Successful Personal Statement For Economics At Cambridge

The right answer – does such a thing even exist? When considering the field of mathematics, my response would be an unequivocal yes – indeed, I find its simplicity and elegance some of its most attractive qualities. For economics, however, the question of a right answer is not so straightforward. My interest in economics was sparked when I read “Freakonomics” and “SuperFreakonomics”. I found the search for a logical explanation behind seemingly illogical behaviour intriguing, and the idea that small changes to incentives could effect such large changes to those behaviours fascinating.

To further my understanding, I attended lectures at the LSE, including one given by Ha-Joon Chang. His arguments challenged much of what I had learned – deregulation and trade liberalisation would not, apparently, stimulate competitive growth, while education, it turned out, could not be counted on to increase entrepreneurship or productivity. These contradictions made me eager to read his “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism” and “Bad Samaritans”. Although relishing his controversial stance on almost everything, I found his central thesis – that by using protectionism to support fledgling domestic industries, other poor nations can emulate South Korea’s success – overly optimistic and one-size-fits-all. As Paul Collier argues in “The Bottom Billion”, many are trapped by conflict or bad governance, with even bleaker prospects after “missing the boat” on which many Asian economies sailed away to prosperity.     

While economics is rooted in the world around us, with all its fascinating, messy complexities, mathematics derives its beauty from its abstract nature. It is unique in that it can lead us to an answer that is not merely the right one, but is true in an absolute sense. This was emphasised by G. H. Hardy in “A Mathematician’s Apology”, where he spoke of a mathematical reality distinct from the ordinary one, of which we can only ever hope to produce a “partial and imperfect copy”. Another of the appeals of mathematics is its breadth of application. I was able to explore this over the past three years in a series of Royal Institution master classes covering topics from graph theory to the mathematics of juggling. My decision to continue with mathematics was confirmed when I undertook the AEA; I found it challenging but immensely satisfying to be able to use simple concepts from the A-level core modules to solve even the most daunting problems.

Over the past year, I have mentored two students in mathematics. Explaining concepts to them helped deepen my own understanding and led me to explore proofs behind theorems I had previously accepted. In addition, acting as a primary school classroom assistant inspired me to set up my own volunteering scheme, in which I and other students help children learn to read. I have enjoyed competing in the UKMT Mathematics Challenge, in which I won a medal at Olympiad level, and the UK Linguistics Olympiad, in which I twice progressed to the selection round for the national team. I have also represented my school in the Hans Woyda competition, and am excited to be doing the same in the Target 2.0 challenge later this year.

Despite their differences, the authors I mentioned above hold something in common: their use of empirical methods to reach conclusions. It is here that the attraction of combining the study of mathematics and economics becomes especially apparent. Without mathematics, economics risks beginning to earn its title “the dismal science”, reducing to speculation and rhetoric without even the emotional investment enjoyed by politics. This is not to dismiss the importance of normative economics, but to say that it draws meaning from a basis in fact. I am not arguing for sound bite solutions to complex questions, but rather that, even in a field as hotly debated as economics, the right answer is still a worthwhile goal, reachable through the use of data and copious amounts of trial and error.