Accepted Economics majors !!

[stillpremed]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Fellow Econ Majors,
How has the process been for you? Did adcoms ask a lot of questions regarding why you wanted to study medicine/econ? Was it tough getting an interview? Yeah, I know that it depends on a lot of factors, but Im just curious to see what ya'll encountered.

 

[Goya]

Yes. they asked about it. But it wasn't a big deal. They just asked how I liked it and stuff. I don't think your major really matters for admins cuz as long as you show you can do well in those premed classes you'll be fine. They're looking for diversity in the class anyways. But then again I was a bio/econ double major. And when they asked me what I would do if I wasn't in med school....my answer? Consultant. haha.

 

[surfdevl02]

Econ major here....two acceptances and and two waitlists....be prepared to why medicine and economics questions....i talked a lot about my study abroad experience at the London School of Economics. Noone seemed to have a problem with my answers or questioned me further. Good luck

 

[abw]

Hey!
I'm an econ major too! I think I did well considering my stats (5 interviews, 2 A's, 1R, 1W and I declined one). I wasn't asked about my major. I put in my p.s. how I started along the business path bc my dad was pressuring me to take over the business then I had to prove to him that medicine was a better choice for me. The questions wound up centered around if my dad supported me now and if it was hard to change his mind. If you're just starting the process, some schools have the question "how did you choose your major" on their secondary.

 

[cracker69]

i'm a finance major, still in the business field. It worked well for me, helped to distinguish myself from other applicants. And i know lots about money in case i make some after my debt is paid off. 5 interviews. 1 A, 1 R, 1 W, still waiting on 2 decisions.

69

 

[jkway]

Another econ major here. I was asked about my major at almost every interview, and since i have focused on healthcare economics the interviewers were particularly interested in what I had to say. I even had an extended discussion on the economics of the war on drugs (another area of interest) with one of my interviewers. Overall it has made for some great discussions, and it definently didn't hinder me (4 acceptences, 4 waitlists).

 

[pocwana]

Originally posted by jkway
(4 acceptences, 4 waitlists).

congrats jk 😉
have you decided where you're gonna go?


i'm (well, was) a math major and a few interviewers asked about that. anyone here planning on getting an MBA as well?

 

[kreno]

Hi, i'm a double major... physiology and economics... at all 7 of my interviews I was asked at least in some form or shape about "why economics" and *NEVER* about my physiology pursuit. So, I think it definitately differentiated me from the prototypical premeder or whatever.

Economics is *SO* relavent to medicine, I mean.. it's all about rationing scarce resources, when you think about it... and what more delicate a field than healthcare and scarce resources?

I only applied to schools (with the exception of one) that had combined MD/MPH (masters in public health)... that's what I'm interested in doing, so having the economics background made for some good conversations of substance when I was asked related questions... for example "what is the biggest problem facing medicine today" was a question I got a lot... and I always responded with "rising healthcare costs" and then went on with my expertise...

One thing I think is important is to try, indirectly, to make it known that you didn't do economics 'cuz you want to make money, or are interested in material pursuits mainly... lord knows for me if a doc made 25k a year i'd still do it, but sometimes interviewers (particularly those not familiar with economics) are skeptical.

I got into a few great schools, so I know it sure didn't hurt! I didn't mention it on my personal statement though, I figured something like your "major" isn't interesting enough to mention in a statement which is supposed to talk about why you want to be a doctor.. I mean the whole "major" thing really doesn't matter in the end... it's just background music.

Good luck!
kreno

 

[VienneseWaltz]

Originally posted by kreno

Economics is *SO* relavent to medicine, I mean.. it's all about rationing scarce resources, when you think about it... and what more delicate a field than healthcare and scarce resources?

Thank you! PHYSIOLOGY is about the efficient allocation of scarce resources--there are so many parallels. My embryology professor actually was quite excited to learn that I was an econ grad student, as one of his research interests is comparing theories of cell differentiation to theories of macroeconomics (centralized command-and-control versus decentralized local determination). Interestingly, embryologists in the Soviet Union were mostly in the centralized camp, whereas here, the thought is moving towards the decentralized model.

Health policy came up quite a bit in my interviews, but in many places I was matched up with a doctor who was genuinely interested in my thoughts in this area. I had been warned that I might have trouble convincing adcoms that I really wanted to be a doctor first, econ on the side, but I sought med schools that were active in health policy research and generally got a great reception.

Also, econ trains you in cost-benefit analysis, which is a useful skill to have in clinical research, as when you have to explain why people should pay for this new procedure, you don't have to spend grant money hiring a health economist--you can do it yourself. There were a couple of schools where I toned down the health policy and emphasized how I could be useful in clinical research, too.

