Economics - "hard" major? Forum

[blink]

As of now, the Econ majors would typically just be dragging home after a long night of drinking. I'm still in the library working on MolGen. The hard sciences do NOT include Econ.

[GMVarun]

depends on your school, like mentioned before, there is little that is easy about econ at uchicago. we have two quarters micro, two quarters macro, 1 quarter stat, full year calc, multivariable, linear algebra, (analysis recommended/ most econ majors take analysis), one quarter metrics, plus the econ electives. then again, i don't know too many other undergrad programs that teach their students how to do a legrange so maybe it's not the same everywhere.

[gamblera]

I'm an econ major, but by the time I graduate I will have taken nearly enough math classes to have a math as a double major. Will admissions take note of that? Is math given some leeway in terms of gpa?

Do I get +points for taking graduate math/econ classes?

[danquayle]

I'm an econ major, but by the time I graduate I will have taken nearly enough math classes to have a math as a double major. Will admissions take note of that? Is math given some leeway in terms of gpa?

Do I get +points for taking graduate math/econ classes?

Like I said before, the only thing I think admissions officers weigh is whether or not you can take the patent bar. I know my law school explicitly prioritized bringing in more people with science backgrounds, presumably for this reason. The patent law job market is a bit more forgiving than the overall legal market.

So even a 3.5 in an insanely difficult math curriculum I doubt would count for much more than a 3.7 in history...

[czelede]

I'm an econ major, but by the time I graduate I will have taken nearly enough math classes to have a math as a double major. Will admissions take note of that? Is math given some leeway in terms of gpa?

Do I get +points for taking graduate math/econ classes?

Like I said before, the only thing I think admissions officers weigh is whether or not you can take the patent bar. I know my law school explicitly prioritized bringing in more people with science backgrounds, presumably for this reason. The patent law job market is a bit more forgiving than the overall legal market.

So even a 3.5 in an insanely difficult math curriculum I doubt would count for much more than a 3.7 in history...

I agree with this. When adcomms look at two people, one of which has a lower GPA in a "more rigorous" curriculum compared with one with a higher GPA in a "less rigorous" curriculum, they are never going to equate the numbers because one major was more difficult than the other.

However, I think you should keep in mind that there is a large pool of applicants every year that are neither auto-admit nor auto-reject, whose numbers can land them in that giant area of yellow, green, and red (mostly yellow). Within these ranges, it no longer becomes a numbers game - oftentimes adcomms will reject a higher GPA/LSAT combination for a lower one. I believe these decisions are very personal and most likely are where soft factors come into play - in the end, a difficult major is really just another soft factor that solely affects their opinion of your GPA. Thus, it will help adcomms swallow why your GPA is subpar compared to other applicants, but they won't even bother trying unless your numbers can merit some kind of consideration to begin with.

[Total Litigator]

beautiful 3 pages. And end scene. (or "/thread")

[kalvano]

Within these ranges, it no longer becomes a numbers game - oftentimes adcomms will reject a higher GPA/LSAT combination for a lower one.

LOL wut?

[taxguy]

I'm not sure that one major is inherintly tougher than another regarding the material. Let's face it: I would doubt that most engineers could do well on a dense paper in economics or philosophy. Likewise, I would doubt that most math majors would do well switching to english or political science. I really do think that most majors are about equal in difficulty but in differing ways.

With the above said, however, there are notable differences in grading standards,whick does put some majors at a big disadvantage. Hard science, engineering and accounting are known to be weedout majors due to their lower grading curve. It is a bit unfortunate,but folks just have to deal with it.

From discussions wth a few admission's officers, I found that most law schools want a wide array of majors. Thus, if a particular law school has a dearth of engineering or accounting majors for that year, they might give a bit of a boost to those types of majors. Sadly, most law students read this and think, " ah, I can get a boost if I major in engineering, science or accounting. " While this may be true, it is a minor boost at best.

[yellowjacket2012]

Anecdotally, back in 04/05 - so - way back - an individual representing Boalt told me at a "Law School Fair" hosted by the LSAC, down in Atlanta, the following:

Me: "Hi, I have a 3.5 from Georgia Tech with an EE, I notice that this is below the 25th percentile for Boalt's GPA ranges, do you think I will be given any kind of bump for my application?"

Boalt rep: "No. The fact of the matter is, you chose Electrical Engineering. There is no bump."

I'm not sure if he was accurate in expressing Boalt ad comm's philosophy, and there's definitely a possibility that my memory has failed me, but I feel sure that is what he said. I also remember walking away, a little shocked, partly because my pre-law advisor at Tech had said the exact opposite thing.

[rundoxierun]

I'm not sure that one major is inherintly tougher than another regarding the material. Let's face it: I would doubt that most engineers could do well on a dense paper in economics or philosophy. Likewise, I would doubt that most math majors would do well switching to english or political science. I really do think that most majors are about equal in difficulty but in differing ways.

