标题: Getting bored of MicroECON [打印本页] 作者: dirk01 时间: 2013-4-20 04:43 标题: Getting bored of MicroECON
I am getting extrememly bored of the MicroEcon section.
I thought the best is to move to something I am interested in such as Portfolio Management.
Anyone have any advice or strategies for going through the material when we get tired of one topic?作者: malbec 时间: 2013-4-20 04:45
My advice, if you don’t like economics, is to find a new field. Finance is nothing but applied economics. Good luck.作者: cv4cfa 时间: 2013-4-20 04:50
effreyj wrote:
If you think Micro Econ is boring wait until you get to financial reporting…
^haha作者: bchadwick 时间: 2013-4-20 04:52
as an economics major in college, micro econ was the class i just did cause i had to and never thought of again, but it is important to know and understand,作者: AndyNZ 时间: 2013-4-20 04:54
In college, the only time I went to econ class was on the 1st day, midterm and final
Solid A, piece of cake作者: Zesty 时间: 2013-4-20 04:56
Not sure if this helps but I also got really bored of Econ. There’s a lot of reading, it’s pretty easy, but just carries on and on.
The good news is that Econ and FRA are probably the dullest and longest sections to get through (in my opinion at least). Quant was long but I didn’t get bored with it.
Just get stick through and get it done. The other subjects are all pretty bite-size and I found myself flying through them. I wouldn’t skip around between subjects though since all of econ kinda ties in with itself.作者: bdavi77962 时间: 2013-4-20 04:58
iteracom wrote:
In college, the only time I went to econ class was on the 1st day, midterm and final
Solid A, piece of cake
wow, you’re so cool.作者: dvilayphet 时间: 2013-4-20 05:00
The microeconomics is tough to get through but its much easier once you get past fra, just keep fighting through.作者: hanvinh 时间: 2013-4-20 05:02
aaronhotchner wrote:
My advice, if you don’t like economics, is to find a new field. Finance is nothing but applied economics. Good luck.
I haven’t started the material yet BUT, as an MSc in economics I would like to say that this is plain bad advice. Although finance is building upon economics the two fields are nothing like each other. Basic micro-econ can be boring and easy but don’t think that the investment world has anything to do with it. (I assume we all understand the forces of supply and demand without having to go through an eco 101 course).
So patience and good luck with the rest of material 作者: tobeornottobe 时间: 2013-4-20 05:06
There is a high correlation between the facts that you cite wikipedia articles and give questionable advice when it comes to academic material. And to make a case in point, while you would have to derive autocorrelation functions for time series in an economics course, you probably are only going to be asked to interpret the numbers during the CFA course. Yes, there is a world of difference in terms of techincality and interest.作者: SFoyil 时间: 2013-4-20 05:07
I really enjoy the Wikipedia defense that I get from everyone every time I link to it. The best part is that if I quoted “credible” journal articles (no journals have errors, after all!) you still wouldn’t have a real argument. I think it’s very cute that you are comparing master’s level econometrics to CFA Level I, though. Keep at it.作者: stalkey 时间: 2013-4-20 05:09
Look, aaronhotchner, I think that my point is made clear by a small demonstration and your inability to support your claim. It is my understanding that you are not sufficiently familiar with economics to seperate it from finance or , say, business. There is certainly no need for journals or a debate, especially if you have nothing to bring to the table.
Saying to somebody who gets bored with entry level micro that investments are not for him is irresponsible to say the least.
This is my final response, please do not drag any further. If you have nothing encouraging to say, keep it to yourself.作者: BelalM 时间: 2013-4-20 05:11
It is my understanding that your familiarity with finance is on par with your perception of my familiarity with economics.作者: bdavi77962 时间: 2013-4-20 05:13
aaronhotchner wrote:
It is my understanding that your familiarity with finance is on par with your perception of my familiarity with economics.
