Jomo

Modern economics, particularly financial economics, is heavily mathematicized. When people start talking about atomless measure spaces, I just tune it out because I have no idea what is going on (historians other than Marxists and Hegelians are a bit allergic to the idea that there is history without discrete individuals). However, even I can understand the general meaning of the Kakatuni fixed point theorem without grasping the formal proof.

However, most of the math in theoretical economics is very unlikely to be a problem for any trained mathematician, which I am not. What you may have some difficulty with are the theorems and terminology of financial economic theory that you are expected to know. To give you a flavor of the mathematics involved in the theory of financial economics, I have given the wiki link on the Black Scholes model

en.wikipedia.org

In many cases, the math is way simpler than that. For example, here is a definition of "beta" from wiki

"A common expression for beta is

where Cov and Var are the

covariance and

variance operators."

The real issue to my mind is how much pure economic theory and vocabulary are you expected to know on this test versus how much math are you expected to know. Presumably, somewhere there is a description that specifies what is being tested. Unless you are trying to get a job on Wall Street as a "quant," the math needed for most careers in finance is very basic: present value and future value formulas and their use plus facility in working with expected value, variance and covariance.