Viewing archives for Economics

A Year 13 pupil has been named runner–up in a highly regarded international Economics competition, beating off other participants from around the globe. 

Ayushman Mukherjee ranged widely in his entry to the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) competition, drawing on experts and episodes from across the centuries to reinforce his contentions. 

His arguments, which even included suggestions for improvements to the A-level Economics syllabus, found favour with the judges as they evaluated entries from sixth-formers around the world. Ayushman was in Year 12 when he submitted his entry. 

A record-breaking total of more than a thousand students from Hungary to India took part in the competition to win the Dorian Fisher Memorial Prize. The prize is named after the wife of Sir Antony Fisher, the founder of the IEA. Sir Antony was also a co-founder of the Fraser Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Pacific Research Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Centre for Independent Studies, and the Adam Smith Institute.  

This is Ayushman’s second major success in an IEA competition this year: in the spring, he was part of a QE Year 12 team which took second place in the institute’s Budget Challenge event.

QE’s Head of Economics Shamendra Uduwawala said: “We congratulate Ayushman on his achievement. His essays have demonstrated his thorough grasp of economic principles and history, and it is underpinned by the additional research he undertook. He should be very proud of himself.” 

All contestants were offered a choice of essay titles in the competition. Ayushman, who is looking to read Economics at Cambridge and is the current House Captain for Leicester House at QE, had to produce three pieces of writing: firstly, there was a 1,200-word essay, for which he chose the title, What exactly is economic growth and why do some parts of the world grow more rapidly than others? He began this by citing one of the “founding fathers of Economics, Alfred Marshall who famously advised, ‘Every short statement about Economics is misleading.’” 

Secondly, he wrote a 500-word article on What does the concept of rationality mean in economics – in which, inter alia,  he explored the question of whether it could ever be rational to burn a £50 note – and, thirdly, he penned another 500–word essay entitled Identify an area of economics that you think should be given more attention in the A-Level or IB syllabus and say why this is so. 

Ayushman said: “My entry explored the determinants of economic growth, the nature of rationality, and the role of economic history in the classroom. 

“Initially, I was somewhat bewildered by the 500-world limit – it really isn’t a lot to work with! But I felt as if I managed to get a concise and polished message across. I tried quite hard to make it accessible to the average person, not just to academics. I believe this resonated with the judges.” 

In the three pieces, he explored the roles of institutions in economic development (looking at the aftermaths of two important events in English history, the 1381 Peasants’ Revolt and the 1688 Glorious Revolution), economic growth after civil wars, and the role of ideas and innovation. He also looked at the intricacies of economic rationality, and at the drawbacks of a “homo economicus” (that is, an individual with an infinite ability to make purely rational decisions).  

Finally, he articulated the need, in his opinion, for a rigorous education in economic history to be included in the A-level syllabus, suggesting it would better to explain the models that are currently taken for granted in economic education and to portray them as less infallible. 

Ayushman, who received a £250 prize, added: “This year’s competition was particularly fierce, so I’m grateful to have seen my effort pay off. I explored some really fascinating topics, which I think is going to be a great head start for university.”  

He was particularly surprised at the “great” reception he has received since the result of the competition were announced. “I’ve had people messaging me to ask about certain topics I’d mentioned – like certain periods in economic history, or recommendations for wider reading in that particular subject. It’s a really great feeling.”  

• To read Ayushman’s competition entry in full, click here.

Year 12’s Sunay Challa was one of the first-prize winners in a prestigious competition for his exploration of how artificial intelligence could help economists solve some of the most pressing problems facing the world over the next 20 years.

His 1,500-word composition won him the Economics section – and a £1,000 prize – in the annual New College of the Humanities Essay Competition.

After his entry reached a shortlist of 350 from the initial 5,000 entries, Sunay was invited to a virtual awards ceremony, where he learned that he had secured the top prize. The judges praised his essay for its holistic approach and for his examination of the specific ways in which AI could benefit economists.

Congratulating him on his success, QE’s Head of Economics Shamendra Uduwawala said: “In a thought-provoking and insightful essay, Sunay identified a good sample of significant global problems and then set out exactly how AI might be able to help solve them, setting out both the capabilities and the limitations of this technology.”

The global competition for Year 12 students run by London’s New College of the Humanities involves participants answering a single question in one of seven humanities subjects: Art History; Economics; English; History; Law; Philosophy and Politics & International Relations. First, second and third prizes are awarded for each subject.

The question for the Economics category entered by Sunay was: Which problems will economists need to solve within the next 20 years and will artificial intelligence help them?

Sunay said: “I began my essay by considering the concept of Artificial Intelligence and the tools it can offer to economists and then then went on to look at the most significant future socio-political and environmental issues economists will be forced to deal with.”

