|
With that May 1 deadline many other high school seniors are stressing out, trying to figure out where to go to, what to do, I'm happy to say that I no longer count myself in that group. Although I have not yet mailed in my acceptance card, I have made a decision.
Hellloo UChicago!
(Disclaimer, if you are from Northwestern please skip the following paragraph)
The past two days I went on campus visits to Northwestern and UChicago. Northwestern… meh, I guess I could fit in, however it didn’t feel like an exceptional place. Going to orientations where the Dean of the College begs at you (for an hour) to not judge the place because it is sleeting in April, listening to students describe the messed up social circles, and finding out the Integrated Science Program + Engineering will take 5 years is a biit of a turnoff
Uchicago was a different story.
I was able to go in an overnight stay. Of course, I picked a horrible time to go. It was a Monday and people wanted to get work done, midterms were coming up so the name of the game was to pull all nighters studying for things. Most of the time I just sat around, listening to an audiobook while people around me were discussing their policy papers.
But I really enjoyed it. Although people worked insane hard, that’s something I’m expecting it in college. Sure people may be a little weird, but normal people are boring. In addition I stayed over at the Woodward House, and everyone were really nice and accommodating. Of course, there's always the chance that people will get mugged, and as I was playing pool at the Hallow Grounds one of my hosts was freaking out about her backpack getting swiped, but hey, I've gotten lots of things stolen at my high school, and I can always stay inside.
It was all very... pleasant. Sure the work will be hard, but I've already tasted that with summer camp at PROMYS. College doesn't seem that far away anymore.
I'm just wondering TLer’s go/willgo/went to UChicago? I’d love to hear what you guys think.
 
|
5003 Posts
Get out while you still can.
(welcome to the level of hell Dante forgot)
|
On April 20 2011 11:38 Milkis wrote:
Get out while you still can.
(welcome to the level of hell Dante forgot)
I'm fully prepared to hate the place every waking moment once I actually get there. However I'm hanging on this the small hope that I'll be able to live through it.
|
5003 Posts
On April 20 2011 11:41 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:38 Milkis wrote:
Get out while you still can.
(welcome to the level of hell Dante forgot) I'm fully prepared to hate the place every waking moment once I actually get there. However I'm hanging on this the small hope that I'll be able to live through it.
Haha, well it's actually not as bad as people make it out to be. But then, that also depends on your concentration and what you want to do with what you learn out of this place.
If you were here over the weekend please don't take as a natural part of Chicago weather. It will be grey. Very very grey all year round :O
|
On April 20 2011 11:43 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:41 LSB wrote:On April 20 2011 11:38 Milkis wrote:
Get out while you still can.
(welcome to the level of hell Dante forgot) I'm fully prepared to hate the place every waking moment once I actually get there. However I'm hanging on this the small hope that I'll be able to live through it. Haha, well it's actually not as bad as people make it out to be. But then, that also depends on your concentration and what you want to do with what you learn out of this place. If you were here over the weekend please don't take as a natural part of Chicago weather. It will be grey. Very very grey all year round :O
Well, I did hear a lot of horror stories about economics, but I actually enjoy do math so does that make me insane enough to fit in?
Didn't come down for the weekend, just the dreary Monday and Tuesday. (Got drenched this morning from walking to and from classes). And what's up with everyone whining about the Chicago weather? I thought it was a pleasant change.
|
Caller goes to UChic if I remember right.
Stay away.
Far, far away.
|
5003 Posts
Well, I did hear a lot of horror stories about economics, but I actually enjoy do math so does that make me insane enough to fit in?
Economics isn't that bad -- it's just people who are bad at math or really bad at intuitive understanding whining.
And it depends on what kind of math you like and what kind courses you take that will decide how you fit into it :3
Oh, so you were here yesterday and today. I can't believe you thought it was a pleasant change though -- but that's probably cause you haven't lived in the weather for four years. The workload doesn't make anyone happier either, only the other way around :O
|
On April 20 2011 11:49 Kaal wrote:
Caller goes to UChic if I remember right.
Stay away.
Far, far away.
Caller goes? :D Good rep for the school in my eye already.
|
5003 Posts
On April 20 2011 11:49 Kaal wrote:
Caller goes to UChic if I remember right.
