Olivier_N

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Olivier_N


  1. Not tutoring one on one, but grading papers for courses I was still taking in high school and which I hadn't taken yet in college, and teaching in graduate school which included one on one interaction in scheduled office hours. You get a lot out of reviewing material you are already familiar with as you go over the logical connections in a systematic way, reviving things you have forgotten or glossed over, coming up with explanations and insights for those with a different context of knowledge or difficulties, and seeing the success of getting people to understand as light bulbs go on.

    Thanks for your response. Yeah, one of the reasons I think it will be good is I will be able to review core concepts.

    Also, I'm sure I'll get some satisfaction from helping people learn.


  2. Have any of you ever been hired by your respective universities to tutor your peers? If so, could you tell me what it was like? What did you enjoy, what did you dislike, and what (if anything) was challenging about it?

    I interviewed for a position to tutor either accounting or economics, and I'm pretty sure they will hire me because I was recommended by two professors, and I got really good grades in both courses.

    I am just curious to hear others' experiences with this kind of work.

    Thanks in advance.


  3. Wow! That's impressive! How did you manage all those things at once?

    Have you found a cure for sleep? :D

    I slept an average of three hours a night and took naps between classes. I also made deals with professors who taught straight from the textbook that I would skip classes and just show up for the midterm and final.

    That's a good idea. Talking to the professors. I wish I could manage three hours of sleep a night, but i'd completely lose my marbles.

    I'm looking at how to manage law school and a full time job, not wanting to compromise any of them. The biggest problem is the lectures and seminars where you have to attend. The school board tells me you can't skip that, but the professors may be easier to negotiate with.

    Speaking of wich, perhaps I can offer a little advice or reassurance to Olivier. If you can manage the practical details like attending enough classes, then it's a matter of "just do it". Being two places at once is impossible, but making time to study is not.

    I've been studying and working full time, with lots of overtime, for the last 6 months. Because I don't have to attend any classes it's actually quite easy. Of course there has been a few all nighters and times where i've had to lug books around everywhere I go, so I have enough time to read, but most of the time it's not a problem at all.

    The most important thing is being able to manage your time. For example when you work during the day and study on weekends and evenings, that's easy. It's a lot harder if you need to attend two classes at once. Find a way around that problem, if you can, and go for it! :)

    Thanks for all of your responses. I am gaining confidence as time goes on, particularly because I know I am passionate about both subjects.

    And I like the "just do it" mentality. That's my main motto with regard to school work.

    So long as I avoid distractions (which I am getting much better at), I should be fine.


  4. The area of economics/finance in which I am most ignorant is foreign exchange. I got a copy of an economics book from the college where I teach part time, figuring I'd get the basics before attempting a book devoted only to that topic. The book Is Gwartney & Stroop, widely used. The first thing that catches my minds eye is an entire chapter devoted to Keynes, fawning over his brilliance. Knowing so little that I wouldn't recognize any Keynesian influence on their foreign exchange analyis, I decided to enter a plea here for some good referneces on the subject. THX!

    Do you want to know about Keynesianism in general, or as it relates to something specific?


  5. Toohey provided value to someone in his writing. The fact that he caused "destruction" does not take away the value some socialist sitting on their porch received when reading his writings.

    His writings may have been subjectively valuable to the socialist, but they were not objectively valuable for anyone's life qua rational being. Economic production should refer to the creation of objective values that promote man's life; if you call the satisfaction of any old irrational whim production, then pretty much anyone acting on his whims is being productive.

    It is still value. The standard may not be life or wellbeing, but it is value nonetheless.

    All consumed goods result from the creation of value, which is economically productive. I am not sure where some of you all get your definitions of value from.


  6. The fact that they make money without the use of force is proof of their economic production.

    Ellsworth Toohey made money without the use of force but he was, in fact, destructive. I would amend your statement like this: The fact that they make money from rational customers without the use of force is proof of their economic production.

    If they weren't providing value, they would receive none in return.

    Toohey provided value to someone in his writing. The fact that he caused "destruction" does not take away the value some socialist sitting on their porch received when reading his writings.

    So it doesn't matter if you see the valuation of athletes as rational, the fact that others clearly value them suggests they are productive.

    The thread title is redundant, and answers its own question. The fact that someone is a "professional" means their work is productive so long as their revenue is $0.01.


  7. Any "program" that appeals to a higher power than one's own good sense is bogus.

    Bob Kolker

    I explained this in the above post. Because it is "of your own conception" it's really your own standards and values.

    In this sense it would make a person who previously did not live according to their values make a decision to strive to do so.

    Getting sober and working an AA program is the best, most rational thing I've done in my life.


  8. I have been a sober for a little over a year, largely as a result of working an AA program.

    You all should consider the fact that addicts and alcoholics who are dieing from drug/alcohol addiction are less concerned with dissecting the intricacies of a plausible solution to the problem as they are giving it a shot, and hopefully restoring themselves to health.

