The masochism is pretty funny. I mean, everyone has thought this to themselves once in a while (oh my god it's finals and i have no idea how to study and why oh why did i come here). But in the end, I love the place anyway, so it must have been a good choice. Some people just don't see the humor, I guess.
And, if she decided against the University of Chicago for undergrad, she could always try to go to Pritzker or Booth (med and business school of the University of Chicago respectively) at the graduate level...
+timeN0 I totally agree with you even from the class of 2000 and speaking today as Dr. Elaine Y Chung, if not Dr. Chung EYnow residing as a senior scientist in Switzerland.
very funny, and a nice representation of the cynic's perspective that you often hear on campus (in some form or another). beyond the humor, just keep in mind the content is not entirely accurate and exaggerates the difference between UChicago and other schools.
@@yikeslikes4457 Depressed and full of anxiety and I just took two quarters off because I withdrew from a sequence course critical to my major that is held only once a year and I've discovered that I hate academia and the humanities as a whole much more than I ever thought I could. I'm great...
supply and demand curves "accurately" describe employment, esp. in a country with a more liberalized market? It's actually at least a bit more complex, if not far more so. Or how about Pareto "efficiency"? WHO is 'qualified' to determine what "efficient" ultimately means or describes, in the end? How do we know that Pareto efficiency even REMOTELY describes reality? Or how about the ol' Edgeworth Box? These things are all pretty goofy, now that I think about it.
It assumes that students are "Too dumb" to REALLY understand or wrap their heads around economics, so we have to DUMB IT DOWN to such a degree that the models HAVE ALMOST NO RELATION TO THE REAL WORLD and make economics sound like an exercise in pointless theorizing, rather than a field that ACTUALLY uses real-world facts to study the markets.
Even the most 'respect' econ journals are FULL of these kinds of articles (the theoretical, non-empirical kind) and oftentimes SHORT on ones with actual empirical evidence and emphasis on data and regression, among other essentials. In a way, this makes me GLAD I DIDN'T major in Econ, but , then again, I would have LOVED to help 'revolutionize' econ as being the FIRST major economist to place TRUE emphasis on empirics, not just theoretical, model-based crap with logic only.
Models CAN serve as a stepping stone, but if they have NO REAL EVIDENCE to back them up... fuck them, in the end. They're more or less pointless. Of course, many professors and economists will rebut what I have said by claiming, "Well, these models are supposed to just help folks UNDERSTAND in a simple manner how it all works." And to an extent, MAYBE that makes sense... But what if the models are TOO SIMPLE to even describe REMOTELY the 'real world'?? What then? How does a set of
What's the matter with that channel? Is it written by a guy that didn't get into any good collegeand now he's just shitting on every program and university?
he did was write books and/or articles. Or how about FA Hayek? Same thing... Even Keynes was like this, to some extent, although he may have done at least 1 or 2 rigorous, fact-based studies. not terribly sure
I love economics, and while I'll admit that U. of Chicago DOES seem to have a 'brilliant' faculty (historically speaking) in that dept... let's face facts. Most of them are neoclassical, libertarian stooges who spew market-fundamentalist nonsense and put individuals and their experiences dead last when it comes to REAL economics study. The type who LOOOVE the "free market" and think it's GOD, essentially. Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, George Stigler, you name it
I mean that's what's known as thee Chicago School of economic thought, but it's not necessarily what they teach students today/what the faculty research
I mean... where ELSE are models prized to such a degree? WHICH social science does this BUT the "dismal science" economics? You know WHY it's called a "dismal science"? BECAUSE SO MANY ECONOMISTS DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT A SCIENCE! To REALLY try to find good, hard empirical tools that HELP determine "proper" study No science is perfect, but even, say, anthropology have a lot of empirical backing because STUDY is key. Models are too often "key" in econ., sadly
Good video; but I got tired of hearing “the University of Chicago repeated over and over again. Its in the title. Replacing it with “here” or “there” would have been better.
"You are blissfully unaware of the extent to which the world can be a horrible place."
Truer words have never been spoken.
This is my favorite thing on UA-cam.
The masochism is pretty funny. I mean, everyone has thought this to themselves once in a while (oh my god it's finals and i have no idea how to study and why oh why did i come here). But in the end, I love the place anyway, so it must have been a good choice. Some people just don't see the humor, I guess.
Chain rule jokes XD
And, if she decided against the University of Chicago for undergrad, she could always try to go to Pritzker or Booth (med and business school of the University of Chicago respectively) at the graduate level...
You really do not want to be a Premed at Uchicago
+timeN0 I totally agree with you even from the class of 2000 and speaking today as Dr. Elaine Y Chung, if not Dr. Chung EYnow residing as a senior scientist in Switzerland.
Why not @timeN0
@timeN0 Where's the best place to be a premed?
Oh this was great! The chain rule segment was also funny. Being in Calc BC currently, the chain rule is agonizing. Twoooo Chainnnnnz
Chain rule is the best
I am seriously crying so hard oh my god. I'm pre med and got in to uchicago and now I'm thinking of not going lol
Why ?