Stay away.
Far, far away.
Caller actually is never around cause iirc he just holes himself up in wherever he lives. I've only ran into him on some random econ elective class actually and he didn't seem to like talking to others very much.
So he won't really affect you :O
|
On April 20 2011 11:51 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Well, I did hear a lot of horror stories about economics, but I actually enjoy do math so does that make me insane enough to fit in? Economics isn't that bad -- it's just people who are bad at math or really bad at intuitive understanding whining. And it depends on what kind of math you like and what kind courses you take that will decide how you fit into it :3
Sounds pretty nice. Have you heard much about the Major in Math with a Specialization in Economics? That sounds really interesting to me.
Oh, so you were here yesterday and today. I can't believe you thought it was a pleasant change though -- but that's probably cause you haven't lived in the weather for four years. The workload doesn't make anyone happier either, only the other way around :O
I live in Iowa, it isn't that much different (maybe a little less windy because we don't have lake michigan), but I just got sleeted on Saturday as I was trying to get into the school so nbd
|
5003 Posts
Sounds pretty nice. Have you heard much about the Major in Math with a Specialization in Economics? That sounds really interesting to me.
Bunch of my friends are in it, I did most of the coursework for it except I didn't feel like doing a bit more math. What do you want to know about it?
I live in Iowa, it isn't that much different (maybe a little less windy because we don't have lake michigan), but I just got sleeted on Saturday as I was trying to get into the school so nbd
Just dont regret your decision when you come and live here~~~
|
protip: Pick the easiest program/school so you have time to pursue your dreams of becoming a starcraft progamer. Try to get on a quiet study floor if you live in residence, so people won't bug you while you game.
|
On April 20 2011 11:56 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Sounds pretty nice. Have you heard much about the Major in Math with a Specialization in Economics? That sounds really interesting to me. Bunch of my friends are in it, I did most of the coursework for it except I didn't feel like doing a bit more math. What do you want to know about it?
Courseworkwise, what's the main differences between it and a straight up Economics Major? It sounds like it just is a Math major with an Economics Minor.
How are the job opportunities for it compared to Economics? Would it be about the same for getting financial internships/offers? Say I wanted to go work in the financial industry, would I be put at a disadvantage over Economic majors?
On April 20 2011 12:01 ThE_OsToJiY wrote:
protip: Pick the easiest program/school so you have time to pursue your dreams of becoming a starcraft progamer. Try to get on a quiet study floor if you live in residence, so people won't bug you while you game.
I think I failed on the first step
|
5003 Posts
Courseworkwise, what's the main differences between it and a straight up Economics Major? It sounds like it just is a Math major with an Economics Minor.
Honestly? The difference is that you take a little more math. I've seen people take that major with the easiest math/econ classes possible. It's honestly like a math/econ double major, really, and you'll still have time to take the random econ electives or other electives in general.
How are the job opportunities for it compared to Economics? Would it be about the same for getting financial internships/offers? Say I wanted to go work in the financial industry, would I be put at a disadvantage over Economic majors?
I doubt you'll have a disadvantage over econ majors just because of that alone. You'd probably be able to apply to a wider array of things, for example you can probably be a quant after learning programming and such while most econ majors can't even get close to that.
The only disadvantage I see is that you may have a slightly higher workload and that may help you from joining the RSOs they set up that could get you connections/"experience".
|
United States889 Posts
Oh my. An Iowan. Right here on TL. And going to UChicago. My my.
I am a surrogate Iowan, life long Chicagoan, who is going to Northwestern for grad school next fall. Be prepared to wear Kevlar down there on the south side while I chill out in beautiful Evanston, where there's more danger from asphixiation by smugness than being 'capped in the ass'
Bo9 for future school pride gogo
Also, if you join the mock trial team, you'll be coached by my brother lolol
|
On April 20 2011 12:10 Arrian wrote:
Oh my. An Iowan. Right here on TL. And going to UChicago. My my.