    Here's why I think it works for myself and many others: (whether there is a God or not, which I personally think there is)

    By "creating one's own conception of God", what you essentially do is define your values. By giving your life and will to that "God", you are deciding to live according to your values, which to me is rational.

    As Ayn Rand says (paraphrase)

    "Happiness results from the achievement of one's values."

    Not to mention taking suggestions from those who have been able to do something that I have not is rational.

    I don't agree with everything in the Big Book of AA, though. Particularly on relying less on my thinking. I do my best to expand upon it today, and I am doing well.


  9. Unions deserve some credit but when they legally force the wage rates above market value, they are excluding other non-union, productive people from contracting with employers to work at lower wages. So the apparent help they give to some comes at the expense of others.

    What specifically do you give them credit for? Economically speaking, I don't see that they increase the net productivity, even apart from the legal powers they unjustly acquire.

    They don't create productivity. They use coercion to achieve means that (usually) could be achieved rationally.


  10. I'd let it go. He's in first grade and is becoming intelligent enough to be aware that there are world events outside of his control.

    He's not even old enough to be successfully indoctrinated by modern-liberal teachers. I wouldn't stress out over it.


  11. It is common to hear from the left that we have unions to thank for ending child labor, improving working conditions, shortening the work week, etc. I realize that none of these things are possible without first having productivity. The harsh lifestyle man once had to endure was ended by the production of capitalism, not unions. But it is also common to hear people reply that unions were once of value but have since served their purpose and aren't needed anymore.

    Is this true? Did unions once serve a valuable purpose in improving people's quality of life?

    Here's a plausible answer the union advocate might make. As capitalism was starting to have a significant economic impact, the result in the beginning was a relatively small number of rich people with many people still living with little wealth. In a free market, there will be competition between the capitalists for the good labor, and there will be a resulting net rise in wages. But there will be some lag time between the wealth production and the rise of average wages. It's during this relatively short period that unions step in, demand more, and the result is a net rise in wages. The unions then take the credit for rise in standard of living (similarly to how they and/or the government take credit for ending child labor).

    But is this true? I don't know enough about the history to know if this is how it played out.

    I can also imagine that it was the case that the competition among individuals alone (following increased productivity of course) was enough to result in the rise of wages and quality of working conditions.

    So how much credit, if any, do unions deserve historically?

    Not much. If individuals acted more selfishly and objectively, e.g. walking out of their workplace with dangerous conditions, then the labor supply would be effected, and wages would increase as a result.

    The fact of the matter is that people generally act and choose relative to the choices of others. Hence, unions come about, and people are willing to make more rational choices because others are doing so.

    That's just my $0.02.


  12. Thanks for your input. The reason I added an Econ major (aside from my passion for the subject) is that I am required to take 150 credits to take the CPA exam anyway, so I may as well get two degrees while I am at it. Otherwise, I would have an accounting degree and take a lot of classes that I really don't need.

    If you are taking economics courses required for your accounting degree then you need them whether or not you get an economics degree. But beyond the requirements, don't dismiss any course you take in which you learn about a subject of interest to you as something you "don't need". You are there for what you can learn; a degree only serves as an official confirmation that you did the minimum required for some particular realm.

    Oh I absolutely agree. I apologize if I gave the impression that I do not value learning. I LOVE economics.

    My only true concern is overloading my course responsibilities. To sum it up, I have a fear of failure (which is rational, I suppose).

    I appreciate the response.


  13. The only issue is how many different courses are required for each major and whether you can fit them into a workable course load. Talk with your college advisors and see what you can work out.

    Also, look at the reasons why you want a double major. There is always the possibility of majoring in Accounting to get your CPA, taking as many econ classes as you can as electives, and continuing to study econ after graduation either in an MBA program or on your own.

    I was a Philosophy major at the University of Pennsylvania with a Finance and Accounting minor in the Wharton School and there were NO courses I could apply to both as there might be with accounting and economics. Still I was able to complete everything in 3 years (including summer school) while working two concurrent part-time jobs. With some background in accounting, I was able to learn a lot more on the job after graduation.

    Thanks for your input. The reason I added an Econ major (aside from my passion for the subject) is that I am required to take 150 credits to take the CPA exam anyway, so I may as well get two degrees while I am at it. Otherwise, I would have an accounting degree and take a lot of classes that I really don't need.


  14. I was originally an accounting major. Then I was an accounting major with a minor in economics. Now I am an accounting/economics double major. I am passionate about both subjects, and have done very well class-wise thus far. I am, however, somewhat intimidated by the double major. I have no problem putting the time and effort forth to complete it, but it still seems like a serious endeavor.

    Does anyone have general feedback to give related to these two majors, double majoring, etc? I'd love to hear it.

    Also, I plan on completing the 150 necessary hours and passing the CPA exam.