How did it turn out?
There is no econ minor at UChicago....
Some of them may be under 18.
how tf does an AP Calculus class not have the chain rule?
It does
very funny, and a nice representation of the cynic's perspective that you often hear on campus (in some form or another). beyond the humor, just keep in mind the content is not entirely accurate and exaggerates the difference between UChicago and other schools.
I'm going in the fall. Should I be scared shitless?
dude don't be just go and enjoy your self but be profesional when you need to be
+jesus christ :) Thank you Jesus.
Dont be worried if you have been accepted they know that you can do it.
How are you now?
@@yikeslikes4457 Depressed and full of anxiety and I just took two quarters off because I withdrew from a sequence course critical to my major that is held only once a year and I've discovered that I hate academia and the humanities as a whole much more than I ever thought I could.
I'm great...
What the hell am I watching?
^
What type of software makes this video?
lol orgo is not harder than ap5 bio, maybe a lot has changed in 4 and a half years
supply and demand curves "accurately" describe employment, esp. in a country with a more liberalized market? It's actually at least a bit more complex, if not far more so. Or how about Pareto "efficiency"? WHO is 'qualified' to determine what "efficient" ultimately means or describes, in the end? How do we know that Pareto efficiency even REMOTELY describes reality?
Or how about the ol' Edgeworth Box? These things are all pretty goofy, now that I think about it.
...yeah...dammit.
This just made me really sad
is what the boy saying satire or actual things behind the uchicago??
he's trying to make UoC sounds all friendly and happy-go-lucky, don't be fooled
ok, so I'll ask it. Do high schools normally give 4's and 5's as grades in classes?
no 5s and 4s are referring to college board Advanced placement tests that you take at the end of the class.
teddy black
My school doesn't even offer AP or IB's so I'm assuming yours doesn't/didn't either
I miss the days where I thought I was the smartest person
It assumes that students are "Too dumb" to REALLY understand or wrap their heads around economics, so we have to DUMB IT DOWN to such a degree that the models HAVE ALMOST NO RELATION TO THE REAL WORLD and make economics sound like an exercise in pointless theorizing, rather than a field that ACTUALLY uses real-world facts to study the markets.
this is accurate
respected*
Is the UoC extraordinary really tough? I've never heard this.
Hi Justin
Eric Guan how did you know I was looking at UChicago
Even the most 'respect' econ journals are FULL of these kinds of articles (the theoretical, non-empirical kind) and oftentimes SHORT on ones with actual empirical evidence and emphasis on data and regression, among other essentials. In a way, this makes me GLAD I DIDN'T major in Econ, but , then again, I would have LOVED to help 'revolutionize' econ as being the FIRST major economist to place TRUE emphasis on empirics, not just theoretical, model-based crap with logic only.
Models CAN serve as a stepping stone, but if they have NO REAL EVIDENCE to back them up... fuck them, in the end. They're more or less pointless. Of course, many professors and economists will rebut what I have said by claiming, "Well, these models are supposed to just help folks UNDERSTAND in a simple manner how it all works."
And to an extent, MAYBE that makes sense... But what if the models are TOO SIMPLE to even describe REMOTELY the 'real world'?? What then? How does a set of
What's the matter with that channel? Is it written by a guy that didn't get into any good collegeand now he's just shitting on every program and university?
You had me until you referred to it as "UChicago".
These camera angles and jump cuts are annoying
Is it really that bad there....?
he did was write books and/or articles. Or how about FA Hayek? Same thing... Even Keynes was like this, to some extent, although he may have done at least 1 or 2 rigorous, fact-based studies. not terribly sure
I am excited, could have fooled me.
I love economics, and while I'll admit that U. of Chicago DOES seem to have a 'brilliant' faculty (historically speaking) in that dept... let's face facts. Most of them are neoclassical, libertarian stooges who spew market-fundamentalist nonsense and put individuals and their experiences dead last when it comes to REAL economics study. The type who LOOOVE the "free market" and think it's GOD, essentially. Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, George Stigler, you name it
very true. cheerleaders for capitalism essentially
I mean that's what's known as thee Chicago School of economic thought, but it's not necessarily what they teach students today/what the faculty research
Even political science is more 'empirical', in a way, than a lot of what passes for "economics" these days. sadly...
I mean... where ELSE are models prized to such a degree? WHICH social science does this BUT the "dismal science" economics?
You know WHY it's called a "dismal science"? BECAUSE SO MANY ECONOMISTS DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT A SCIENCE! To REALLY try to find good, hard empirical tools that HELP determine "proper" study
No science is perfect, but even, say, anthropology have a lot of empirical backing because STUDY is key. Models are too often "key" in econ., sadly
Good video; but I got tired of hearing “the University of Chicago repeated over and over again.
Its in the title. Replacing it with “here” or “there” would have been better.
half the shit in this video isn't even true
This isn't funny. Also super poorly written.
Your comment wasn't funny and was also written poorly, so I guess you're even.