With the above said, however, there are notable differences in grading standards,whick does put some majors at a big disadvantage. Hard science, engineering and accounting are known to be weedout majors due to their lower grading curve. It is a bit unfortunate,but folks just have to deal with it.

From discussions wth a few admission's officers, I found that most law schools want a wide array of majors. Thus, if a particular law school has a dearth of engineering or accounting majors for that year, they might give a bit of a boost to those types of majors. Sadly, most law students read this and think, " ah, I can get a boost if I major in engineering, science or accounting. " While this may be true, it is a minor boost at best.

Hahahaha.. someone trolling for accounting??? good lord, what is the internet coming to..

[stratocophic]

Anecdotally, back in 04/05 - so - way back - an individual representing Boalt told me at a "Law School Fair" hosted by the LSAC, down in Atlanta, the following:

Me: "Hi, I have a 3.5 from Georgia Tech with an EE, I notice that this is below the 25th percentile for Boalt's GPA ranges, do you think I will be given any kind of bump for my application?"

Boalt rep: "No. The fact of the matter is, you chose Electrical Engineering. There is no bump."

I'm not sure if he was accurate in expressing Boalt ad comm's philosophy, and there's definitely a possibility that my memory has failed me, but I feel sure that is what he said. I also remember walking away, a little shocked, partly because my pre-law advisor at Tech had said the exact opposite thing.

That's what pre-law advisers are for: misinformation and mayhem.

[09042014]

Anecdotally, back in 04/05 - so - way back - an individual representing Boalt told me at a "Law School Fair" hosted by the LSAC, down in Atlanta, the following:

Me: "Hi, I have a 3.5 from Georgia Tech with an EE, I notice that this is below the 25th percentile for Boalt's GPA ranges, do you think I will be given any kind of bump for my application?"

Boalt rep: "No. The fact of the matter is, you chose Electrical Engineering. There is no bump."

I'm not sure if he was accurate in expressing Boalt ad comm's philosophy, and there's definitely a possibility that my memory has failed me, but I feel sure that is what he said. I also remember walking away, a little shocked, partly because my pre-law advisor at Tech had said the exact opposite thing.

Did you a favor. Only 30% at Boalt LOLCI

[czelede]

Within these ranges, it no longer becomes a numbers game - oftentimes adcomms will reject a higher GPA/LSAT combination for a lower one.

LOL wut?

Yep, it's happens all the time. Just check LSN - a 3.4/175 getting admitted over a 3.5/176 or even a 3.2/177 over a 3.4/177. I feel like you can divide it numerically by groupings: x<25%, 25%<x<median, median<x<75%, x>75%. If you have applicants with different numbers that are within the same ranges for LSAT and GPA (discounting GPA floors), having a higher GPA/LSAT isn't necessarily the winning ticket. This is all when you're already within an acceptable range, of course. But there's a reason why you see applicants of decent numbers getting rejected from good schools, and it's not because everyone admitted had higher numbers.

(Before anybody misunderstands, I'm not saying the reason why lower numbers are admitted are due to "difficulty of major", I'm just defending my claim that soft factors do make a difference even between applicants whose numbers may differ a little.)

[kalvano]

Within these ranges, it no longer becomes a numbers game - oftentimes adcomms will reject a higher GPA/LSAT combination for a lower one.

LOL wut?

Yep, it's happens all the time. Just check LSN - a 3.4/175 getting admitted over a 3.5/176 or even a 3.2/177 over a 3.4/177. I feel like you can divide it numerically by groupings: x<25%, 25%<x<median, median<x<75%, x>75%. If you have applicants with different numbers that are within the same ranges for LSAT and GPA (discounting GPA floors), having a higher GPA/LSAT isn't necessarily the winning ticket. This is all when you're already within an acceptable range, of course. But there's a reason why you see applicants of decent numbers getting rejected from good schools, and it's not because everyone admitted had higher numbers.

(Before anybody misunderstands, I'm not saying the reason why lower numbers are admitted are due to "difficulty of major", I'm just defending my claim that soft factors do make a difference even between applicants whose numbers may differ a little.)

Go back and look at the application dates of those people.

[Total Litigator]

Within these ranges, it no longer becomes a numbers game - oftentimes adcomms will reject a higher GPA/LSAT combination for a lower one.

LOL wut?

... Yeah obviously czelede is right... softs can go both ways... While you have to appease the US News and World report Gods, you also have to appease the prospective employers of your students. If everyone there has a 165/3.8 but every single one has no WE/softs/etc. your employers are going elsewhere next year.

[czelede]

Within these ranges, it no longer becomes a numbers game - oftentimes adcomms will reject a higher GPA/LSAT combination for a lower one.

LOL wut?

