Considering Taking Micro And Macro Econ..How Much Math Involved?

[Kevin]

I am considering taking a micro and macro economics class this upcoming semester in order to meet some entry requirements for grad school.

My math skills are not my strong suit.

So I was wondering how much math would typically be involved with these classes?

[Green Line]

Not much, at least for the introductory level econ classes, I wouldn't worry about it. There was some math from what I remember, but nothing beyond what you learned in high school.  Intro econ classes are mostly learning concepts and definitions.   I am terrible at math and got through them both fine. 

[Blue3]

Hardly any math.


Macroeconomics is basically a history or polisci class with a focus on economics, of course.

Microeconomics focuses on firms, and has some coordinate graphs but I don't recall actually using them, they were just there to understand concepts.

[Kevin]

Not much, at least for the introductory level econ classes, I wouldn't worry about it. There was some math from what I remember, but nothing beyond what you learned in high school.  Intro econ classes are mostly learning concepts and definitions.   I am terrible at math and got through them both fine. 

Hardly any math.


Macroeconomics is basically a history or polisci class with a focus on economics, of course.

Microeconomics focuses on firms, and has some coordinate graphs but I don't recall actually using them, they were just there to understand concepts.

Glad to hear-a friend of mine told me I needed to know calc for both but I was skeptical of that.

I know at my school econ majors have to take ecometrics, stats, and calc at some point but I've never seen classes like macro for example  requiring much math-at least from the class syallabuses I've seen.

[RI]

Calc isn't required until intermediate micro/macro, and even that depends on the school.

[RFayette]

If you can read graphs and do basic algebra, you're fine.

[ag]

US college, a principles course? Mainly, ability to read basic graphs and diagrams, not much more. Intermediate level courses would/could be more serious. And, of course, underlying what you are taught there is pretty serious math. They do translate it into English for the poor American college kids, though

Still, I would strongly suggest you get rid of the math phobia - it is not a good thing to have.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Calc isn't required until intermediate micro/macro, and even that depends on the school.

Anyone that can't do basic calculus shouldn't be awarded a bachelor's degree unless it is something like a fine arts degree.  These pieces of paper should mean something.

I am considering taking a micro and macro economics class this upcoming semester in order to meet some entry requirements for grad school.

Outside of engineering has there ever been an introductory course that high school math couldn't get you through easily?

[ag]

Calc isn't required until intermediate micro/macro, and even that depends on the school.

Anyone that can't do basic calculus shouldn't be awarded a bachelor's degree unless it is something like a fine arts degree.  These pieces of paper should mean something.

Well. There is English Literature, Foreign Languages, History and a couple of others that, I guess, could also be exempt. But, yeah, frankly, it is a shame that one can get even a high school degree without calc.

[Gustaf]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

[ag]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

Worse. In many places you are allowed to do Intermediate Micro/Macro without doing calculus. Don't ask me why. I mean, they talk about "marginal" this or that drawing little triangles

At least, intro courses could be explained. Remember: US "liberal arts" degree is not a professional degree, but a preparation for one. It, basically, produces "an educated person". People have to take a bunch of courses in different areas (one or more of which would be designated as a "major" and some others, possibly, as "minors", implying somewhat greater concentration). So a typical intro course is taken by somebody who is not planning to study economics - either because s/he is just testing waters, or because it allows him/her to fulfill some "core" requirement of the liberal arts program. So you should treat an intro course not as a beginning of serious study of economics but more as a general education "taster" designed to give some idea of what econ is about. Obviously, if you want English Literature and Painting students to feel comfortable, you are not going to put calc as a prerequisite.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

In my school, I believe it was a co-requisite though ag probably hit the nail on the head in that it doesn't need to be one.

[RI]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

Worse. In many places you are allowed to do Intermediate Micro/Macro without doing calculus. Don't ask me why. I mean, they talk about "marginal" this or that drawing little triangles

I know in some schools intermediate micro is required for business students, so they don't make them use calc or they offer a separate calc-based intermediate micro.

[ag]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

Worse. In many places you are allowed to do Intermediate Micro/Macro without doing calculus. Don't ask me why. I mean, they talk about "marginal" this or that drawing little triangles

I know in some schools intermediate micro is required for business students, so they don't make them use calc or they offer a separate calc-based intermediate micro.

That, in fact, is a shame. A business major should have basic calculus skills. Teaching (and learning) intermediate micro without calculus is simply hard: it would have been easier to teach basic calculus in the first place. All it does is perpetuate the myth that basic math is something only very smart people can do. This is a grave mistake.

I am willing to give English majors a pass, though. Actually, if they are really good with,well, English, they can substitute it for math. It works.