Paying particular attention to how “data-fuelled modelling and solutions” could be used to improve existing systems, Sunay focused on five topics:

• Energy usage
• Wildlife protection
• Agricultural issues
• Cars
• Healthcare.

He included specific examples of the way AI is already being successfully used, mentioning, for example, a software program which identifies and tracks individual giraffes in Kenya by their unique coat patterns and ear outlines. An immense task, involving some 100,000 animals, it would be impossible for humans to undertake effectively without technological help. Yet, he wrote, the use of artificial intelligence had transformed the conservation effort: “A computer’s speed and ease of tracking means the giraffes are more effectively protected, with the giraffe population falling by 40% pre-AI and only 2% after its implementation.”

In the field of healthcare, Sunay wrote: “Although AI cannot find cures, it can definitely speed up their discovery by finding correlations in huge data sets, and this may prove critical in saving countless lives.”

In his conclusion, Sunay noted that “…we can see that wherever it is applied, AI brings to the table the unrivalled ability to parse through huge volumes of data in record time, and in turn save money and increase efficiency…While it may not be able to solve problems like humans, AI brings unmatched advantages to any task and as such will prove hugely beneficial in trying to solve economic problems.”

As well as the £1,000 prize money, Sunay wins an award that will be presented to him at a ceremony for which, because of the pandemic, no date has yet been set.

• You can read Sunay’s essay here.

In only QE’s second year of entry, a School team has secured second place in a prestigious and demanding national Economics competition.

For the Budget Challenge, run by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the team had to put forward a budget with taxation and spending policies for the UK in the coming financial year.

And, since their progression to the final coincided with the explosion of the current pandemic in the UK, the four sixth-formers had to think on their feet to adapt their proposals to the fast-changing national conditions.

Headmaster Neil Enright said: “The boys should be very pleased with this outcome. They clearly demonstrated a mature understanding of the macroeconomic conditions and put together a coherent policy and strategy, at what has turned out to be a very challenging time in our country’s history. They are to be congratulated.”

Ayushman Mukherjee, Thapan Reddibathini, Tanishq Mehta and Hari Gajendran, all of Year 12, had been shortlisted as one of just ten teams to appear before a panel of judges for the final. Owing to the pandemic restrictions, they instead submitted their ten-minute presentation by video.

In it, they described their three-pronged proposals for investment in health, education and social protection. They proposed a tax system that promotes vertical equity, whilst “putting money in everyone’s pocket”. All four boys made contributions and talked through the details of their policies, which they presented in a series of slides.

They talked about the impact that the Covid-19 virus has had on the British and world economies, and reflected on how they had had to be responsive in their thinking: “We have had to significantly adapt our original budget,” said Thapan, while Tanishq spoke of the need to supply long-term, sustainable, investment for the NHS in addition to a short-term aid package.

They discussed the looming recession, recent stock market crashes, increasing unemployment, stagnant growth and a struggling economy, as well as the measures they proposed to help alleviate these pressures and challenges.

Head of Economics Shamendra Uduwawala said: “I am delighted for our team, who have certainly had to think on their feet. National competitions such as this help them to apply what they have learned about Economics in the classroom to real-world issues, and these are extraordinary times. It also helps them to develop their writing, research and analytical skills.”

The IEA’s Director of Education, Outreach and Programmes, Christiana Stewart-Lockhart, said: “This year we had a record number of entries and the overall standard was very high, so the teams that made it to the final have all done very well. Obviously, the final of the Budget Challenge could not be done in the usual way this time, so the teams all had to record their presentations remotely and there were several that were outstanding by any measure.”

Brighton College were placed first, with QE named runners-up alongside Withington Girls’ School, Manchester, and Fortismere School, Muswell Hill, London. Each of the second-placed teams receives £250.

Budding traders had the chance to try their hand at playing the markets in a special challenge run by the Economics department.

Around 155 boys studying Economics in Year 11 enjoyed a morning trying to increase their £15,000 starting fund by trading in shares and foreign exchange as part of an Economics enrichment day.

After lunch, they gained insights into the role of the Bank of England given by a visiting speaker from the bank.

Economics teacher Krishna Shah said: “This was a great alternative to normal Economics lessons, and the boys appreciated getting away from ‘boring’ essay-writing! The morning gave them an opportunity to experience the pressure of a real trading floor and apply their understanding of supply and demand to a real-life situation. Not only did they gain an insight into the atmosphere of a real trading floor, but they also developed skills such as teamwork, analytical thinking, leadership, decision-making and risk management.

“In the afternoon, as well as learning about careers with the Bank of England, our economists also received an introduction to monetary policy, which is useful as they enter Year 11.”

The event was run over two days, with half the boys attending on each day. The first group heard from Anu Ralhan, who is a Senior Actuary with the bank’s Prudential Regulation Authority. On the following day, it was Marisa Camastral, who is an analyst in the bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate.