Yep, it's happens all the time. Just check LSN - a 3.4/175 getting admitted over a 3.5/176 or even a 3.2/177 over a 3.4/177. I feel like you can divide it numerically by groupings: x<25%, 25%<x<median, median<x<75%, x>75%. If you have applicants with different numbers that are within the same ranges for LSAT and GPA (discounting GPA floors), having a higher GPA/LSAT isn't necessarily the winning ticket. This is all when you're already within an acceptable range, of course. But there's a reason why you see applicants of decent numbers getting rejected from good schools, and it's not because everyone admitted had higher numbers.

(Before anybody misunderstands, I'm not saying the reason why lower numbers are admitted are due to "difficulty of major", I'm just defending my claim that soft factors do make a difference even between applicants whose numbers may differ a little.)

Go back and look at the application dates of those people.

...It's the first thing I look at when its available. It's not always the defining factor. I am of course also exempting ED applicants from this pool.

[kalvano]

For what schools?

[czelede]

For what schools?

I've only been looking at T14 minus HYS (though sometimes I take a look at H) for the past two cycles - mostly NYU, Columbia, Chicago, and Penn. I don't have access to the charts from work (government defense company = heavy web restrictions = no java/flash on our antiquated web browsers) or else I would try to pull specific examples, but like I've emphasized before it only happens within very specific LSAT/GPA ranges to begin with (where half or more of those people are WL, I think). You still need the numbers to get into those ranges to begin with. Also, it should be noted that I include WL -> In in my definition of "being accepted", so I'm sure this makes a difference in some way.

Maybe I was playing fast and loose with the word 'oftentimes'; I really meant in the sense that 'more often than a lot of people believe'. I think many applicants tend to underestimate the effect of softs and essays...although its much more harmful to have bad softs than helpful to have good softs. So it's possible that when preference despite numerical superiority occurs its not that the accepted applicant was much better, but that the rejected applicant was just that bad.

[kalvano]

So you're saying that when you have two candidates with almost identical numbers, the soft factors come in to play?

[czelede]

So you're saying that when you have two candidates with almost identical numbers, the soft factors come in to play?

Yes and no. The point was that the numbers don't necessarily have to be identical or near identical (as often suggested) for soft factors to matter, but just within a particular range as defined by the percentiles of a schools numbers - largely due to the way medians work. I *think* the possibility of soft factors being a wild card gets bigger as you go up in school rank, less people are auto-admits, and more people are WL material.

[Total Litigator]

I would also venture a guess that the larger the 1L class, the more softs can make a difference, as your numbers will do little to affect the means...

[ajmanyjah]

I keep hearing that the expectations for GPA are more lenient if you have a hard major (i.e. hard sciences) than an "easy" one (i.e. the "studies" majors). One of my majors was economics (the other was history), which is not quite a business major, not quite a social sciences major and not quite a math/science major. Do admissions officers tend to lump economics in with math/science/engineering or more with the liberal arts majors?

Economics is in no way a hard major. Being a psych major, most people would not consider mine as one but I'd like them to take 5 advanced neurobio classes

[sumus romani]

There seems to be two sides on the issue, huh? I don't know much about it. But I do know, strangely, that the undergrad econ major at a university I attended has the lowest gpa of all majors at that university. Take that for what it is worth.

[rundoxierun]

I keep hearing that the expectations for GPA are more lenient if you have a hard major (i.e. hard sciences) than an "easy" one (i.e. the "studies" majors). One of my majors was economics (the other was history), which is not quite a business major, not quite a social sciences major and not quite a math/science major. Do admissions officers tend to lump economics in with math/science/engineering or more with the liberal arts majors?

Economics is in no way a hard major. Being a psych major, most people would not consider mine as one but I'd like them to take 5 advanced neurobio classes

Congratulations.. you are taking fancy sounding classes that aren't actually all that hard.

[czelede]

I keep hearing that the expectations for GPA are more lenient if you have a hard major (i.e. hard sciences) than an "easy" one (i.e. the "studies" majors). One of my majors was economics (the other was history), which is not quite a business major, not quite a social sciences major and not quite a math/science major. Do admissions officers tend to lump economics in with math/science/engineering or more with the liberal arts majors?

Economics is in no way a hard major. Being a psych major, most people would not consider mine as one but I'd like them to take 5 advanced neurobio classes

Tangent, but this reminds me of an epic argument I once overheard between a business major and a physics major at my undergrad (I am neither and knew neither, for the record).

Business Major: You're so high and mighty about taking harder classes, but I'd like to just see you try and take a 400 level business course.
Physics Major: You mean Advanced Powerpointing?

I agree that it's definitely possible to make a Psych major more rigorous from individual to individual; however, very few Psych majors actually elect to take advanced neurobiology courses, which is why its reputation gets the flack that it does, I think.

However, I would ascertain that at MOST schools, the rigor of an economics curriculum undertaken by the average student is greater than that of a psych curriculum. At top schools like UChicago (which is grade deflating as it is), I'm sure economics can very easily be considered to be a difficult major.