[ag]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

In my school, I believe it was a co-requisite though ag probably hit the nail on the head in that it doesn't need to be one.

It is a broader point than micro/macro or economics in general. Intro courses in a liberal arts college are not so much for majors as for the general education of the non-majors or for advertising among the undecided. As such, they should be generally accessible. I mean, an intro music course typically would not require much knowledge of notation, would it?

[136or142]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

Worse. In many places you are allowed to do Intermediate Micro/Macro without doing calculus. Don't ask me why. I mean, they talk about "marginal" this or that drawing little triangles

At least, intro courses could be explained. Remember: US "liberal arts" degree is not a professional degree, but a preparation for one. It, basically, produces "an educated person". People have to take a bunch of courses in different areas (one or more of which would be designated as a "major" and some others, possibly, as "minors", implying somewhat greater concentration). So a typical intro course is taken by somebody who is not planning to study economics - either because s/he is just testing waters, or because it allows him/her to fulfill some "core" requirement of the liberal arts program. So you should treat an intro course not as a beginning of serious study of economics but more as a general education "taster" designed to give some idea of what econ is about. Obviously, if you want English Literature and Painting students to feel comfortable, you are not going to put calc as a prerequisite.

There is far too much calculus used in economics.

[ag]

You're allowed to do intro econ without having done calculus?

Worse. In many places you are allowed to do Intermediate Micro/Macro without doing calculus. Don't ask me why. I mean, they talk about "marginal" this or that drawing little triangles

At least, intro courses could be explained. Remember: US "liberal arts" degree is not a professional degree, but a preparation for one. It, basically, produces "an educated person". People have to take a bunch of courses in different areas (one or more of which would be designated as a "major" and some others, possibly, as "minors", implying somewhat greater concentration). So a typical intro course is taken by somebody who is not planning to study economics - either because s/he is just testing waters, or because it allows him/her to fulfill some "core" requirement of the liberal arts program. So you should treat an intro course not as a beginning of serious study of economics but more as a general education "taster" designed to give some idea of what econ is about. Obviously, if you want English Literature and Painting students to feel comfortable, you are not going to put calc as a prerequisite.

There is far too much calculus used in economics.

You can do everything without calculus: it is just a convenient tool, no more than that. But without calculus everything becomes much harder. In fact, one way of setting up a tough graduate question is to prohibit using calculus when answering it ("you may not assume differentiability of" whatever). Trust me, you prefer it this way

But, of course, what you wanted to say is "there is too much math used in economics". Once again, let me be very clear here: math makes things easier, not harder. This has nothing to do with economics as such: understanding and verifying logical reasoning without formal tools is difficult.

Calculus is simply a collection of very useful tools that make conversations and understanding easier. Nothing mysterious or esoteric there whatsoever. If a high school diploma required basic calculus (as it should) people would be much less nervous about it. Frankly, it should be a safe assumption that the basic calculus notion are familiar to every 16-year-old - like it is with reading or writing. It is just a useful tool-kit in life.

[136or142]

I completely agree that calculus simplifies mathematics a great deal.  It is also amazing that through calculus a great deal of further data can be gathered from having just a few pieces of quantifiable data.

So, calculus is very useful.

However, I was referring to calculus.

There is a reason that many non-economists and some economists refer to economists as having 'physics envy' and this is due to the overuse of calculus in economics.

There are two problems with the obsession mainstream economists have with calculus

1.There seems to be a great deal of opposition to doing research into economics hypothesis that can't be quantified or 'proven' through calculus.  I would think it would be obvious that many economics ideas might be worth investigating but can't be easily quantified or can't be quantified at all.

2.There is a good deal of deceptive use of calculus in economics especially by economists who work for lobbyist organizations.  There seems to be a common view both with most people in the public and with politicians that if a figure has been derived by an economist through the use of calculus that it has been scientifically proven. But, if you actually check into many of the numbers used in the equations, you'll find that many are estimates or are simply made up.  

So, calculus can illuminate many things, but it can also be used to prevent investigation and to obfuscate.  

This is worth a listen: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/it-s-the-economists-stupid-1.3219471

Interest rates.  Unemployment. GDP.  Markets. Austerity measures.  Economists tell us what we, as societies, can and can't afford.  But how do they decide? What values are at play? IDEAS producer Mary O'Connell speaks with two economists about how modern mantras on the economy limit our choices and shut down civic debate.