 

[kito]

i know i am biased but i tend to think that economics is a cross between marketing and speculation. economists, though bright, are typically the types of people that traders, bankers and politicians typically make fun of, and at times whip out of the closet in the event that they need some sort of pseudo-academic analytical evidential support for their schemes. that being said, i think that the field has a niche, albeit a very specific and narrow one. don't flame now, i'm just trying to be honest with y'all.

 

[LunaMoth]

Hey, I am a mol bio major myself, but I have a econ major friend who applied to med school in 2002 and is now an M1 at Harvard...so clearly econ doesn't close any doors! I know that she had great EC's, and was a peer counselor at our health clinic. I imagine that as long as you have a good reason for choosing medicine, you'll be just fine =)

 

[VienneseWaltz]

Originally posted by ankitovich
i know i am biased but i tend to think that economics is a cross between marketing and speculation. economists, though bright, are typically the types of people that traders, bankers and politicians typically make fun of, and at times whip out of the closet in the event that they need some sort of pseudo-academic analytical evidential support for their schemes. that being said, i think that the field has a niche, albeit a very specific and narrow one. don't flame now, i'm just trying to be honest with y'all.

This is so full of **** I won't address most of it. If you don't want to get flamed, don't post ignorant crap on the board. Economics has very broad applications: as kreno said, it is the study of the allocation of resources; it is the science of choices.

You remind me of those people who hear my degree and say, "So, I guess you want to do an MD/MBA." Saying econ and business are the same thing is like saying physics and engineering are the same thing. There is some overlap in theory and applications, but they are two very different disciplines.

 

[kito]

i knew that one would get me into trouble. but vwaltz, what you write about that allocation of resources jive is reads like something you picked out of your intro textbook. be practical about it and think of who employs economists. the economists at the fed, for instance, are only as important as their theories and policy suggestions, which are only useful if they serve some political agenda. take an economist at goldman, their only function is to set the market up for what the firm is selling, and to set the market's speculative tone so that the traders can arbitrage off of that. similarly these economists, particularly at places like salomon have historically been the banker's mouthpieces, saying exactly what the bankers want to hear to get the deals done. people like henry kauffman and larry kudlow did that for years, and today folks like bob hormats and stephen roach are doing the same today (as a vaunted economics major, i would hope that you know who these gentlemen are). let's not even get started on the academic economists, because lets face it the wall streets and the fed folks just make fun of them. once again, i concede that economists are bright, and the ultimate goal of economics is indeed noble, but please don't fool yourself into placing an undeserved and inappropriate amount of serious importance on the discpline, because as I said before, it is only as useful as the traders, bankers or politicians say it is.

 

[VienneseWaltz]

Originally posted by ankitovich
i knew that one would get me into trouble. but vwaltz, what you write about that allocation of resources jive is reads like something you picked out of your intro textbook. be practical about it and think of who employs economists. the economists at the fed, for instance, are only as important as their theories and policy suggestions, which are only useful if they serve some political agenda. take an economist at goldman, their only function is to set the market up for what the firm is selling, and to set the market's speculative tone so that the traders can arbitrage off of that. similarly these economists, particularly at places like salomon have historically been the banker's mouthpieces, saying exactly what the bankers want to hear to get the deals done. people like henry kauffman and larry kudlow did that for years, and today folks like bob hormats and stephen roach are doing the same today (as a vaunted economics major, i would hope that you know who these gentlemen are). let's not even get started on the academic economists, because lets face it the wall streets and the fed folks just make fun of them. once again, i concede that economists are bright, and the ultimate goal of economics is indeed noble, but please don't fool yourself into placing an undeserved and inappropriate amount of serious importance on the discpline, because as I said before, it is only as useful as the traders, bankers or politicians say it is.

The allocation-of-resources "jive" is in fact the definition of the discipline and related to the roots of the word.

Economists at the fed seem to survive changes in administrations, so I'm not sure what you're basing your argument on there. Every field has people who say what their boss tells them to--this isn't a reflection on the usefulness of the discipline. Is all of chemistry irrelevant because the chemists at an energy company conduct experiments that erroneously conclude that the firm does not pollute the environment?

Incidentally, I don't know most of the people you named. I assume they are finance people, and considering my field is applied micro, my work has very little to do with them. Economics is a big field, and as I stated earlier, econ != business.

DO let's get started on academic economists. I don't know where you're getting your information on them, but I can assure you that they don't care whether Wall Street thinks they're cool or not. Considering the professor I work for is regularly quoted in the New York Times on health economics issues, SOMEONE seems to think academic economists actually know something.

