Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I have an Econ degree but which gave me some analysis and mathematical modeling ability, but over the past 3 decades I have spent my reading time with 100s of Econ books by a variety of authors. I even dug if my Marx/Engles reader.
I'm sure by now it's easy to tell where I come down on the subject.
Economics is a great degree if you can stick to the basics and then make verifiable hypotheses. If you wish to ignore the relationship of supply and demand - you are a failure. If you think that a centrally planned economy will outperform a free market, you are a failure. If you are Paul Krugman with a Nobel Prize who thinks that increasing tax rates and regulations on the private sector will grow the private sector and if you think that subsidizing sloth will decrease sloth, you are a failure. AOC is an economic disaster from confiscatory taxation to the nude green deal and massive amounts of new free sh*t. She was negatively educated at BC.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
They will re-elect her. Those voting for her are clearly wowed by her lack of intelligence.
Maxine Waters is proof you can be a dumbfuck and still be elected to Congress. Maxine holds her seat by feeding her voters just enough hate whitey rhetoric coupled with the soothing balm of "you're a victim" oratory.
Here's an even better example of that. This genius held office from 1993 to 2017 until she was caught doing what democrats do best and jailed.
They will re-elect her. Those voting for her are clearly wowed by her lack of intelligence.
Maxine Waters is proof you can be a dumbfuck and still be elected to Congress. Maxine holds her seat by feeding her voters just enough hate whitey rhetoric coupled with the soothing balm of "you're a victim" oratory.
Here's an even better example of that. This genius held office from 1993 to 2017 until she was caught doing what democrats do best and jailed.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
Just general observations/guidelines, of course ymmv and they're are exceptions to the rule.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q?
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I have an Econ degree but which gave me some analysis and mathematical modeling ability, but over the past 3 decades I have spent my reading time with 100s of Econ books by a variety of authors. I even dug if my Marx/Engles reader.
I'm sure by now it's easy to tell where I come down on the subject.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
Just general observations/guidelines, of course ymmv and they're are exceptions to the rule.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q?
As the Throbber postulates ... sexual favors were probably involved.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
Just general observations/guidelines, of course ymmv and they're are exceptions to the rule.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q?
As the Throbber postulates ... sexual favors were probably involved.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
Is that were they modeled the economic impact of fighting climate change by warming wood chips?
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
Is that were they modeled the economic impact of fighting climate change by warming wood chips?
Could be. Never said those places don't churn out SJWs. They do. But it's not an easy place to get an undergraduate education. Maybe that makes how they turn out worse, but most of them grow up right around the time they see the chunk that comes out of their paycheck to pay for other people's shit. The ones who don't cross over go into academia.
Yeah, in the beginning, I made this assumption that, despite her bullshit and naive political views, anyone who could get an econ degree from a reputable university and (allegedly) graduate with any kind of distinction couldn't be technically stupid.
I've since reconsidered my position.
Here's the thing, there are a TON of questionable "economic" degrees out there and this is problem #1 why the subject isn't taken very seriously. There's also lots of games with wording "political economics" "philosophy and economics" "arts of economics" etc.
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I agree with 97.5% of that.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
Is that were they modeled the economic impact of fighting climate change by warming wood chips?
Could be. Never said those places don't churn out SJWs. They do. But it's not an easy place to get an undergraduate education. Maybe that makes how they turn out worse, but most of them grow up right around the time they see the chunk that comes out of their paycheck to pay for other people's shit. The ones who don't cross over go into academia.
Comments
Then there's the wholesale politicisian of and movement Left of academics where asinine and obsolete philosophy's are given just as much or more platforms as "legit" science. The fact that you can go get a marxist econ degree is fucking laughable and only possible bc of non econ admins making it so.
#1 question I'm looking at, is it a science or art degree? If it's the latter it's slightly better than a business degree at best and could be worse depending on the competitiveness of the program.
#2 is it anything other than a "bachelor/masters/phd of science in economics" or some other marketing name splashing economics to sound better? I'm looking at Robert Reich who likes to call himself an economist despite only having a master's in philosophy/politics/economics from oxford where he read 2 books on Keynes and 20 by Marx and nothing from Hayek.
#3 what program is it and where is it? Is it a science school? Do they engage in serious economic research or just have a teaching program etc. Plenty of people who couldn't hack it in real economics that then go become professors at liberal arts colleges because they say things "right" politically.
I digress, plenty of retards can sleep, cheat, or fuck their way through a program even if it is a good program and that goes for lots of subjects.
Tldr black eye for economists imo.
I'm sure by now it's easy to tell where I come down on the subject.
I think the "Bachelor of Arts" and "Bachelor of Science" distinction is oversimplification, as is the comment about LACs (which usually grant the BA, not the BS). It really depends on which one. I have a kid who's going into a PhD program in Maff who did her macro and micro intro econ classes at her LAC and reported that it was pretty challenging. Of course none of the maff they were ever going to throw at her in econ would make her flinch because she's the kind of person seeking a PhD in math. That said, she was physics major, which is ostensibly hard, and with that as more background than you need, when that kid says a class is hard you can take that to the bank. While I can't know how she'll fare out in the real world, she's always been very good at school. Add to that that a disproportionate number of PhDs come from LAC undergrad backgrounds, one reason for which I suspect is that in the LAC environment, you have to write, which is a good means of testing if people really know what they're doing.
All that to say, a kid getting an undergrad degree in Econ at Middlebury or Williams or that kind of place has been through a tough program and is well prepared to do more econ.
And 100% if you can maff then you are better off than not. Anyone here think AOC passed diffy q?