What makes an economics student?

Am so glad to have finished the last exam for Semester 1. However, one question that comes to mind after the Macroeconomics exam is: Do I really know what macroeconomics is about?

The syllabus of SMU Economics focuses a lot on the quantitative aspects. And so at the same time, we cover very in depth into some of the graduate materials. For example, we are taught how a growth in technology leads to an increase in effective labour force in the Solow growth model. Other very contemporary concepts include the IS-MP / AD-IA models on employment, interest rates and inflation.

Though the SMU syllabus is strong in maths, it is not matched by the breadth of the macroeconomics syllabus it covers (at least for the lessons I attended). The lessons do not look at, or at least not in detail, the Phillips curve, lorenz curve, gini coefficient, IS-LM (I am like wtf is it when friends from other Economics courses were talking about it). And hey I am sure there are many other macro concepts out there that I do not know of.

So... given that I know almost nothing about all the traditional areas of Economics, what makes an Economics student an Economics student? I have really no idea. One argument I came up with to explain the scope of SMU syllabus is this.

Economics evolve rapidly over time.

Theories in this field do not remain the same. Thus, what was learnt 20 years ago becomes obsolete now and what is learnt now will become useless in the future. Unless I am setting the interest rates of Singapore now, the contemporary models I learn will only serve to become part of the syllabus of Economics history by the time I graduate. So, there is more value in learning the process of learning Economics models- maths is a great tool to be used for analysis. The professors here are teaching exactly that. SMU students get equipped with the skill sets relevant to analyse future Economics models through the lens of Mathematics.

But hey wait... I do not know if I am experiencing self-serving bias as I try to justify the use of learning the quantitative side of Economics. Indeed, sometimes I do feel that I am not really an Economics student as I lack the confidence to tell non-Economics students about all the macroeconomic theories (because I am too specialised into just a few concepts!).

Nevertheless, there is not much point in learning everything anyway. In the future, whatever job I do, except if I become a professor/teacher in Economics, the knowledge learnt will probably not be used. Well, then what is the use of studying? As said by Mankiw, professor of Harvard University, "Your math courses are one long IQ test. We use math courses to figure out who is really smart." So that's the point.

~Study break for finals~

Exams are just around the corner. Atm I am flipping through notes after notes, opening slides after slides and practicing many times past exam papers. I can't really tell if what I am writing is making sense right now because I am quite mentally drained already.

For my fans, I apologise for the shoddy post this time. Will do a better job after my last paper on the 30th!

Let's strive towards achieving the maximum A+ this semester.

I need more time! Or do I?

The past week has been especially grueling. Deadlines for reports, assignments and presentations are getting closer by the day. While barely surviving, I still need to find time to select and bid for the next semester's modules. How I wish I have more time to do things.

However, I do not believe in fretting about what cannot be changed. Let me analyse what can be done with what scarce resource I have. Every person has 24 hours a day to work with. Out of which, the hours are allocated between sleep, work and play. And it is noted that one can't spent more time doing things than the available amount of time.

Time on hand <= Hours spent sleeping + Hours spent working + Hours spent playing

When work is urgent and pressing, play will automatically be sacrificed. All humans are mortals. They can lose some sleep but never not sleep.

Thus, during crunch time,
Time endowment (24hr/day) <= Sleep + Work

It does not make sense to stay idle doing nothing. For a rational person, the above equation holds with equality.

24 Hours = Sleep + Work (a.k.a all the time is spent either sleeping or working)

A survey with friends in similar positions turns out the following result. They sleep between 4 to 6 hours a day. Although they would enjoy sleeping more, they much rather not sleep at all and work through the night to complete the tasks at hand. They can't sleep less because 5 hours (average between 4h and 6h) of sleep seems to be the minimum requirement for human beings. Any less sleep = zombie in the day

24 Hours = 5 Hours + Work. This means time allocated to work is 19 hours a day.

And our physics teachers taught us that Work done = Power * Time.
Here, Work done = Power * 19h. Time is now a constant that cannot be changed.

To increase the amount of work done, to complete all the assignments, homeworks and projects, the only way is to increase the power (or efficiency of working).

Now, how many times in a day do you stare at the computer screen, blanking out and not doing productive work? How much time is spent sipping and taking your own sweet time to finish a cup of coffee while work remains undone in front of you? And how much time, while working, is spent thinking how life would be better if there isn't so much work, if there's more time, if giving up is possible. All these leads to reduction in the efficiency of doing work.

However, not everyone can be a robot and work day in day out non-stop. But just a little more focus during times of low productivity can go a long way.