Back to school, wrap up
Apr. 19th, 2008 01:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eveglassNow that I've finished all but one exam, and have no intention of returning next semester, it's time to wrap up a semester's worth of "back to school" posts and see if I've actually learned anything.
Economics
To begin with, economics. You've all heard me rant enough about my macroeconomics class, so there's no need for me to go into that again. I haven't ranted as much about my microeconomics class (well, except the trick questions the prof seeded in every assignment and the midterm), because the course was somewhat more interesting.
But, all things considered, the courses were useless. They were quintessentially intro-level courses meant to lead into more intermediate courses, ie: useless on their own. The generalizations were too general; the assumptions too assured; the frameworks too extreme. For example, microeconomics: it doesn't help me to know about indifference curves if I can't actually figure out how many of a product someone would buy. We learned about extreme market structures (perfect competition and monopoly) that don't really exist, and not about the more mixed markets that surround us. Learning about a one-iteration game of the Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't matter much when you realize that most real-life relationships are like multiple-iteration games.
Macroeconomics was worse. The first half of the course was spent figuring out how to calculate GDP, assuming you know the four component parts. Of course, all the "curves" we studied in the course were simplified down to straight lines... ie useless. The second half of the course focused on the money market, monetary policy, and international exchange rates. Yes, I suppose it might one day be useful to know that when the Bank of Canada lowers the interest rate, it's also increasing the money supply, but I can't foresee when that day would be. Macroeconomics struck me as a bunch of watered-down economic assumptions, packaged up to be completely worthless.
The sad part of all this is that some of the most interesting books I've read over the last two years have to do with economics. Economics, both in its classical form and potentially more accurate behavioural economic (and even neuroeconomic) form, answers a bunch of really interesting questions. I recommend The Economic Naturalist by Robert H. Frank as a truly fascinating book. Peter O'Rourke's Eat the Rich is also wonderful (and funny, all at the same time). It's just that these interesting features don't seem to filter down to entry-level classes.
I'm sure most of my history and liberal arts intro classes weren't this bad. True, I had some horrible classes (post-Confederation Canadian history will go down in my books as tied for the worst course I've ever taken... right along with macroeconomics). But for the most part, even intro-level history classes are interesting, and liberal arts classes more so. I've come up with a few theories as to why this might be:
1. I just happened to get really good teachers in history and liberal arts, and horrid teachers in economics.
2. History and liberal arts, being narrative, naturally lend themselves to more interesting lectures and discussions.
3. My natural inclinations lie more with history and liberal arts, so I naturally find them more interesting.
Whatever the reason, I'm very, very glad these economics courses are over.
Accounting
I found the accounting class far more useful than the economics ones. (Not enough to want to continue in the field, but useful nonetheless.) In short, it taught me how to read financial statements. I'm no stock investor, and will probably just toss my money into a low-cost index fund once I've got some to invest, but this is a useful skill to have, in the same way it's useful to know how to drive even if you don't own a car.
Intro financial accounting taught me how to understand what all the little numbers and a great many of the technical jargon words on financial statements mean. I understand the terms "FIFO," "accruals," and "amortization." I know what it means to talk about a stock's earnings per share or it's P/E ratio. I know the difference between cash-based accounting (which no one uses) and accrual-based accounting (which everyone does). No, I'm not a stockbroker, and I wouldn't want to analyse companies for a living, but I've got a solid foundation in the basics.
What am I going to do with this information? I have no idea. But it'll be a useful addition to the "knowledge I might use some day in the future" files.
Yes, it's true. I found the accounting class more interesting than the economics classes. This shocks me to no end, I assure you.
So that's it. One more exam, and then I put this behind me. It was an interesting exercise, but the biggest lesson I've learned is that, barring an extremely interesting field of study and enough money to support myself without working, I'm not going to list "student" as primary occupation again for a long time. Onwards to gainful employment...
Economics
To begin with, economics. You've all heard me rant enough about my macroeconomics class, so there's no need for me to go into that again. I haven't ranted as much about my microeconomics class (well, except the trick questions the prof seeded in every assignment and the midterm), because the course was somewhat more interesting.
But, all things considered, the courses were useless. They were quintessentially intro-level courses meant to lead into more intermediate courses, ie: useless on their own. The generalizations were too general; the assumptions too assured; the frameworks too extreme. For example, microeconomics: it doesn't help me to know about indifference curves if I can't actually figure out how many of a product someone would buy. We learned about extreme market structures (perfect competition and monopoly) that don't really exist, and not about the more mixed markets that surround us. Learning about a one-iteration game of the Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't matter much when you realize that most real-life relationships are like multiple-iteration games.
Macroeconomics was worse. The first half of the course was spent figuring out how to calculate GDP, assuming you know the four component parts. Of course, all the "curves" we studied in the course were simplified down to straight lines... ie useless. The second half of the course focused on the money market, monetary policy, and international exchange rates. Yes, I suppose it might one day be useful to know that when the Bank of Canada lowers the interest rate, it's also increasing the money supply, but I can't foresee when that day would be. Macroeconomics struck me as a bunch of watered-down economic assumptions, packaged up to be completely worthless.
The sad part of all this is that some of the most interesting books I've read over the last two years have to do with economics. Economics, both in its classical form and potentially more accurate behavioural economic (and even neuroeconomic) form, answers a bunch of really interesting questions. I recommend The Economic Naturalist by Robert H. Frank as a truly fascinating book. Peter O'Rourke's Eat the Rich is also wonderful (and funny, all at the same time). It's just that these interesting features don't seem to filter down to entry-level classes.
I'm sure most of my history and liberal arts intro classes weren't this bad. True, I had some horrible classes (post-Confederation Canadian history will go down in my books as tied for the worst course I've ever taken... right along with macroeconomics). But for the most part, even intro-level history classes are interesting, and liberal arts classes more so. I've come up with a few theories as to why this might be:
1. I just happened to get really good teachers in history and liberal arts, and horrid teachers in economics.
2. History and liberal arts, being narrative, naturally lend themselves to more interesting lectures and discussions.
3. My natural inclinations lie more with history and liberal arts, so I naturally find them more interesting.
Whatever the reason, I'm very, very glad these economics courses are over.
Accounting
I found the accounting class far more useful than the economics ones. (Not enough to want to continue in the field, but useful nonetheless.) In short, it taught me how to read financial statements. I'm no stock investor, and will probably just toss my money into a low-cost index fund once I've got some to invest, but this is a useful skill to have, in the same way it's useful to know how to drive even if you don't own a car.
Intro financial accounting taught me how to understand what all the little numbers and a great many of the technical jargon words on financial statements mean. I understand the terms "FIFO," "accruals," and "amortization." I know what it means to talk about a stock's earnings per share or it's P/E ratio. I know the difference between cash-based accounting (which no one uses) and accrual-based accounting (which everyone does). No, I'm not a stockbroker, and I wouldn't want to analyse companies for a living, but I've got a solid foundation in the basics.
What am I going to do with this information? I have no idea. But it'll be a useful addition to the "knowledge I might use some day in the future" files.
Yes, it's true. I found the accounting class more interesting than the economics classes. This shocks me to no end, I assure you.
So that's it. One more exam, and then I put this behind me. It was an interesting exercise, but the biggest lesson I've learned is that, barring an extremely interesting field of study and enough money to support myself without working, I'm not going to list "student" as primary occupation again for a long time. Onwards to gainful employment...