I am a surrogate Iowan, life long Chicagoan, who is going to Northwestern for grad school next fall. Be prepared to wear Kevlar down there on the south side while I chill out in beautiful Evanston, where there's more danger from asphixiation by smugness than being 'capped in the ass'
Bo9 for future school pride gogo
Also, if you join the mock trial team, you'll be coached by my brother lolol
Holy crap TL makes me wanna go to U of Chicago. 
|
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.
|
5003 Posts
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.
If he's an iBank type, he won't need most of that :O
|
On April 20 2011 12:09 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Courseworkwise, what's the main differences between it and a straight up Economics Major? It sounds like it just is a Math major with an Economics Minor. Honestly? The difference is that you take a little more math. I've seen people take that major with the easiest math/econ classes possible. It's honestly like a math/econ double major, really, and you'll still have time to take the random econ electives or other electives in general. Show nested quote +How are the job opportunities for it compared to Economics? Would it be about the same for getting financial internships/offers? Say I wanted to go work in the financial industry, would I be put at a disadvantage over Economic majors? I doubt you'll have a disadvantage over econ majors just because of that alone. You'd probably be able to apply to a wider array of things, for example you can probably be a quant after learning programming and such while most econ majors can't even get close to that. The only disadvantage I see is that you may have a slightly higher workload and that may help you from joining the RSOs they set up that could get you connections/"experience".
Thanks for the information! Sounds like a nice program, hopefully it will treat me kindly.
And just a question, would you go to a different school if given the choice?
On April 20 2011 12:10 Arrian wrote:
Oh my. An Iowan. Right here on TL. And going to UChicago. My my.
I am a surrogate Iowan, life long Chicagoan, who is going to Northwestern for grad school next fall. Be prepared to wear Kevlar down there on the south side while I chill out in beautiful Evanston, where there's more danger from asphixiation by smugness than being 'capped in the ass'
Bo9 for future school pride gogo
Also, if you join the mock trial team, you'll be coached by my brother lolol
Sweet another Iowan! Although you call yourslef surrogate thats good enough for me!
Uhh... I will be exploring the exciting life of "staying inside when it goes dark" and hopefully I'll be fine. Right Milkis? Right?
Dunno if I will do mock trial, I've always found lawyers a bit sleezy
|
I'll never get into UChicago.
At least I don't have to make this decision 
|
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.
|
5003 Posts
On April 20 2011 13:39 theonemephisto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Quite close. I would not recommend Honors analysis -- it's quite overkill and it'll screw you over for the other classes you need to do. Secondly, it doesn't actually teach you anything relevant for econ.
For Math 203-205 -- the accelerated section, of course, as Rudin >>> Wade forever and ever.
Wouldn't recommend Algebra. You do need Complex Analysis in there, however, just in case you want to do Time Series.
I would honestly say the order matters a lot too especially when it comes to metrics related classes.
But first, let me announce that I am not responsible for your GPA or your mental health after following my Build Order >:D
Secondly, I don't know enough about Macro to really recommend Macro courses, since my year was really fucked in terms of that since we didn't have any Macro courses our 3rd years.
Basically:
First Year:
IBL math 160
Hume
Civ
[Core Classes]/Intensive Econ at the last quarter (This is actually quite new, so I don't know what the difference exactly is, but the idea is that you're fine going Lima -> Bondarenko)
Second Year:
Accelerated Analysis (203-205 section 33 I believe)
Sosc: Power
Stat 244 -> 245 -> Honors Metrics (Spring)
Rest of Intensive Econ
Sosc Power is the best Sosc if you are thinking about Econ, period -- especially the first quarter of it when you read Smith/Marx/Durkheim.
Stat 245 makes Honors Metrics a lot easier and doable. Honors Metrics is annoying otherwise. I took 245 after Honors Metrics and I really really wished I took 245 before Honors Metrics.
Third Year:
Fall:
Time Series
Game Theory
Complex Analysis
Winter:
Economics of Crime
ODE
Spring:
Econometrics B
Human Capital
STAT 251
Human Capital cause Becker is quite old now so you want to get him before he switches over :O It's also the most accessible grad course -- BUT, the problem is that the class is just a midterm/final and they're all Price Theory style T/F questions and as an undergrad frankly they're really hard to do
Economics of Crime is an "interesting" choice, mostly because it is taught by Levitt. He talks a lot and sounds quite cocky, and honestly people think of it as "Story Time by Levitt". The important thing to learn is to learn how Levitt thinks -- just learn to think like him and you'll see how useful the course is. It'll also help you with Metrics B -- think of Economics of Crime as more verbal/informal introduction to the stuff you will learn in Metrics B.