Dr. Julie Nelson, Department Chair and Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Dr. Richard Denniss, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute, Canberra City, Australia.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Yeah I can definitely see that.  But the fact the OP is talking about grad school is a bit scary.  If someone wanted to do grad work in history and ran away from math I would be a bit concerned.  Ignoring the quantitative side is how we end up with so much skewed history.  It's like if you read an account of an army that is a certain size.  Well you need to calculate crop yields and economic yields to see if a particular government could even field an army that large or whether some ancient historian was just telling a tall tale.

[ag]

I completely agree that calculus simplifies mathematics a great deal.  It is also amazing that through calculus a great deal of further data can be gathered from having just a few pieces of quantifiable data.

So, calculus is very useful.

However, I was referring to calculus.

There is a reason that many non-economists and some economists refer to economists as having 'physics envy' and this is due to the overuse of calculus in economics.

There are two problems with the obsession mainstream economists have with calculus

1.There seems to be a great deal of opposition to doing research into economics hypothesis that can't be quantified or 'proven' through calculus.  I would think it would be obvious that many economics ideas might be worth investigating but can't be easily quantified or can't be quantified at all.

2.There is a good deal of deceptive use of calculus in economics especially by economists who work for lobbyist organizations.  There seems to be a common view both with most people in the public and with politicians that if a figure has been derived by an economist through the use of calculus that it has been scientifically proven. But, if you actually check into many of the numbers used in the equations, you'll find that many are estimates or are simply made up.  

So, calculus can illuminate many things, but it can also be used to prevent investigation and to obfuscate.  

This is worth a listen: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/it-s-the-economists-stupid-1.3219471

Interest rates.  Unemployment. GDP.  Markets. Austerity measures.  Economists tell us what we, as societies, can and can't afford.  But how do they decide? What values are at play? IDEAS producer Mary O'Connell speaks with two economists about how modern mantras on the economy limit our choices and shut down civic debate.

Dr. Julie Nelson, Department Chair and Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Dr. Richard Denniss, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute, Canberra City, Australia.

I think this simply reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the usage of mathematical methods in economics (or, for that matter, in other sciences). Just as an aside: calculus is just a routine method - everything that is derived with calculus could be derived directly, but it would be harder. Saying that "too much calculus is used" is like saying "too much multiplication is used" or "too many verbs are used". Ok, If you do not like verbs, I will live with nouns and adjectives. It will be awkward, but I will manage.

Why do we use mathematical tools? Basically, because we do not like making logical mistakes. A simple mathematical model is precisely that - a simple description of a phenomenon of interest, highlighting the features we believe to be of importance. Could it be done with words? Yes, it could. In fact, there are branches of economics that try to do that, at least in published works. For instance, economic historians have to talk to historians - they try to describe their models in the language historians know. Notably, good economic historians still start with a formal model (yes, using calculus, if useful) and then translate it into words. What is the disadvantage of doing this? English is too undisciplined a language - it is easy to hide logical non-sequiturs and implicit assumptions in an English sentence. Math forces these things to be revealed. The first thing I do when looking at a simple undergraduate textbook (without calculus) is try to translate its arguments into a simple math model. If the book is good, this is very easy (it is just a reverse translation to the language the book had been thought up originally). If I cannot do this, chances are the book is bad: it is making arguments that are logically flawed, covering the flaws up with verbiage. In a profession where command of basic math tools is common "plain English", unsupported by a formal model, is naturally viewed as obfuscation.

Now, for being "scientific". Math is not a science: by itself, it is not interested in natural or social phenomena. A scientific proof differs from a mathematical proof in that it is not merely logical, but empirical. Your model can be formally correct, but it starts with assumptions: that is your (likely very simplified) description of how the world is. Empirical observation tests your assumptions. The role of math here is that it helps one to build a logical argument that transforms original assumptions into testable implications. The only thing you can prove with calculus (or trigonometry, or topology, or whatever) is that you made no logical mistakes in that transformation. The real theory is not what you produce using mathematical tools: it is the assumptions you put into the model. And the real "proof" that theory works is not the formal mathematical proof of the implications being correctly derived, but in the empirical test of those implications. This is where we, economists, may indeed have physics envy: their data are so much better!

To sum up,  math is not used to obfuscate, but to clarify. That the public at large sometimes views it otherwise is, to a large extent, a product of poor education: not even at college, but at the high school level. This is why I firmly believe that calculus should be taught to everyone and early: it is as essential as knowing multiplication tables. It is not some fancy math - it is very basic. It is not difficult, if properly explained. It is a lot harder to teach a student basics of economics (or any other science) without calculus than to spend first a semester teaching basic calculus tools and then doing economics using that. Calculus is not magic - it does not make anything happen. Things are true or false irrespective of what math tools are used to analyze them. But it sure helps to have the tools.

