<p>Hoping for a discussion with econ majors. Which do you like better?
I'm currently taking advanced intermediate micro and macro policy, and after taking both theory classes last semester, i'm leaning much more towards the micro side now. I loved the idea of macro- working at an official level or in an organisation to implement policy on a large scale to try and affect lives nation wide or even internationally, but the problem is just that; it was the IDEA of it, and was what initially drew me in into studying economics. But i've found the material to be a bit dry. And the more you study econ the more you realise that no amount of policy can be very effective if things aren't in shape at the micro level. </p>
<p>Anyways, thoughts? Which have you found more stimulating?</p>
<p>I like micro more. Macro is after all, just an aggregation of decisions at the micro level. I think classes like law, game theory, public choice, international trade that are based on micro concepts are more interesting than the classes using macro theory. From taking a few development classes, it’s clear that having the proper incentives in place at the household level is just as important as the right macro policy, if not more, like you said. </p>
<p>That being said, if you want a job that involves extensive use of economics, it would be a good idea to have a strong background in macro and macro related stuff like time series econometrics since a lot of those jobs relate to macro. Jobs related to micro that I can think of include operations research, which involves building models to optimize the allocation of resources for a company or organization and economic consulting, which often deals with competition policy.</p>
<p>All economics is microeconomics.</p>