You can move off your Complex -> ODE to your 4th year if you want.
Game Theory -- honestly, I'm mixed. I don't remember a single great lecture by Sonnenchein other than this one class where he did a proof of the existence of Mixed Nash Equilibria. But it's far better than Myerson's course and it's more math heavy.
Fourth Year
Fall:
Price Theory
Price Theory is death. Expect 25+ hours a week alone on one problem set. Kiss your Thursdays goodbye.
Basically if you can pull off this build you're pretty set for any micro empirical work, and it gives you a strong foundation to chase anything else. I do think that solid micro and empirical foundations are necessary for like, anything.
|
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
So should I restudy? Should I study with PSAT specific books/mindset, or are SAT questions literally the same? :/
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).
I ask this because at my school, there are extremely intelligent people who may or may not be "good at math" (most of them are definitely very adept), who are literally struggling with AB... Are we just somewhat incompetent around here, or something? Our calc teacher is also one of the best at our school (which is saying something). haha I feel so...uninitiated and ignorant writing about high school trifles while reading these engrossing descriptions and details about college life/schedules/courses.
|
On April 20 2011 13:36 LSB wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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. [/quore]
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).
Maybe all of you guys are brilliant or something, but I know some really really really smart people, who after taking AB have struggled with BC at my school. I mean, all of them got 5s, but getting a good grade in the class was very very difficult.
|
On April 20 2011 11:52 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:49 Kaal wrote:
Caller goes to UChic if I remember right.
Stay away.
Far, far away. Caller actually is never around cause iirc he just holes himself up in wherever he lives. I've only ran into him on some random econ elective class actually and he didn't seem to like talking to others very much. So he won't really affect you :O
Lies, damned lies, and more lies, I'm around, just in different places. Although I only ran into you for one econ elective, true. But he's totally lying you should see me around on campus. Although probably not in the Econ building, I tend to avoid that building like the plague.
In all honesty though I haven't been to any micro club meetings in a long time though.
If you don't want to do econ grad school and you're a total pussy like me but if you want to still do Econ without taking legit courses and dodging lots of math then you can do the following cheese build order-it'll be easier on your soul but will not get you into grad school:
First Year
Humanities/Social Sciences Core
Hard Science Core (if you don't have AP credit for it) or Language
Math 153-195-196
Second Year
Econ 200-201-202
Statistics 234 (hurray for not tryhard stats)
Civilization/Art Core
Computer Science/Econ Elective of Some Kind (there are many electives but yeah, Economics of Crime is a good one, I didn't get into it though tt)-Comp Sci counts as an econ elective though.
Third Year
Econ 203
Econometrics A (aka, bitch Econometrics, but still hard if you're bad at math like me)
Game Theory with Myerson (the other game theory class is in the fall and is much more legit but is very math heavy)
Experimental was also pretty fun I guess, Milkis iirc thought it was easy mode though so meh
Also stick some electives in around this time, I took a bunch of History and Poli Sci Classes.
Also, Economics of Sports, just because Sanderson is hilarious
Fourth Year
Some other Econ elective + whatever you want. If you wanted to do grad school you'd try to get into grad classes like Milkis did, and maybe take math 199, 203-204/207-208, Stat 244, Time Series Econometrics, anything that has the word "formal" in the course description, etc. Although to be fair if you want to do grad school immediately out of college you should start in third year at the latest.
