How much do entry-level economists actually know?

I mean, I have no idea who actually qualifies as an intellectual just because they finished some degree 😂 I always figured intellectuals were actual scientists, highly developed academics, and stuff like that 🤷

You don't need a college degree to master Excel; you just need a little bit of effort, I guess. And if economists don't know what they're doing, well, maybe they don't. But then again, does anyone really know anything when they first start out in a profession? 🤷 😁 It’s common knowledge that school is mostly just theory. Then there's actual on-the-job practice. I wonder what would happen if someone did a study on "how much young doctors actually know." Like, what percentage of them could actually provide quality first aid on their own right after graduation? 😉

hiddenhawk3 said:I mean, I have no idea who actually qualifies as an intellectual just because they finished some degree 😂 I always figured intellectuals were actual scientists, highly developed academics, and stuff like that 🤷

You don't need a college degree to master Excel; you just need a little bit of effort, I guess. And if economists don't know what they're doing, well, maybe they don't. But then again, does anyone really know anything when they first start out in a profession? 🤷 😁 It’s common knowledge that school is mostly just theory. Then there's actual on-the-job practice. I wonder what would happen if someone did a study on "how much young doctors actually know." Like, what percentage of them could actually provide quality first aid on their own right after graduation? 😉

Practical experience is certainly paramount, though I suppose if someone is fundamentally ignorant, even hands-on training won't save them... because, at the end of the day, you're either interested or you aren't. It isn't as if a person spends four years in a vacuum at university and then suddenly decides to start absorbing the world once they step outside.
It isn't even really an issue with newly minted graduates in the Economy sector; the real problem is that we are becoming too much like typical Americans... because if an economist doesn't feel the need to know the name of the Secretary of State, then the voter certainly should... and we've all been voters since we turned eighteen.

The whole debate about "how much young people actually know regarding [insert profession here]" is a massive topic. Honestly, people have been bruising their egos over this exact question both here in the States and overseas.
If there were a simple answer, the entire education system—from elementary school through university—would be perfectly tailored to fit our needs in a heartbeat. 😉
But since life isn't that easy, I'll just lay out my own take based on what I've seen on the ground.
I work in electrical engineering and electronics (so, a classic, strictly defined technical field). I’m involved in pretty much every phase of a project—not to bore you with details, the specific nature of the project doesn't really change the core issue—and I work as part of a larger team.

After about ten years in this line of work, I've learned that you get the best collaboration and coordination—which leads to the best results—when you're working with people who aren't hyper-fixated on just their narrow slice of the pie. To borrow an old phrase, they aren't just "specialized idiots." 😉
People who have a broader perspective on the world, a decent amount of general culture, and some interests outside of their job tend to be way more resilient. They can handle the unexpected twists and turns that happen during a project. They don't just "freeze up" when things go sideways. They're willing to adopt problem-solving methods that weren't explicitly taught in a textbook... basically, they adapt. They realize there’s a whole world existing outside of their specific niche, if you want me to exaggerate a bit. 😉

On the flip side, you have those folks who are exclusively focused on their specific specialty. They do their jobs flawlessly—no complaints there—but working with them is strictly a "task-deadline" kind of deal. You have to direct them according to their specific skill sets because that's how they perform best, but you definitely shouldn't let them wander too far off course. 😁
Just kidding!

In all seriousness, you need both types. You need the specialists and the "jack-of-all-trades," as I'd put it.
Regardless, people who simply lack any real interest in the field—like Jacob Wood9 mentioned—won't find any help from school or hands-on experience. They're essentially "functionally illiterate" in their profession. They aren't 100% invested in it, and they don't really vibe with the "generalist" approach either. 😉
I believe that no matter how deep someone specializes, whether they're experts, technicians, or academics, they need a solid foundation of general knowledge. Not necessarily "encyclopedic" levels, but enough so you understand the concepts and know exactly where to look for deeper data or who to ask when you're stuck. 😉

I haven't caught up on the previous posts yet, but as someone who just wrapped up my degree in Economics, I feel compelled to weigh in.
The results from this testing have absolutely nothing to do with common sense.
The reality is that no matter which university you graduate from, you start out as a total blank slate. Higher education is one thing, but the actual job market is an entirely different beast.
Whether you are studying Economics, Medicine, or any other field, you are essentially just absorbing theory; what we are desperately lacking is hands-on practice. It stands to reason that you won't actually know how to perform the job once you are hired. A college diploma is merely a passport that grants you entry into the workforce; you don't truly learn the craft until you are actually on the clock.
For instance, everyone understands the concept of an exchange rate—that it’s determined by the supply and demand of a specific currency—but it wasn't until I completed an internship at a major bank that I truly grasped the mechanics of how those rates are actually calculated. Before that, it was just a textbook sentence about supply and demand.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:You know, I had two Deans from the MIT Business School teaching me social sciences during my junior year, and one of them is actually the current Dean. Honestly? I wouldn't trust them to watch a single sheep in a pasture. 😁No results coming out of there could ever surprise me.

