quote:
However, I must be a freakin' rock because Shaughnessy is the consensus gold-standard and I'm struggling hard. I just don't seem to be getting it... so do I really want to choose a similar class (702) to be the one I double up on? Perhaps I was just spoiled in earlier classes and got used to light work-loads and am not devoting proper time to ECON.

The reason I say ISDS 702 with Koksal should be a prerequisite to ECON 750 is that Koksal breaks down concepts like linear equations and regression analysis in a way that makes it very easy for someone with very little exposure to statistics (and even advanced math) to understand the concepts. ISDS 702 concepts pop up in other places - quantifying risk as a component of firm valuation by measuring standard deviation across a normalized historical price distribution in FIN 701, for example.

ECON 750 takes the tact of assuming you know all of this stuff already before starting. ECON 750 is so compressed with complex economic market concepts that there is just not enough time to also teach you the statistics behind it. The assumption is that you understand that in an equation like 12x^2+5x+4y+3 that the 12 means something specific and changing that number changes what the graph would look like, and where the numbers 12, 5, 4, and 3 came from. ECON 750 quite literally throws you into the fire (in this case, statistical regression analysis and predictive modeling) without much context of what it is.

ISDS 702 is solely about statistics, and you learn exactly what this stuff means conceptually from the ground up. The workload is maybe half of what you experience in ECON 750, especially with no prior statistics knowledge.

To use a metaphor, ISDS 702 teaches you how an airplane is built. ECON 750 pushes you off a cliff and expects you to either have an airplane already or be prepared to build one midair before smashing into the ground.

This post was edited on 11/6/18 at 10:41 am