<p>Hi, I've never taken an Econ class before but am interested in the subject matter--and would even consider majoring in it. As a first semester freshman who knows nothing about economics but wants to take a class on it in the fall, would you recommend Micro or Macro first? Which is easier? According to the Cornell website...</p>
<p>"Should I take first take 1110 then 1120, or vice versa?
Either way. It doesn't matter. Really."</p>
<p>I know I'm probably obsessing and should just pick one, but which would you recommend to start out with? I've heard conflicting things--some say that you should learn the details (Micro) before the big picture (Macro), and others have said it's important to learn the big picture first. Also, which one is generally considered more interesting? I'll be the first one to admit I probably couldn't describe the difference between the two...help with that would be great as well.</p>
<p>Any anecdotes, personal experiences, etc. would be greatly appreciated!</p>
<p>If you don’t feel comfortable taking them at the same time, I’d recommend Micro first. Macro can feel a bit nebulous at times, at least it did for me, but Micro seemed to have more crests and troughs in difficulty. I found Macro to be easier on the whole, but the easy moments for Micro were easier than the easy parts for Macro, if that makes sense. Of course, I know a ton of students who feel differently, so you should take my experiences with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>As for the differences between the two, in Micro you’ll be studying the behavior of consumers and firms. You’ll model certain market structures (perfect competition, monopoly etc.) and maybe get a little game theory especially while studying oligopolies (I didn’t take intro Macro/Micro in college, but I gather that most courses involve game theory). In Macro, you’re studying the foundation of a country’s entire economy, involving all consumers and firms instead of specific ones. You’ll also find out all sorts of fun things about recessions and GDP. I hope this helps, and best of luck in your course selection.</p>
<p>As an occasional economist, IMHO, I would take Macro first. But it really depends on what kind of person you are. Employing a rudimentary dichotomization of Economics would lead me to categorize Macro as the application of economic theories vis-a-vis public policy; while Micro creates the tangible skeletal structure often employed by Macro. </p>
<p>If “big picture” philosophical debates about the legitimacy of Keynesian or Austrian economics as it pertains to government budgets interests you, then take Macro first. If graphing budget lines, Isoquants, Monoploy/Monopsony pricing strategies interests you, then take Micro first. </p>
<p>Though I will say, taking Micro with an Austrian economist, is especially enjoyable when dealing with Median Voter Theorems or Game Theory. </p>
<p>Personally, I throughly enjoyed my experiences with the big picture stuff and found the amount of graphs and occasional calculus used in Micro to be tedious. But it is certainly more “hands on.” </p>
<p>But should you decide to major in Economics, you will have to study both, then you’ll be able to branch off into a specified field of your choosing. Personally, I find the emergence of Choice/Psychological Economics to be highly interesting. </p>
<p>Good luck whichever you choose, Economics is a wonderful field that is rarely dull – especially considering we’re living through an economic crisis of gargantuan proportions. Finally, Economics will provide you with a methodology to solve elementary or complex problems hardly available in other majors.</p>
<p>I would recommend taking Macro first. I was in your position two years ago (beginning of junior year high school), no experience in economics but interest in the subject. I took both AP Microeconomics and AP Macroeconomics. I felt that Macro was easier because it makes more ‘sense’; it is more intuitive than microeconomics (on an introductory level at least). You can more readily find real world analogies for macroeconomics than for microeconomics and thus understand it better. It is also on the whole more interesting.</p>
<p>Take into account I did the AP and not the college intro courses. I assume they aren’t wildly different though.</p>
<p>I’d still love a couple more opinions, because I’m still getting strong arguments from many people saying different things (some strongly suggest Micro, others say definitely macro, etc.) As a prospective Econ major, and course registration starting tomorrow, I’d appreciate (rather quick) advice!! Thanks again, everyone!!</p>
<p>Nothing is particularly contradictory here. Micro lays out a strong theoretical foundation for the rest of your economics education by introducing you to concepts like supply, demand, consumer and producer behavior, types of competition, etc. Macro studied economy-scale effects such as unemployment and growth. There are more real world examples for the simple reason that we see inflation figures and the like every time we open a newspaper. In that sense, introductory macro is more ‘useful’ than introductory micro, which is often little more than a theoretical introduction to the way economists think. If you plan on ending your study of economics with the 1110-1120 sequence, take either one first. Keep in mind that the first half of each course is designed to cover the same sort of material (rationality, supply, demand, etc.), so if you’re able to take both, do that. Traditionally, microeconomics forms the first course in a college economics sequence, but that shouldn’t influence your decision too much. Flip through an AP economics text and see if macro or micro feels more intuitive to you.</p>
<p>If you take either one the first semester and the other one the next semester, you’ll be bored out of your mind redoing the same things all over again (supply/demand curves, etc.). Do them both if possible instead of making a choice far worse than hairsplitting. THAT’s the smart thing to do, IMHO.</p>
<p>Suze, entering freshmen have only 18 credits to work around. In a vacuum, taking both concurrently is the smart thing to do, but the OP is an economics major it wouldn’t be a great idea to take two classes in the same department in his/her first semester. If the OP is who I think he is, I remember him mentioning plans to take classes in other departments, including a foreign language introductory class (usually 6 credits), which would explain the difficulty of taking both.</p>