I'm guessing you mean Tipurić and Lovrinović's,
well, look—I sat through their lectures and passed their exams, both of them. You can call them spineless (which I'd agree with regarding one of them) or say they don't know what they're talking about or aren't experts in their fields, but sorry—you just can't. You were right there in the room for their lectures, saw the roles they held, their bank accounts, their published papers... you know the deal.

Jacob Wood9 said:In my view, we are actually poorly educated on a broad scale, given that there are hundreds of thousands of people who haven't even finished middle school, and for a significant portion of those with college degrees—as this "unfortunate" study seems to suggest—one might feel the exact same way.

Furthermore, I don't quite agree with the notion that parents are to blame for the shortage of elite specialists. Most high-level experts tend to acquire that drive and passion for excellence during their university years, primarily because they find genuine role models among the scientists they interact with.

Unfortunately, here, certain professors (and there are quite a few) are nothing more than grumpy bureaucrats who use their positions not to advance science, but to line their own pockets—whether it's through small bribes, extra fees, royalties, or similar little side hustles. Their textbooks are often just mere compilations or translations, and then they go a step further by demanding that students purchase these books as a prerequisite just to get a signature or to sit for an exam.

Parents dropping $400 on some brand new DVD full of games and cartoons—absolute madness.$167They just let kids rot in front of computers all day—surfing the web and playing games—while pushing them into soccer, tennis, or whatever other fancy sports you can think of. Not once do they try to get them to pick up a book, watch a decent documentary, or even grab a modern encyclopedia or a Guinness World Records book. Please... give me a break. And then people act like it’s not their fault, blaming the education system instead (and yeah, I’m not saying our schools are perfect, but still).

Robin Rodriguez5 said:You know, I had two Deans from the MIT Business School teaching me social sciences during my junior year, and one of them is actually the current Dean. Honestly? I wouldn't trust them to watch a single sheep in a pasture. 😁No results coming out of there could ever surprise me.

I’m with you on Tipurić, but I actually had pretty good experiences with Lovrinović. That first guy is a fund manager, does international summer schools and all that—it's a whole debate. He's trying to turn the business school into an MIT-style powerhouse, but he's just not quite pulling it off.

I dropped out of college right when I was supposed to be hitting the books, then went back years later to finish what I started. Now I’m finally at the end. After an 18-year gap, it’s the exact same scene and the same headaches. Unbelievable. My biggest gripe is the sheer volume of coursework—I'm stuck with 10 to 13 classes a year. And of course, every single professor acts like their specific course is the center of the universe. There's zero room for actual deep learning. It’s just cramming everything into your head using condensed study guides so you can pass and move on. Who actually has the bandwidth to detaljno master the material for 13 different classes prostudirati in a single year? You barely have time to memorize the basics, let alone read supplemental literature and actually learn something.

True enough. They just bury people under a mountain of material, when maybe only 20% of it will actually be useful in a real-world setting.

And don't even get me started on the general cultural literacy of the nation. You could talk about it for hours. Ask any twenty-something who was Raskolnikov's "friend" (from Crime and Punishment) or what the deal is with "One Hundred Years of Solitude"... you'll just get a blank stare.

Instead, they seem to know everything there is to know about Simone, Ante Gotovac, and those types of outliers.

Honestly? I think the blame lies more with how kids are raised at home than with any university curriculum or the mindless media cycle.

sorry man, but even as a twenty-something I feel personally attacked here—I’ve actually read Dostoevsky and One Hundred Years of Solitude, and honestly? I barely know anyone who *hasn't* read stuff like that.

sorry, but don't generalize based on what those academics did with their so-called "research."

Jeffrey Johnson2 said:sorry man, but even as a twenty-something I feel personally attacked here—I’ve actually read Dostoevsky and One Hundred Years of Solitude, and honestly? I barely know anyone who *hasn't* read stuff like that.

sorry, but don't generalize based on what those academics did with their so-called "research."

