See attached file after order submission. Very important instructions in the fir
See attached file after order submission. Very important instructions in the first two pages of the file, that I report here: Premise This document contains guidelines on (1) the shape and (2) the content of the thesis. Everything that is contained here is absolutely essential (even the comments). So, I warmly suggest to read it. I include an executive summary for your convenience, and I try to explain everything in the clearest way. If something is not clear, I can re-explain it, either through e-mail or by calls. Notice: My urgency is graduation, after reading these guidelines let me know if you manage to write a thesis that adheres to these [my uni says one month of full-time work for a bachelor thesis]. If you do not manage just tell me, because I will not graduate and your work would be useless. If you tell me in advance, we can elaborate a plan B (for the content part, guidelines for the format remain the same). Executive summary The thesis must be a literature review. It must be in the topic of behavioral economics. The title is: The modeling of beliefs and applications. The narrower research question is: how can beliefs (specifically, transcendental beliefs if tractable), affect economic choices (specifically, consumption choices)? The broader research question is: how can spirituality affect economic outcomes? Aim of the thesis is answering this question. This in turn could serve different purposes, the original one was having the knowledge base to make an economic experiment in my master. See the “original idea” attachment in the content section for further info. Two standards for final output: 1. Shape: Consistent with academic standards of my university 2. Content: As if written by me. For achieving the “shape” attachments about “shape” should be more than enough. For achieving “content” I think you should do three things: 1. Understand the motives that pushed me to explore that research question (see “original idea” attachment in content) 2. Connect the research question to every line of the review. This point is particularly important, so I’ll spend a few more words: a. If I had to select the most important guideline among all of the words in this doc, I would choose this one: I would like to see a crystal-clear connection to the research question through the whole thesis. I don’t want pages to be filled with the textbook-like explanation of the model (e.g. first what doesn’t work in neoclassical theory, then assumptions, then the utility function and its properties…), because all of this would not answer the research question. Instead, I would like to see: the utility function models beliefs in this way, these assumptions are made to obtain these characteristics that are useful in the modelling of beliefs etc. i. Let me make an example: let’s take Koszegi and Rabin’s stochastic reference point theory. (2006). Instead of presenting assumptions, utility function etc, I would have started from the “stochastic reference point” feature, which is the central one in the modelling of beliefs. Then I would have extended to the other features as much as needed for the reader to understand that I understood what place stochastic reference point occupies in the model. 3. Take care of completeness a. In other words, try to balance depth and breadth (which is one of the evaluation criteria). Shape attachments: 1. Formatting guidelines of the university (character, font…), to be strictly followed. if I do not follow the spacing, I cannot hand-in the thesis 2. University Guidelines on how to write references, to be strictly followed, otherwise cannot hand-in the thesis. 3. Guidelines on writing literature review. Sources of the screenshots: a. University guide b. A paper about how to write literature reviews Content attachments 1. Attached: principles for writing 2. Attached: references I was looking at, they can be helpful and if possible I would like these to be included. You can find almost all the articles in a drive. 3. Attached: thesis proposal and professor story. Useful to understand the motives / the originality and the issue of added value. This is how it started, clearly then it became something different: I chose the closest tractable theme, the one on which a lot of literature is available: “how can beliefs (specifically, transcendental beliefs if tractable), affect economic choices (specifically, consumption choices)?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.