..which, by the way, if true, would also demonstrate my point about the difference of the fields.作者: yospaghetti 时间: 2013-4-20 05:17
I’m gonna have to agree wtih aaron on this one (MS in Finance…this is what they call a Mexican Standoff). If you don’t think the two are closely related, then you don’t understand one of the two fields. I also have to agree with him that typically the whole “you just use wikipedia” defense is is coupled with a lack of counter evidence. You never did actually provide a supported rebuttal that was anything other than personal opinion. On an unrelated note, isn’t econ usually treated as a PhD level topic?作者: strikethree 时间: 2013-4-20 05:19
I think QM is much more integrated with other topic areas than Econ. I didn’t kill myself with Econ on L 1 and did fine, I think its much more important to master Quant, Accounting and of course Ethics.作者: homie 时间: 2013-4-20 05:23
I know what I’m talking about, but thanks for the really cool post dedicated in my honor.作者: towardsutopia21 时间: 2013-4-20 05:24
If you are already familiar with the topics in the econ section, I would recommend you to start on the accounting sections. The amount of time I spent on accounting was 4-5X of that on econ.作者: sabaruch 时间: 2013-4-20 05:26
panos.kollias wrote:
So, no msChristineTo and whoever else cares, if you found that particular reading boring, it does not mean, not by a mile, that you need to find a new field. It merely means that you have to tough it out and try to make it interesting until you enter a topic that is more to your liking.
Apologies for the poor English.
agree 100%. Everyone struggles with a particular topic, the point is not to give up or get discouraged. If I gave up every time I got bored or discouraged I never would have passed Level 1.作者: Matori 时间: 2013-4-20 05:28
panos.kollias wrote:
Apparently I have to make a clearer explanation, for the sake of future viewers of the thread who might be discouraged by aaron’s “advice”.
1) Why microeconomics won’t tell you if you are meant to work as an investment professional:
Microeconomics is the study that concerns itself with individual choice and, of course, the implications of those choices to the market. To that end, a typical syllabus will include choice under uncertainty, price mechanism, game theory, mechanism design etc. While all of those would concern an “economist” in order to better understand the underlying forces, to form policy, to manage auctions or even more relatively, to make further academic research, it most certainly won’t bother a financial analyst, an investment banker, a portfolio manager. That, is because the latter professions are “tool users” while an economist is required to understand the basics behind the tools. YES, you do have to know basic principles, and YES the more you know the better for every profession , but that doesn’t make it relative to your profession or even optimal in a cost – benefit sense.
To make the example perhaps simpler, if you use excel functions and VBA you don’t call yourself a programmer and, subsequently, if you find a course about programming boring (which might be needed in order to do some basic vba) it most certainly does not mean that you are going to be disinterested in an excel based research – let’s say sales volume forecasting.
2) Why does Wikipedia, in this instance, reveal a lack of familiarity with the topic:
Let’s not fool ourselves. As most of us have gone through some sort of training, whether college, grad school or even PhD, Wikipedia is an indispensable tool in giving leads towards further and more concrete research. I have no problems settling an argument based on Wikipedia most of the times, but here it is obviously used to cover for the lack of understanding. That is because aaron , assumed that the term “financial economics” is enough to show the similarity between “finance” and “economics”. The irony here is that, Wikipedia, correctly describes the field and distinguishes between the branch of microeconomics and financial economics: financial economics is concerned with portfolio theory, security returns, return of capital. Added to that is the fact that even financial economics, in my view, is a step above what the typical investment professional needs to conduct his everyday business. Yes, everybody knows that finance is built upon economics, few (to the dismay of many economists) however, manage to see the practical difference. If I had a cent for every time somebody confused finance, accounting, economics and business maangement…
To make a long story, shorter : When you give advice to somebody who undertakes a considerably difficult goal, in the OFF chance that your advice matters, better know what you are talking about and ESPECIALLY if you are going to discourage. More responsible strategies would be to either encourage or keep quiet.
So, no msChristineTo and whoever else cares, if you found that particular reading boring, it does not mean, not by a mile, that you need to find a new field. It merely means that you have to tough it out and try to make it interesting until you enter a topic that is more to your liking.
Apologies for the poor English.
Blah blah blah, you’re chastizing aaron for not having famliarity with the topic, but he’s passed LI, I’ve finished the program some time ago and you’re a candidate. If I have to choose between lecturing the people who’ve cleared a hurdle I’m facing and just taking their advice, I find it helps to take their advice.作者: liquidity 时间: 2013-4-20 05:30
Personally I thought macro was more of a pain. Specially R17