Out of curiosity, what is your major? Considering how obviously little you know about the discipline, why are you on this thread trying to keep us from "fooling ourselves" as to the importance of the field? There are lots of disciplines that I personally don't consider worthwhile, but I would never take it upon myself to tell people who obviously do see its utility that they're wasting their time.

 

[kreno]

First, economics is not a "cross" between marketing and speculation; most certainly not. If you want to generalize, it's more like the mathematics of business... i.e. statistical theories, regressions, etc.

I think it's fair to say though that the most bright business majors tend to be the Accountants, Finance, and of course, Economics majors... lots of thinking, lots of math, lots of good, solid logic, reasing, etc.

The people who aren't so bright tend to be the Marketing, Advertising, General Mangement, and Human Resources.

Now of course, those not-so-brights have to take BASIC economics (i.e macro and micro)... but that's like basing what physicians do on the fact they have to take inorganic chemistry 1 and 2.


kreno

 

[kreno]

Further, Economics majors don't deal with MARKETING, per se, usually. I mean, it's all related, but at my school Economics majors aren't even required to take ANY type of marketing, advertising, etc. It's all Finanice, Econ, Math, math, some more math. so get your facts straight 🙂 hope this helps
kreno

 

[kito]

first of all, i urge you to understand that i mean no disrespect to you or the discipline when i make my remarks. please do not take any of it personally, because it is just an opinion, and is worth as much or as little as your opinion. on the subject of academic economics i believe that it too is only as important as politicians, traders and bankers make them out to be. you mentioned a distinguished academic that you work with, and how he or she is regularly quoted by the new york times. i challenge you to go back to the times, visit the contexts of these quotations, and report to this thread the percentage of quotes that appear in a context that is not political or policy driven. i am hypothesizing here and now that the percentage will be small, partly because the times is THE most politically charged and partisan periodical on the face of the lord's green earth, but primarily because academic economics, when not dollar driven, is steered exclusively by politics. as further evidence, i refer you to the list of nobel laureates in economics, where you will find folks like scholes, merton and nash working on purely financial constructs, while folks like modigliani, sen, and solow work on policy. (please tell me you are familiar with these fine gentlemen)

secondly, you are absolutely correct when you say that all economists are not engaged in business. the federal reserve, academia and the economists at the treasury are prime examples. however as i mentioned in the previous remarks these people are generally policy driven. and if you think that the work at the fed and at treasury are not policy driven then i urge you to read the testimony of people like chairman greenspan and deputy secretary fisher. furthermore refer to the writings of economists like kudlow, lindsey and the governors of the fed system for more contemporary material. and for that extreme fringe of economists whose work can be classified as neither policy driven nor financially driven (i suppose that you would be most familiar with these folks, for i surely am not) i submit to you that nobody, and i mean NOBODY gives a hoot about what these people have to say. these are the people who are typically stuck with teaching the intro classes to undergrads.

thirdly, in response to kreno's remarks, the assertions that the "bright business majors tend to be the...economics majors" is precisely what i was talking about when i wrote of the improper and erroneous assignment of self importance. if the policy driven economists, and financially motivated economists are so smart, then why are the politicians the ones gaining the power, and why are the traders and bankers the ones getting rich? and if the economists who do not fall into the political or finance categorizations are so wonderful, as vwaltz claims, why aren't they the ones getting the nobels, or the cash. why are they the ones stuck teaching introductory micro? i maintain that economics is a fine discipline, with bright and passionate people deeply involved in its practice, but let's not go off the deep end with praise over here.

furthermore, there is no reason to take any of this as seriously or personally as some here are.

 

[kito]

you know what, forget it, i withdraw what i said. i sincerely apologize if my remarks were offensive, rest assured that i meant no harm. let's agree to agree that economics is a fun and interesting area with many applications. i have had my fill of it (a minor) and i found that it was time well spent. lets leave it at that.

 

[Goya]

In relating to the business world (consulting/Ibanking) I think a lot of my econ friends have claimed that they never use anything from their econ degree for work. Econ is quite theoretical. Discussing 'ideal' behaviour and preferences. I like it. It's cool. But it's also how the econ is taught to you.

 

[mazerati]

I tend to think that policy is based on models presented rather than models made to fit policies.

You mention Sen. He has done work on famine. He is showing models that can be followed to hopefully prevent famine.

Spence won a nobel for work in educational signaling. The funny thing is, governmental policies haven't yet been made based off of his research. However if it is, policies will be centered around his model.

Our country's forefathers based many of there ideas of the economy based upon a variety of peoples' economic theory.

I agree with VW, economics is a very large field. It is definitely applicable in many parts of life. To belittle economists as just mouthpieces and pawns is flat out wrong.

