 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DrSpike
|
 |
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TCO
The bullshit was about specialized calculus driving the need for an "econ-math" course.
I think it is more related to level of knowledge. You need more math than an English major but less than a physical scientist.
I have a math for econ book as part of my MBA. It was really shockingly easy. It was there for the English majors who freaked when they saw a teensy amount of calculus mixed into the elasticity discussions and such. And a lot of the book had not even calculus but referesher grade school math.
(All that aside, when I tutored MBA students for our corporate class, I found that I could explain micro 101 withouth calculus, you can switch most of the explanations to an algebraic or at least a visual calculus (slope of curve) basis. Much better to keep the English-major weenies thinking about the key concepts and insights than to bog them down with a derivation. (OF course, it almost kills the physicists, when I use algebra (for instance delta x/delta y instead of differentials). They go crazy a little. |
Ok. I agree with some of that; I don't teach the maths until it is needed, which is after the concepts have been kicked around for a year or so. My point though, was that the subset of maths used in economics is rather peculiar. This is even true of the subset of calculus used, though this might not be apparent to you. Hence, maths transplanted from elsewhere can easily be misleading or just not that useful.
I am not *cough* bullshitting *cough*, that is just my opinion from actual experience of teaching economists.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|