I've read your feedbacks on the first part of the course. Thanks for these comments.
I surely share the common feeling that there is severe time constraint, and agree that there are quite a few things to improve. Here are some remarks about the ``technicality'' issue.
A plain truth in this profession is that, while applying economic theory to interesting and relevant real life experiences may be, and should be the drive to pursue a career as an economist, the ability to be formal and rigorous is a threshold you need to pass in order to be qualified as an economist in the first place. Whether you plan to become a theorist or not, rigor, precision, and being formal are fundamental in scientific writing. This means you need to be able to read and write papers in that way.
For most people, I believe, it takes time, efforts, and even some pain to build this ability. This is the ``gap'' I mentioned before, and helping you during this process is what I meant to make this transition period as smooth as possible. The bottom line is, you will need this ability soon. If we don't tackle this together in the classroom, you'll have to deal with it by yourself.
That said, and my presentation skills aside, I do not consider the material I presented in class ``too technical.'' On the contrary, I think it is not technical enough. You must have noticed that what's in the slides are mostly simplified MWG, and on the whiteboard I used mainly figures or number examples. The first part of MWG is pretty much what one would expect from a PhD student everywhere. As most people, you may have difficulties in the beginning, but eventually you'll need this level of technicality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I totally agree with you, just that when one person is asked to give her judgement on whatever issue, she should find something to say unless we are in the world of perfection or this person does not have any opinion! And judgements are always related also to the way anyone interacts with the issue itself.
I agree with the fact that having the capacity to handle with technicalities is essential and is needed for understanding as well as for writing papers.
My opinion is that our "bad feeling" about the course to be "too technical" depends also on our lack of skills and the difficulty to fill this gap due to the time constraint. Unfortunately, the lack of time is the only problem which is definitely unsolvable for human beings, so our responses to the question probably couldn't have been different! But more time will solve everything hopefully!
Please don't get me wrong. This post doesn't mean to disregard your opinions or feelings. On the contrary, I appreciate very much your sharing, and encourage as well as welcome more/any feedbacks.
As I said in the post, I also agree that we have a very tight schedule and recognize your difficulty in learning a lot of things in a very short time. This may not be what you are used to, or what you have expected. But you will (and it would be better if you have) realize that this is part of the academic life. At this stage of your career you're only learning what people have produced, but very soon you will find yourself doing two things at the same time: learning AND producing, i.e., to do your own research.
Back to the post. A more encourage (I hope) news from my own experience is that: True, these ''technical stuffs'' are hard to digest in the beginning, and seem abstract sometimes, but fortunately time and experience will do the magic. As you see them over and over in papers, exercises, and textbooks, and if you use them, you'll get used to them. In some sense it's like learning a new language. More practice comes familiarity.
Post a Comment