 

[sd77]

Wow, only one day away from SDN and I missed this exciting economics debate. VienneseWaltz...wish I could've been here to back you up, but I think you did an excellent job regardless.

Glad to see that Ankitovich came to his senses and decided to "agree" that economics was interesting with broad applications. Hey buddy, you tell me a subject that has broader applications than economics and I'll never post on this board again. And stop dropping names already (henry kauffman, larry kudlow, bob hormats, stephen roach, goldman (sachs), salomon (smith barney), scholes, merton, nash, modigliani, sen, solow, greenspan, deputy secretary fisher, and lindsey) dude, give it a rest, it really only makes you sound like a jacka$$. Sorry, but I don't all know these individuals like you and well enough to call them "fine men".

And you keep referring to banking and policy making, blah blah blah. ok, you are in NYC, congratufu%*inglations, and are surrounded by "economists" that are saying whatever the bankers want??? First, there is a very large difference in finance and economics, especially as it relates to the Wall Street to which you like to make reference. Do you really think these academic economists couldn't be an analyst working 60 hours+ a week so they can get their face in the Wall Street Journal or on MSNBC? Here's an idea, maybe they don't care!!! And to say they aren't worthy because they aren't getting paid the big bucks? Nevermind, I'm not even going to qualify that remark.

And finally, the reference to the higher authority (and inherently more important) position of politicians whose power supercedes. Government is (yes, I'm going to give a definition here...) a collection of decisions made at various points in time. Well guess what economics does??? It explains how people make decisions.

Oh, and regarding your comment:

"furthermore, there is no reason to take any of this as seriously or personally as some here are."

bro, take a look in the mirror.

sorry, i know you said you didn't want to be bothered with it anymore, but hell, i couldn't miss out on this oppurtunity. Maybe you should go and check for the latest upgrades from Goldman, or Merrill, or UBS Warburg, or...oops...my bad 😉

 

[kito]

alright so i had that coming. let's all agree to disagree, without being disagreeable. that is the only civil way to handle this. and if any of you have to get the flames out of your belly, well i have broad shoulders so bring it on.

 

[VienneseWaltz]

Originally posted by Goya
In relating to the business world (consulting/Ibanking) I think a lot of my econ friends have claimed that they never use anything from their econ degree for work. Econ is quite theoretical. Discussing 'ideal' behaviour and preferences. I like it. It's cool. But it's also how the econ is taught to you.

Goya, you make a good point as to one of the shortcomings in the way undergraduate economics typically is taught--with an emphasis on theory. Yes, economics is highly theoretical, and the majority of the Nobel Prize winners (actually the Bank of Sweden prize, as Alfred Nobel was not a fan of the science and explicitly left economists out of his will ) are theorists, but the majority of economists are empiricists. Statistical analysis of actual data--testing theories, using them to understand what's going on--is emphasized at the graduate level and in practice as well. So while it might seem that economists just assume away whatever they don't like, in practice the work is much more complicated.

One thing that's easy to forget when you're an undergraduate (and I was there not too long ago) is that what you're taught is not the frontier of knowledge. (I imagine this is true in all disciplines.) It's easy to see weaknesses in the theory, and because of what you're shown, not realize that the theory has advanced to accomodate some of those shortcomings.

 

[kreno]

Vienesewalt makes a good point. There is certainly a *HUGE* difference between the few economics classes you took to earn your "minor" and what professional, "ECONOMISTS" do. Indeed, the basics are all theory (give me a field of study that isn't!), but Economists are mostly pragramtists, using empirical data to come up with real conclusions and causal and correlational relationships. Take an *econometrics* class and maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Thus, Antitovitch and Goya, you repsectfully stand corrected in believing what economists do is simply an extrapoloation of your three intro-to-econ classes.

IN ANY REGARD, if you wanna be a doc, it's a great major! 🙂

kreno

 

[kito]

well it was more like six classes, and three of them were graduate classes. and as for "correlational relationships" i work primarily with partial differential equations and quantum mechanical systems, so the baby stuff that is taught in undergraduate (or graduate for that matter) econometric classes won't help me further appreciate economics. in addition, i am not a professional economist, and do not claim to know what being one is all about. i am also certain that you all will concede as much.

i agree that an education in economics, much like an education in art history, sociology or biology is adequate preparation for medical scohol when coupled with premed classes. i even concede that the field is interesting. i however advise kreno to not patronize me, for he or she should not be presumptuous of my background or preparation. i again urge civility, and encourage a constructive debate. i withdrew whatever i thought was unwarranted and offensive, and attempted to take the high road, so i suggest that some others do the same.