[ag]

First a public apology:

I accidentally modified the message I was responding to, instead of simply quoting it. I really had no intend of doing that damage, but, unfortunately, I canno reverse it. I do apologize: this is very stupid of me.

Yeah I can definitely see that.  But the fact the OP is talking about grad school is a bit scary.  If someone wanted to do grad work in history and ran away from math I would be a bit concerned.  Ignoring the quantitative side is how we end up with so much skewed history.  It's like if you read an account of an army that is a certain size.  Well you need to calculate crop yields and economic yields to see if a particular government could even field an army that large or whether some ancient historian was just telling a tall tale.

Well, History is a large field. Definitely, an Economic Historian needs to have basic math tools. But for an Art Historian it will be more important to memorize how Rhode Island chairs differ from those produced in Massachussetts, how to read 17th century shorthand on the back of a painting or what sort of wood was used in Bulgaria for icons in the 12th century. A historian of Shakespeare will be better served with a paleography semester than with a calculus class.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I am considering taking a micro and macro economics class this upcoming semester in order to meet some entry requirements for grad school.

My math skills are not my strong suit.

So I was wondering how much math would typically be involved with these classes?

I hope we didn't scare you too much or make you feel too bad.  I hope you get over your math phobia.  It really isn't too bad.  I spent my first year in college figuring out the bare minimum of math I needed to graduate.  After a couple of semesters of Calculus I said good riddance to pure mathematics.  That didn't prevent me from makes A's in lower level physics classes or tackling anything other than engineering or advanced physics.  The first year calculus was over taught if you just took it as a prerequ for business classes or something like that.  Being able to do basic derivatives and integration and understanding the basic concepts was enough in my experience.

[136or142]

I completely agree that calculus simplifies mathematics a great deal.  It is also amazing that through calculus a great deal of further data can be gathered from having just a few pieces of quantifiable data.

So, calculus is very useful.

However, I was referring to calculus.

There is a reason that many non-economists and some economists refer to economists as having 'physics envy' and this is due to the overuse of calculus in economics.

There are two problems with the obsession mainstream economists have with calculus

1.There seems to be a great deal of opposition to doing research into economics hypothesis that can't be quantified or 'proven' through calculus.  I would think it would be obvious that many economics ideas might be worth investigating but can't be easily quantified or can't be quantified at all.

2.There is a good deal of deceptive use of calculus in economics especially by economists who work for lobbyist organizations.  There seems to be a common view both with most people in the public and with politicians that if a figure has been derived by an economist through the use of calculus that it has been scientifically proven. But, if you actually check into many of the numbers used in the equations, you'll find that many are estimates or are simply made up.  

So, calculus can illuminate many things, but it can also be used to prevent investigation and to obfuscate.  

This is worth a listen: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/it-s-the-economists-stupid-1.3219471

Interest rates.  Unemployment. GDP.  Markets. Austerity measures.  Economists tell us what we, as societies, can and can't afford.  But how do they decide? What values are at play? IDEAS producer Mary O'Connell speaks with two economists about how modern mantras on the economy limit our choices and shut down civic debate.

Dr. Julie Nelson, Department Chair and Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Dr. Richard Denniss, Chief Economist, The Australia Institute, Canberra City, Australia.

I think this simply reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the usage of mathematical methods in economics (or, for that matter, in other sciences). Just as an aside: calculus is just a routine method - everything that is derived with calculus could be derived directly, but it would be harder. Saying that "too much calculus is used" is like saying "too much multiplication is used" or "too many verbs are used". Ok, If you do not like verbs, I will live with nouns and adjectives. It will be awkward, but I will manage.

Why do we use mathematical tools? Basically, because we do not like making logical mistakes. A simple mathematical model is precisely that - a simple description of a phenomenon of interest, highlighting the features we believe to be of importance. Could it be done with words? Yes, it could. In fact, there are branches of economics that try to do that, at least in published works. For instance, economic historians have to talk to historians - they try to describe their models in the language historians know. Notably, good economic historians still start with a formal model (yes, using calculus, if useful) and then translate it into words. What is the disadvantage of doing this? English is too undisciplined a language - it is easy to hide logical non-sequiturs and implicit assumptions in an English sentence. Math forces these things to be revealed. The first thing I do when looking at a simple undergraduate textbook (without calculus) is try to translate its arguments into a simple math model. If the book is good, this is very easy (it is just a reverse translation to the language the book had been thought up originally). If I cannot do this, chances are the book is bad: it is making arguments that are logically flawed, covering the flaws up with verbiage. In a profession where command of basic math tools is common "plain English", unsupported by a formal model, is naturally viewed as obfuscation.

