<p>What's the difference in difficulty between these courses? I only have high school level background in economics (non AP) but a strong background in Calculus. Would ECON 3020 be much harder for me to start out with? (I'm a freshman) Also does it make sense to take Macroeconomics before Microeconomics?</p>
<p>Having made an analogous decision with Microeconomics last semester (1110 vs. 3010), I would advise you to take Econ 3020, especially in light of your calculus background. Your high school knowledge of economics is irrelevant; I took no economics in high school but did well in Econ 3010, as did several of my friends who also came in with no economics experience. Econ 3020 is said to involve less work Econ 3010, which is fortunate because I found myself working much harder in the latter compared to Econ 1120. Econ 1120, if you’re coming in with a math background, will be unchallenging and perhaps even a little harder to grasp if you’re in the habit of intuiting instead of committing assorted facts to memory. So, in short: if you’re confident in your mathematical ability, take Econ 3020. There’s no issue with taking Macro before Micro. Because Econ 3020 presumes no background in economics, you’ll provided the introductory knowledge needed to place things in context.</p>
<p>thanks for the advice srrinath! hm so do you think it would make sense to take the ECON 3020 and ECON 3010 sequence then? (not together) I’m thinking of switching/doubling in AEM so I’m not sure if following this sequence is appropriate.</p>
<p>It doesn’t particularly matter. 301-302 is a better sequence if you’re planning to learn economics a little more theoretically and/or are planning to go to grad school. The four class alternative moves at a slower pace and is a more ‘conventional’ introduction to the economics major. I’m not sure why you would want to double in AEM but I think 301-302 would work just fine.</p>