Don't get upset; I misspoke. Of course, I'm not talking about everyone. And naturally, you probably run in circles with people who are well-read or intellectuals—birds of a feather, right? But there are significantly more of them now compared to an older generation (like my mother's) who wouldn't have a clue.

There's a global trend where, thanks to these modern distractions like the internet and whatnot (even I find myself reading far fewer books lately, partly due to work and partly because of the web), people are reading less and less... and their general cultural knowledge is dwindling accordingly.

That kind of trend has been happening in the US for a long time, and it's finally starting to show up here too.

George Wilson4 said:True enough. They just bury people under a mountain of material, when maybe only 20% of it will actually be useful in a real-world setting.

And don't even get me started on the general cultural literacy of the nation. You could talk about it for hours. Ask any twenty-something who was Raskolnikov's "friend" (from Crime and Punishment) or what the deal is with "One Hundred Years of Solitude"... you'll just get a blank stare.

Instead, they seem to know everything there is to know about Simone, Ante Gotovac, and those types of outliers.

Honestly? I think the blame lies more with how kids are raised at home than with any university curriculum or the mindless media cycle.

I'm a bit older, so I'm looking at this with a different perspective.😁

The only way Dostoevsky has ever been useful to me is as a lullaby at night. Read two lines a day and you can sleep soundly for the rest of your life.😬

I’d argue that information is more accessible today than at any other point in history, which means young people generally have access to more knowledge than previous generations (and I’m not suggesting everyone is suddenly a genius, just that the average person is arguably less clueless than they used to be😁). However, you aren't going to see those results if you try to measure them using criteria from fifty years ago, demanding they recite characters from The Glempays or The Brothers Karamazov—honestly, that kind of stuff just doesn't resonate with today's generation.
Let's face it, nowadays knowing the history of the Klingons carries more weight than knowing about the Spartans (unless we're talking about some cinematic version🤣).

With the sheer volume of today's music, film, video games, and so on, who else would actually bother wrestling with the moral dilemmas found in Anna Karenina besides perhaps a few literature students? Yet, we expect kids raised on South Park and Gotham City to ace some outdated intelligence exam.

Of course, the fact that there are students in the Economy department who don't know who Sarkozy is is an entirely different matter. There have always been people like that, and it has nothing to do with the internet or TV supposedly making the youth more mindless.

Jason Jones2 said:I'm a bit older, so I'm looking at this with a different perspective.😁

The only way Dostoevsky has ever been useful to me is as a lullaby at night. Read two lines a day and you can sleep soundly for the rest of your life.😬

Look, I'm not interested in debating the merits or the depth of specific literary works. Tastes are subjective; there's no point arguing about them. I just mentioned Dostoevsky because he was the first name that came to mind—general culture, high school reading lists, that sort of thing. Personally, I love Crime and Punishment, while The Idiot and The Brothers Karamazov just didn't do anything for me, but who cares? He was simply the easiest example to grab.

The fact that students don't know who Sarkozy is doesn't surprise me one bit. I’ve never had much interest in politics myself. It would be a far greater tragedy if they didn't know who Edison, Tesla, or Roosevelt were. Forget some politician like Sarkozy.

Most people spend their downtime catching up on movies or video games (😍), while a smaller group prefers reading—whether it’s heavy literature or a classic Western.
In either case, this "general" knowledge won't do much for you in the daily grind of the American economy, unless you're planning to interview for a billionaire's staff or something similar.

Aside from showing off at a local pub to prove you're smart, I don't see any practical reason to maintain a wide range of general culture in a business context (unless you work in tourism, though even those folks often lack basic substance 😁).

The fact that the US had two presidents named Roosevelt (one Republican, one Democrat) won't help me negotiate better discounts with foreign suppliers through some fancy conversational skills. It's useless in my professional life. The only exception is if I apply to work for a billionaire and get asked about it during the first round of interviews. 😬

That’s not really the point, though. There isn't some profound, inherent link between a liberal arts education and capitalism. It’s all about personal growth—developing the individual, blah, blah, blah—but when it comes to actual business, it's largely irrelevant in most scenarios. Even in the tourism industry. In that field, it’s more about knowing basic geography so you can say, "Oh, I visited Washington, D.C. last year, I absolutely loved it."