Now, for being "scientific". Math is not a science: by itself, it is not interested in natural or social phenomena. A scientific proof differs from a mathematical proof in that it is not merely logical, but empirical. Your model can be formally correct, but it starts with assumptions: that is your (likely very simplified) description of how the world is. Empirical observation tests your assumptions. The role of math here is that it helps one to build a logical argument that transforms original assumptions into testable implications. The only thing you can prove with calculus (or trigonometry, or topology, or whatever) is that you made no logical mistakes in that transformation. The real theory is not what you produce using mathematical tools: it is the assumptions you put into the model. And the real "proof" that theory works is not the formal mathematical proof of the implications being correctly derived, but in the empirical test of those implications. This is where we, economists, may indeed have physics envy: their data are so much better!

To sum up,  math is not used to obfuscate, but to clarify. That the public at large sometimes views it otherwise is, to a large extent, a product of poor education: not even at college, but at the high school level. This is why I firmly believe that calculus should be taught to everyone and early: it is as essential as knowing multiplication tables. It is not some fancy math - it is very basic. It is not difficult, if properly explained. It is a lot harder to teach a student basics of economics (or any other science) without calculus than to spend first a semester teaching basic calculus tools and then doing economics using that. Calculus is not magic - it does not make anything happen. Things are true or false irrespective of what math tools are used to analyze them. But it sure helps to have the tools.

1.Economics is not a science.  I think your claiming otherwise (unless you just used the language sloppily yourself and did not mean to state that) is the very heart of our disagreement.

2.You are probably right about calculus does not do any 'new' math, but it does make math simple enough to do calculations that probably could not be done by any human otherwise.  So, I think, de facto it does allow for very complex calculations and 'proofs' that could not be done with any other math.

3.I don't think mathematics is as precise as you claim it is.  From my reading of physics, there are also sorts of 'proven' by mathematics/calculus that don't logically make sense, string theory being the best example of that.

Mathematics should be used in addition to the rules of logic, not as a shorthand for them or as an excuse to not use them.

And, as I wrote previously, where there are ideas in economics that are worth pursuing that can't be quantified, the lack of math should not be used as a preventative.

4.De Jure mathematics/calculus is used to clarify, de facto it is often used to obfuscate.  Economists often complain about others saying 'if the world were as it should be this wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately, we live with the world as it really is.'  So, I would use that argument against what you wrote right now.

5.I personally think probability and statistics is much more important than algebra/calculus in terms of helping people make sense of their lives and the world around them.  Most cases of innumeracy are a result of faulty use of statistics not improper use of basic mathematics.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In my experience, both Intermediate Micro and Macro didn't require Calculus. My knowledge of Calculus was helpful but I wouldn't say that it was necessary at that level.

Anyways, I agree with ag. I was pretty frightened by the prospects of taking Calculus, until I took my first Calculus class and took it seriously. Once I did this, I realized that the basics of Calculus are very easy to understand and that it should be a required class before college.

[Foucaulf]

Okay, this is getting out of hand.

1.Economics is not a science.  I think your claiming otherwise (unless you just used the language sloppily yourself and did not mean to state that) is the very heart of our disagreement.

This is not "the very heart of our disagreement." I actually have done some reading on this; you can start with the first salvo, Friedman (1966). Whether economics "is a science" has to do with its predictive accuracy, or its standards for rejecting hypotheses, or at least its culture with interpreting new facts - the usage of mathematical tools is neither necessary nor sufficient for any of the above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's stop for a moment and define "calculus" again. Calculus is simply the quantitative analysis of change. Go back to everything you have said and replace every usage of "the use of calculus" with "analyzing change." Do your statements sound as deep and insightful as you thought they were?

Yes, there are theorems that must be proved with calculus (e.g. proof via moment generating functions of the Central Limit Theorem, perhaps the most fundamental result in statistics). But your bone is not with the theorems here - it's with the models that abuse the theorems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as I know, string theory isn't criticized because it "makes no sense" but because it is unverifiable and unfalsifiable. This is a possible criticism to economics - but, again, it does not necessarily deal with the usage of math in econ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are some examples of this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But doesn't that make it all the more important to understand the math clearly? You have this idea of economists in a shadowy room talking to each other by reading out loud hundreds of equations. That's not how they talk to each other; they use English all the time.

Keep in mind I don't even really buy the idea that math is "more precise" than English, which is something theorists like to say but doesn't jive with me as an empirical person. But you are not separating two effects here: the effect of using mathematics to model some phenomenon, and specific inaccurate mathematical models which stay beyond their shelf life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please look at any college curriculum and see what the prerequisites are for a probability theory or statistics course. You'll find calculus on there eventually.