For the trading floor simulation – dubbed the ‘stock market challenge’ – the teams were tasked with maximising the value of their fund in sterling, US dollars and shares after starting with a notional £15,000.

The boys could buy and sell shares in nine companies and also buy the dollar. They had to make decisions about which companies would increase in market value and which would lose out, based on media reports from newspaper, radio and TV briefings.

“Most teams increased on their initial £15,000 significantly,” said Mrs Shah. “They all had to take risks on which stocks to invest in, and some were more successful than others. Luck played a part, but they also needed to be quick-acting and to communicate well as a team, so that they made sound investment decisions.”

The afternoon speaker offered the boys the chance to win £500 by taking part in a quiz after his talk. But this ‘promise’ wasn’t quite as solid as the Bank of England’s famous promise on banknotes ‘to pay the bearer on demand’: the £500 actually comprised old, shredded £20 notes – as the boys found out only at the end!

At this year’s final of a prestigious national business and accountancy competition, a QE Sixth Form team picked up prizes for teamwork, integrity and commercial acumen.

Karanvir Singh Kumar, Yash Shah, Harshil Shah and Manas Madan competed alongside 47 other school teams at the final of the BASE competition run by ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) in Birmingham.

The competition provides school and college students with a taste of what working in the profession is really like, requiring them to approach business decisions as if they were Chartered Accountants.

The boys enjoyed a three-course dinner and overnight stay at the Hilton Hotel. But next the work began: after an early breakfast, the team received their briefing information at 9.00am and then had only two hours in which to make their decisions and prepare their final presentation for the judges.

The QE boys’ challenge was to choose which of three options would be of most benefit to Ghanaian villages: to invest in equipment for farming the cassava root vegetable, in a warehouse or in solar panels.

Team leader Karanvir said: “We had to consider how we would finance the venture and which sponsor we would choose. Throughout our analysis we also had to consider ethics and demonstrate integrity – key qualities of Chartered Accountants.”

“We had a stressful two hours to prepare our presentation. First, we made sense of the case studies. Then we began to write our scripts and made our PowerPoint presentation. We chose to recommend investment in solar panels because of its potential to transform the lives of the local population and to enhance the socio-economic development of the country.”

After the two hours were up, the 48 teams were split into smaller groups of 5-6 teams to present to the judges.

Although they QE did not win the overall title, they did take the trio of additional prizes.

“The experience stretched our abilities to the maximum and tested our skills like no other challenge we have faced before,” said Karanvir. “The time pressure was especially overwhelming from the onset. I’m extremely proud of what we achieved as a team, and the hard work and dedication paid off. This was particularly so when we were awarded the prize for Business & Commercial Acumen, which was given to us for our out-of-the box thinking and awareness of real-world events.”

Year 12’s Karanvir Singh Kumar has been named as one of three runners-up in a national schools competition run by economists seeking to challenge conventional thinking in the discipline.

His three-minute film won plaudits from judges for its ideas, its coherence and its clarity.

QE’s Head of Economics Shamendra Uduwawala said: “My congratulations go to Karanvir for his achievement. He formulated an effective argument and then delivered it to camera with considerable aplomb.”

The competition was entitled What’s the 8th Way to Think Like a 21st Century Economist? and was run jointly by Doughnut Economics and Rethinking Economics.

Doughnut Economics is the organisation and website run by Kate Raworth, of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, whose 2017 book, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist has been translated into 15 languages. She has presented her ideas to the UN General Assembly and has been described by environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot as “the John Maynard Keynes of the 21st century”.

Rethinking Economics is an international network of students, academics and professionals working towards “building a better economics in society and the classroom”.

In his video, Karanvir began by arguing that the very etymology of the word ‘Economics’ – it derives from the Greek word ‘οἰκονόμος’, meaning ‘household management’ – provides a good starting point for addressing the topic. “The way consumers manage their households is the main influence over what is demanded from the economy and what they consume,” he said.

“Traditionally it’s argued that ‘change demands, and supply will follow’.” But, said Karanvir: “I believe both aspects need to change in tandem to achieve any equilibrium goal. I believe that in  the 21st century we should finally re-centre Economics around the household, and not just by analysing consumer habits, but by aiming to change the deep, underlying human needs behind those habits to more sustainable ones.

“Valuing sustainability in supply, mindfulness in demand, and changing market incentives to reflect sustainability in change is the ‘eighth way to think like a 21st century economist’,” he concluded.

One of the judges, Naila Kabeer, Professor of Gender & Development at London School of Economics, praised his entry: “The different parts of the argument fitted together well. I liked: the focus on the household as a way of thinking about consumers; the need for innovation to make sustainable living easy; and ‘mindfulness in demand and sustainability in supply’. Congratulations!”

Fellow judge Nancy Folbre, Professor Emerita of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst added: “Good substance with a clear presentation!”