It’s also just awkward when someone lacks basic knowledge. I remember feeling incredibly embarrassed once because I was hanging out with a group of people who were discussing history as if they were still stuck in high school—and these were older people—while I realized I had forgotten almost everything myself...

I honestly don't get you people. 😁

I'm halfway through my PhD in Economics, and during breaks from reading textbooks on dynamic optimization, I play Jedi Academy. What's the big deal? The games aren't even that bad—it's just how I blow off steam. 😛

I’m finally wrapping up my degree in Economics, and honestly, I’m just stunned by how much lack of culture and general ignorance there is—especially when it comes to stuff that seems totally basic to me—among my classmates. I still remember this girl back in freshman year asking why a Woman from Indianapolis like me wasn't studying in Indianapolis since it was closer to home 😲 😬 , not to mention the time some poor guy tried to explain to me where Des Moines actually is 😂
. Now, I don't want to sound like a total snob defending my own turf, but I’ve seen the same vibe with people in nursing, pre-med, and all those other majors too. But look, it’s not even the university's fault—colleges aren't really meant to teach you how to be a functioning human being, they're there to train you for your career (though looking at the recent professional exam results, it seems they haven't quite nailed that either), they're supposed to build on what we learned in grade school. It’s an education system issue, period. And as long as our Secretary of Education is busy traveling the country for tourism openings instead of actually designing a decent curriculum, nothing is going to change. We all love to make fun of Americans who can't even tie their shoes without an algorithm, but unfortunately, we're slowly heading in that exact direction 🤷 Strava.

George Wilson4 said:Don't get upset; I misspoke. Of course, I'm not talking about everyone. And naturally, you probably run in circles with people who are well-read or intellectuals—birds of a feather, right? But there are significantly more of them now compared to an older generation (like my mother's) who wouldn't have a clue.

There's a global trend where, thanks to these modern distractions like the internet and whatnot (even I find myself reading far fewer books lately, partly due to work and partly because of the web), people are reading less and less... and their general cultural knowledge is dwindling accordingly.

That kind of trend has been happening in the US for a long time, and it's finally starting to show up here too.

Look, I'm reading less too since I started pulling 10-hour shifts, but honestly? I don't even have time for the gym five times a week, dance twice a week, hitting the theater a few times a month, going out three times a week, or classes... plus all the other stuff I managed when I was a student. It's not about the internet or whatever—it's just called growing up. Period.

I've got nothing against the internet—actually, for people who actually have focus and good interests, it makes finding info easier and opens up a massive amount of education.

As for the kids—I've already been flamed for saying it, but it's on the parents. They won't drop cash on a new $167 game, but they'll pay for a book from $40. Their priorities shifted. Instead of holding onto those "good old ways" and pushing kids toward something more constructive than gaming or wasting time on forums, Facebook, or Skype, they should be guiding them toward things that actually matter—even if the kids think they're boring or don't know they exist yet. That's where the responsibility lies.

I don't mind forums, but these kids just argue with emojis. Some forums have more smiley faces than actual letters. This place is a bit more serious, though—mostly an older crowd, which keeps the subforums a bit more grounded.

Same goes for Facebook. I have some younger friends on there, and man, there's a new status every 15 minutes, hundreds of photos uploaded, everyone commenting on every single dot and comma... and at the end of the day, it's just a massive waste of time.

Aaron Cruz said:I’d argue that information is more accessible today than at any other point in history, which means young people generally have access to more knowledge than previous generations (and I’m not suggesting everyone is suddenly a genius, just that the average person is arguably less clueless than they used to be😁). However, you aren't going to see those results if you try to measure them using criteria from fifty years ago, demanding they recite characters from The Glempays or The Brothers Karamazov—honestly, that kind of stuff just doesn't resonate with today's generation.
Let's face it, nowadays knowing the history of the Klingons carries more weight than knowing about the Spartans (unless we're talking about some cinematic version🤣).

With the sheer volume of today's music, film, video games, and so on, who else would actually bother wrestling with the moral dilemmas found in Anna Karenina besides perhaps a few literature students? Yet, we expect kids raised on South Park and Gotham City to ace some outdated intelligence exam.

Of course, the fact that there are students in the Economy department who don't know who Sarkozy is is an entirely different matter. There have always been people like that, and it has nothing to do with the internet or TV supposedly making the youth more mindless.

I can laughingly agree😍—this is probably my 10th post here, but man, I still can't quite put what I want to say into words properly--👍👍👍