forces you to be precise and to be complete. You can't rely on bs or ambiguities of language, and it's impossible to hide holes in your argument.
|
On April 20 2011 13:26 Z3kk wrote:
Hmm I see...I'm sort of an overzealous perfectionist, so whenever I smell anything remotely like college applications, I ask a ton of questions hehe I'm actually a sophomore right now; partially thinking I have time, while at the same time feeling as if time is running out (impending doom, etc.)... ._. Thanks LSB!
I'm planning on taking BC junior year (skipping AB--is this a wise choice w/ or w/o x sort of preparation?) and linear algebra/multivar senior year (both at a community college probably), and I'm starting to get a bit scared... mephisto, how were those classes? I honestly do not think I am that good at mathematics (above average for sure, otherwise I would be blatantly delusional to consider this), but am willing to put in the work for once, as I do have an interest in it. The only thing I have going for me is a perfect SAT I score back in Oct, but the material there is obviously far, far, far, far, far inferior to the more advanced topics/applications of the science/math...
To make this a bit more relevant to LSB's blog questions (^^') and perhaps not limited to a PM, how would you say the 160s changed your perspective on mathematics? You sound very adept at math (very much the shit), so it must have been a truly profound change.
As an add-on to this question, I would like to ask how "talented" you have to be at math. It seems that mathematics plays an extremely heavy role in economics, but can you do these math courses without that innate skill at mathematics? Personally, I'd love to do econ, but I've never been good at these crazy math competitions like the AMC and such. In fact, I suck quite a bit at them, but I'm still planning to take DiffEQ/Linear Algebra next year. I understand it'll definitely be harder to take these courses for someone like me, but how much more work do you think itll require?
|
On April 20 2011 13:26 Z3kk wrote:
Hmm I see...I'm sort of an overzealous perfectionist, so whenever I smell anything remotely like college applications, I ask a ton of questions hehe I'm actually a sophomore right now and partially thinking I have time, while at the same time feeling as if time is running out (impending doom, etc.)... ._. Thanks LSB!
All I can say is dream big, so even if you miss you'll still get into a great school like UChicago. Oh and study for your PSATs
I'm planning on taking BC junior year (skipping AB--is this a wise choice w/ or w/o x sort of preparation?) and linear algebra/multivar senior year (both at a community college probably), and I'm starting to get a bit scared... mephisto, how were those classes? I honestly do not think I am that good at mathematics (above average for sure, otherwise I would be blatantly delusional to consider this), but am willing to put in the work for once, as I do have an interest in it.
Go for it! BC calc isn't that much more difficult than AB, and credit wise it works better.
However if you struggled during pre-calc, you might start to find it hard. On the other hand if you find BC to be easy/notdifficult college math is something to look to! (of course, make adjustments for senioritis).
|
On April 20 2011 13:23 theonemephisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 13:16 LSB wrote:Sounds about similar to me, and I'll probably be following your recomendation. Certainly it sounds like it will make my life easier in the 2nd and latter years which always is a bonus. Thanks again! No problem. Also, keep in mind that if you decide to take a more rigorous econ major, it will involve many classes with a heavy proof element. For an econ major, there are a many choices which will make your life easier or harder: Math for econ (I think 196/197?) vs. analysis (203-204 with 205 optional) Stat 234 or stat 244, with stat 244 being much more proof-heavy Regular econometrics vs. honors econometrics (If you take honors metrics, that usually involves taking stat 251 and 244, which are both proof-heavy) Regular 200-203 vs. intensive/accelerated/whatever-they-call-it 200-203 And then the various econ electives, which have wildly varying difficulties. My point is that, without a strong base in proofs, pretty much every class on the right-side of these choices (except the last one) will be difficult to handle. You certainly don't NEED to be able to do them to get an econ major, but without that ability it cuts out quite a few options, many of which are very interesting and rewarding. EDIT: And about IBL, I didn't take it, but it's a pretty special class. From what I've heard, it's basically regular 160's, except without a teacher, so the majority of the class is discussion/student run. As he said, it's even more time-intensive and difficult (regular 160's is already pretty tough).
Honors metrics was a fucking nightmare. Not in terms of time, but just in terms of the sheer amount of brain-gymnastics you'll have to do to keep up, plus everyone who takes that class is willing to take it to the next level and is smart, and it's graded on a curve, so it's impossible to get even a B+...
That being said, I knew one kid who got an A- in that class, was probably one of the smartest/chillest guys ever (Exeter --> UofC --> Credit Suisse --> Madison Dearborn) but unless you think you've got what it takes don't kill yourself
|
On April 20 2011 13:32 Milkis wrote:
Maybe I should reveal my ultimate build order for people interested in Econ Academia/Serious Econ :O :O :O
I'm guessing:
Math 160s IBL
Math 203-205 (analysis), honors (207-209 I think?) if possible
A topology course
Differential Equations
Maybe algebra
Econ 200-203 (intensive)
Honors Metrics
Metrics B
Time Series Metrics
Stat 251
Stat 244-245
At least as a base. Add in various electives, maybe another stat class or two. Get some grad classes in there, especially the base math methods for econ one.
|
5003 Posts
Personally, I'd love to do econ, but I've never been good at these crazy math competitions like the AMC and such.
You don't need to be. There are many fields of econ and some of them are more math intensive (Game Theory) than others. If you decide you want to do theory then you need to know a whole bunch of math concepts/theorems very well.
Note that math in econ isn't about solving math problems or anything like that -- the point of math in economics is to model situations. It's akin to solving word problems by laying out a series of equations -- except the word problem is now more complex and requires a lot more math to model the situation a bit better. As long as you are good at translating situations into math -- then you know what kind of math economists do. They need to know math and be good at applying them, but they don't need to be good at math, per say.
There are also fields of econ that require relatively less math -- especially if you go into the empirical aspects -- but that requires more of a statistical frame work in that case -- but then you really just need a really good intuition about situations combined with a good statistical knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