|
On April 20 2011 14:07 Milkis wrote:Quite close. I would not recommend Honors analysis -- it's quite overkill and it'll screw you over for the other classes you need to do. Secondly, it doesn't actually teach you anything relevant for econ. For Math 203-205 -- the accelerated section, of course, as Rudin >>> Wade forever and ever. Wouldn't recommend Algebra. You do need Complex Analysis in there, however, just in case you want to do Time Series. I would honestly say the order matters a lot too especially when it comes to metrics related classes. But first, let me announce that I am not responsible for your GPA or your mental health after following my Build Order >:D Secondly, I don't know enough about Macro to really recommend Macro courses, since my year was really fucked in terms of that since we didn't have any Macro courses our 3rd years. Basically: First Year: IBL math 160 Hume Civ [Core Classes]/Intensive Econ at the last quarter (This is actually quite new, so I don't know what the difference exactly is, but the idea is that you're fine going Lima -> Bondarenko) Second Year: Accelerated Analysis (203-205 section 33 I believe) Sosc: Power Stat 244 -> 245 -> Honors Metrics (Spring) Rest of Intensive Econ Sosc Power is the best Sosc if you are thinking about Econ, period -- especially the first quarter of it when you read Smith/Marx/Durkheim. Stat 245 makes Honors Metrics a lot easier and doable. Honors Metrics is annoying otherwise. I took 245 after Honors Metrics and I really really wished I took 245 before Honors Metrics. Third Year: Fall: Time Series Game Theory Complex Analysis Winter: Economics of Crime ODE Spring: Econometrics B Human Capital STAT 251 Human Capital cause Becker is quite old now so you want to get him before he switches over :O It's also the most accessible grad course -- BUT, the problem is that the class is just a midterm/final and they're all Price Theory style T/F questions and as an undergrad frankly they're really hard to do Economics of Crime is an "interesting" choice, mostly because it is taught by Levitt. He talks a lot and sounds quite cocky, and honestly people think of it as "Story Time by Levitt". The important thing to learn is to learn how Levitt thinks -- just learn to think like him and you'll see how useful the course is. It'll also help you with Metrics B -- think of Economics of Crime as more verbal/informal introduction to the stuff you will learn in Metrics B. You can move off your Complex -> ODE to your 4th year if you want. Game Theory -- honestly, I'm mixed. I don't remember a single great lecture by Sonnenchein other than this one class where he did a proof of the existence of Mixed Nash Equilibria. But it's far better than Myerson's course and it's more math heavy. Fourth Year Fall: Price Theory Price Theory is death. Expect 25+ hours a week alone on one problem set. Kiss your Thursdays goodbye. Basically if you can pull off this build you're pretty set for any micro empirical work, and it gives you a strong foundation to chase anything else. I do think that solid micro and empirical foundations are necessary for like, anything.
I really wish I had taken accelerated analysis. I took the regular section after worrying about workload, and then just ended up getting easy A's and being bored. Hopefully I'll have time this summer to work through Rudin on my own.
Also, the intensive courses are quite new, they're actually rolling them out with my year I believe. The basic idea is that micro is just the same as Lima's course, but they added a new version of Macro taught (at least 202) by Braun. I'm in it right now, and I obviously don't have much to compare it to, but it's pretty cool. By the end of the sequence we should be getting to some basic DSGE models.
And do you really recommend taking 245 before metrics? I'm not sure I can actually pull that off anymore, I'm in 251 and was planning on taking 244 in the fall then metrics in the winter. I've never actually heard much about honors metrics, mostly because no one actually takes the class.
|
5003 Posts
And do you really recommend taking 245 before metrics? I'm not sure I can actually pull that off anymore, I'm in 251 and was planning on taking 244 in the fall then metrics in the winter. I've never actually heard much about honors metrics, mostly because no one actually takes the class.
Taking Honors Metrics in Spring is fine, unless you really want to get a head start on getting an RA job -- then yeah, Winter is good.
You don't need 245 before metrics. You'll be able to understand everything that is taught in Honors Metrics without, the only thing is that it'll be a lot harder. Furthermore, you will not really know where and how a lot of things are derived and 245 really helps you with that. 244 doesn't even get to regressions nor does it really derive t-test and f-test (with respect to regressions) and all of that, while 245 will get to that. Basically, 245 gives you a more formal introduction to regressions than honors metrics -- honors metrics just tries to throw you in there and expect that you are smart enough to catch up with everything.
This is, IMO, the only reason why honors metrics is seen as "difficult". In reality it's not that much of a difficult course and I don't really care what anyone else at the school says about it -- it's not a bad course. The problem sets only take long because you literally have no idea how to do anything nor do you even have an idea what they're talking about and you'll just spend shifting through Greene (great textbook, btw) and you'll know what the "joy of discovery" is all about (ask Lima about it ^^ ). 245 will really help you down with a lot of this.
