2019 was when I found out why I’m doing what I’m doing. But on a more micro scale, it was also all about economics.
The year started with me wanting to do more economics. Around March, I started thinking about going into economics graduate school. Around June I declared a new minor to make the most of my undergrad degree. In July I had a break, a trip home, a trip away, and a course. In September I came back to school and did more economics. Right about now, I’m sending out applications to do more economics. I have not lost sight of my long term goal, but slowly, economics has become not a disruption nor just a natural thing to proceed to after undergrad, but a necessary piece in the overall plan.
I haven’t updated my blog since. But, I can assure you, that in the last quarter I have written more than the last 2 years combined. It wasn’t just proposals and papers, not just pages and pages of statements that I want people to know and to please listen. It was also words scribbled in haste and pictures smudged with mushy vehemence. Sometimes I sit and let the pages roll, as if iterating them will make them better. As if it will make me better.
You might have seen this coming…yes, I have been writing personal statements for graduate schools (at least for those that asked for one.) I’m tormented by the personal reflection that comes with it, which I believe is not uncommon among applicants.
The truth is, the more that I try to convince readers that I suit the field, the more I doubt that I do. Every time I identify an area of strength, an imaginary foe materializes to nag into my head, telling me it means nothing. The army of foes are constantly at the back of my mind, reminding that I cannot, should not, and will not.
Because I’m not a pleasant person, below are my replies. Many of those conversations are imagined.
Foe: “You got a B+ in this course. What convinces me that you won’t fail in higher level studies?”
Me: “Show me your undergraduate transcript, and I suspect I can find a point to say the same thing to you. The endogenous factors in an undergraduate academic assessment easily crowd out the exogenous ones—now, who is drawing predictive power from this indicator? “
Foe: “Your Mathematics courses are B+ and A- on average. How dare you pursue economics? “
Me: “Last time I checked, economics is not yet mathematics. If you need mathematics to prove everything, then why did Ronald Coarse surge to prominence? Why were his number-less predictions not some drunken tribute, but celebrated theories that we came to learn?”
Foe: “But if you cannot get high grades in math, surely this signals that your IQ is lacking?”
Me: “Math grades at the undergraduate levels can often be practiced. For the majority, getting high grades requires time for practice, not IQ. Heck, my Calculus 3 professor gives exams containing 70% multiple choice, so that anyone can pass by randomly guessing than by studying and making computation error. How does this reflect IQ?”
Foe: “Still. If you cannot even train to get the accuracy that mathematics demands, how could you excel in research?”
Me: “When was the last time you had to get something right in one time in research? “
Foe: “I work harder than you, of course I deserve this more than you.”
Me: “Firstly, you do not know if I worked hard. Secondly, nothing is ‘deserved.’ Everything is earned. “
Foe: “You said you love business. You should go into business. “
Me: “ECON ALL DAY EVERYDAY”
Foe: “Why didn’t you go into finance? You seem to do better at it. “
Me: “ECON ALL DAY EVERYDAY”
Foe: “Why did you dip your toes into so many things? Your limited intellect would have carried you OK in economics to at least this point, but you spread it too thin.”
Me: “Because I can, and because they are fun and they teach me things. Dare you say John Von Neumann’s work in quantum mechanics and economics never helped him with operations research? That he should not ever have ventured into computer science because he needs to focus in game theory? Everybody’s intellect is limited in a sense, some experiences have multiplicative impacts on what you already have. “
Foe: “I doubt you’d have meaningful contribution to the field.”
Me: “I quote Nigel Farage’s tribute to Herman Van Rompuy ‘I don’t want to be rude, but you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. May I ask, who are you?’ How many graduates of my kind have you seen? Have you observed their respective paths? Who are you to judge?”
Foe: “Kindly put off your efforts to get into the very best schools because neither your background nor intellect qualifies it. “
Me: “Is that why Dave Cutler went to Olivet College?”
Foe: “Pfft. Winning a student union election. Did you see? The current U.S. president is a testament to the average quality of politicians. “ Me: “Too bad you wouldn’t understand the grit, creativity, wit, communication skills, and strategizing skills required for winning an election, because you couldn’t even if you tried. “
Foe: “Can you not joke? You are not even funny. “ Me: “I regret to not match your personal, wholehearted, and everyday embodiment of comedy.”
(2019 is also #theyearofthewomanyellingatthecat)
I typed these out to convince myself. Feel free to add to or counteract my reasoning.
Written by Natasha. Last edited:2019-12-31 13:56:29