Second year AP here. I'm essentially a reg monkey and definitely not great at maths but I have managed to publish in decent journals. For some reason my senior colleagues think I'm an expert in econometrics and are pushing me to teach this course. What would you do if you were me? Im afraid it will take me ages to prepare this course and my evals will be negatively affected by that.
Teach econometrics to grad students as a reg monkey


You're clearly worried about the wrong thing, bro. Metrics is serious business that most of your senior colleagues probably don't understand.

I agree that most of them are even more clueless than me. So what's your conclusion?
You're clearly worried about the wrong thing, bro. Metrics is serious business that most of your senior colleagues probably don't understand.

You guys need to hire an econometrician.

Honestly use Ruud's book. It gives a nice geometric argument that most people can understand and will make fielding questions much easier. Hayashi will just bog you down with his love affair with the GMM framework and the lack of appendices overviewing the prerequisites.

Phd first semester econometrics is a fantastic course to teach. Math does not get cleaner than that.

Teach it as an applied microeconomics class and talk about identification strategies with sample papers. No need to go deep into metrics theory.

You guys need to hire an econometrician.
And we would metrics the sh*t out of that class.

Teach it as an applied microeconomics class and talk about identification strategies with sample papers. No need to go deep into metrics theory.
Addendum: scratch that if it's for 1st year metrics, which needs to be theory.

Teach it as an applied course: identify this, identify that.
Or, use it as an opportunity to actually learn what you should know! 
This. Think of this as an excellent way to learn something you probably should have known a while ago. This is exactly what I'm currently doing with a course.
Or, use it as an opportunity to actually learn what you should know!

You are thinking about this wrong. Have a look who taught it at your institution previously and have a look how it is taught at comparable places. And then copy that.

pick up greene and have them work through the algebra. they'll come out the other side not knowing s**t but you get to coast.

You are thinking about this wrong. Have a look who taught it at your institution previously and have a look how it is taught at comparable places. And then copy that.
I recommend Henry & Spanos' books though.

I did this OP, though at vlrm
Used it to learn and since have published in places like JoAE
I used Davidson and Mackinnon, great intuition and like the geometric breakdown of OLS

Teach what you use

What? Most people can understand geometric arguments which is so abstract?
Honestly use Ruud's book. It gives a nice geometric argument that most people can understand and will make fielding questions much easier. Hayashi will just bog you down with his love affair with the GMM framework and the lack of appendices overviewing the prerequisites.

Teach what you use
reg y, x robust

I'm sure you can manage to show the main proofs and derivations for OLS properties without getting too technical. Then you can make ample digressions about reg monkey stuff which they will love.

I know of a decent uni where a ref monkey teaches metrics. The course is heavy on Mostly Harmless type stuff and thinking through endogeneity problems.