Economics students are the most promiscuous

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Were you a Keynsian back then Gen?

"Come back to my dorm and I'll show you my stimulus package?"

As a good Libertarian I used to explain that we should be free from external constraints such as externally imposed morality or what the boyfriend might think.

I was also keenly aware the need for utility to be maximized and that was best discussed in the bedroom.

worldtraveller

vivatifosi wrote: »

"Come back to my dorm and I'll show you my stimulus package?"

Or "Come back to my dorm and we'll experiment with the difference between vertical & horizontal integration".

lostinrates

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

That's incest.

A certainity among some of of the students there. Or their parents at least.

hjd

Well, I studied economics, and my son is currently studying economics.
Obviously it's all lies. I'm not going to ask my son though, but I would hope that his tally was a whole number rather than something.88 ..

kabayiri

As long as economic students stick to scr*wing each other I don't mind.

It's when they stray into scr*wing the economy with new fangled money schemes I worry.

Loughton_Monkey

I am absolutely and utterly appalled by this. I really am. In fact I found it very hard to believe.

Only 4.88 partners? What the hell are they playing at?

Those of us at university in 1968/72 now have proof that the younger generations are a pathetic bunch of whimps and that educational standards (in terms of the social aspects) have declined seriously. Something must be done. I shall write to my MP.

I've always known the younger generation were f*ckless.

Now it turns out that they're f*ckless as well!

the_flying_pig

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I am absolutely and utterly appalled by this. I really am. In fact I found it very hard to believe.

Only 4.88 partners? What the hell are they playing at?
...

Well, I'm not sure when the survey was taken. If, say, it was at the very end of the 2011/12 academic year then I suppose that about one third of respondents would be first years, i.e. would only have been at university for about 9 months.

More generally I find the numbers very, very difficult to interpret.

What does having fewer, or more, partners actually mean? Does it mostly reflect the amount of time spent in or out of a settled relationship, or does it have more to do with how much 'action' those people who are out of a relationship get?

What I'd say about economics degrees is that they;re characterised by:

(1) very few taught/lecture hours [tho this is true of almost all pure book-type rather than lab-type subjects];

(2) people who tend to have more of an eye on becoming an accountant or something when they graduate rather than doing a degree out of intellectual curiosity etc;

(3) perhaps partly a consequence of (2), a high proportion of male, rather than female students...


Sadly I didn't manage to hit even these fairly modest averages back when I was studying economics. There were a number of reasons for this.

It hardly needs pointing out that only a tiny minority of the tens of thousands of economics students who enroll every year go on to become something that could be even loosely termed a 'professional economist'. most go into general graduate training schemes or accountancy or summat.

Loughton_Monkey

They say the first ever Economist was Christopher Columbus.

He didn't know where he was going. When he got there, he didn't know where he was. And all of this on a Government Grant.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

I suspect they have answered the question thus, "if we assume that I got laid 4 times last night.....".

Actually I was shocking when I was a student of Economics. Although as I keep saying, the plural of annecdote isn't data.

Could there be in inverse correlation with the amonut of time spent studying as evidenced by the lack of success of economic policy compared to the great strides made in other fields.

May be my contemporaneous total of one (which I am also proud of) helps to balance the statistics?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Could there be in inverse correlation with the amonut of time spent studying as evidenced by the lack of success of economic policy compared to the great strides made in other fields.

May be my contemporaneous total of one (which I am also proud of) helps to balance the statistics?

Quite possibly.

Maybe if I had spent more time on my studies and less time in my amateur interests of anatomy and its practical impact on utility then I could have avoided my personal involvement in the GFC.