EDIT: Also, who are you >:O
|
On April 21 2011 00:01 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +And do you really recommend taking 245 before metrics? I'm not sure I can actually pull that off anymore, I'm in 251 and was planning on taking 244 in the fall then metrics in the winter. I've never actually heard much about honors metrics, mostly because no one actually takes the class. Taking Honors Metrics in Spring is fine, unless you really want to get a head start on getting an RA job -- then yeah, Winter is good. You don't need 245 before metrics. You'll be able to understand everything that is taught in Honors Metrics without, the only thing is that it'll be a lot harder. Furthermore, you will not really know where and how a lot of things are derived and 245 really helps you with that. 244 doesn't even get to regressions nor does it really derive t-test and f-test (with respect to regressions) and all of that, while 245 will get to that. Basically, 245 gives you a more formal introduction to regressions than honors metrics -- honors metrics just tries to throw you in there and expect that you are smart enough to catch up with everything. This is, IMO, the only reason why honors metrics is seen as "difficult". In reality it's not that much of a difficult course and I don't really care what anyone else at the school says about it -- it's not a bad course. The problem sets only take long because you literally have no idea how to do anything nor do you even have an idea what they're talking about and you'll just spend shifting through Greene (great textbook, btw) and you'll know what the "joy of discovery" is all about (ask Lima about it ^^ ). 245 will really help you down with a lot of this. EDIT: Also, who are you >:O
Second year, econ major. We should meet up sometime, I'm assuming you're still on campus.
At this point I'm planning on taking 245 and Metrics concurrently, I presume that metrics doesn't really get into 245 material into the latter half of the quarter? Also, I suspect that Lima has stopped teaching Honors Metrics, which would be extremely sad if true. He's just such a great teacher.
|
5003 Posts
Lima did stop teaching Metrics, yeah. But the good thing is that a certain not to be named grad student isn't teaching metrics either, so it's kind of okay.
245 doesn't go into Metrics material until the last ~35% or so of the class (it does other stuff like a lot of transformations and other types of distributions and deriving tests from it, and it also does ANOVA which I think is quite helpful especially when thinking about panel regressions later, but that's just how I put it together)
My experience with Metrics (I took it with Lima) could be quite different from yours, of course -- but the coursework was spent proving basic things about regressions (how it's unbiased consistent etc) and what happens when you break assumptions. My stance is just that 244 isn't enough to transition you into Honors Metrics smoothly, and 245 will make that transition a lot easier -- but it is doable without, it'll just be more annoying. I honestly didn't understand some of the stuff related to regressions intuitively until I took 245, but that could be based on how I learn.
|
On April 20 2011 11:43 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 11:41 LSB wrote:On April 20 2011 11:38 Milkis wrote:
Get out while you still can.
(welcome to the level of hell Dante forgot) I'm fully prepared to hate the place every waking moment once I actually get there. However I'm hanging on this the small hope that I'll be able to live through it. Haha, well it's actually not as bad as people make it out to be. But then, that also depends on your concentration and what you want to do with what you learn out of this place. If you were here over the weekend please don't take as a natural part of Chicago weather. It will be grey. Very very grey all year round :O
Odd, I would describe Chicago weather as being very extreme. You'll hit your over one hundreds, and you'll hit your below 0's - but always with horrible wind and precipitation ;D :D.
Well, good luck to you. I hope your personality retains itself over the years - i've had friends who could not make that claim when they finished UChicago :D. + Show Spoiler +Definitely better than uiuc though,  .
|
This thread made me glad I graduated from uni a long time ago.
I have no idea why I'm a PhD student though 
|
On April 20 2011 11:36 LSB wrote:
It was all very... pleasant. Sure the work will be hard, but I've already tasted that with summer camp at PROMYS. College doesn't seem that far away anymore.
Woah, first time I've seen someone mention this on TL.
LSB, how was it? I'm a junior in hs applying to it and while I've heard mostly good things about it, I'm curious about somebody from tl's opinion on it.
Oh, and congrats on UChicago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/assets_c/2009/06/wherefuncomestodie-thumb-233x343.jpg)
