<p>for those who have taken either or both as lower division prerequisites for their major:</p>
<p>at the UCs, ECON 1 = micro. ECON 2 = macro.
at my CCC, ECON 120 = macro. ECON 121 = micro.</p>
<p>which should i take first? does it make a difference?</p>
<p>At my college they teach micro first, and then macro. Basically, micro is a req for macro. Having taken both I think it makes sense to learn about micro first.</p>
<p>taken both at the AP level in HS. Got a 5 on both :) thanks to my wonderful teacher. </p>
<p>At my CC, u can take which ever one u want.</p>
<p>I feel Macro is easier, but Micro is a lot more useful if u don't plan on being a businessman.</p>
<p>As an econ major, I would say take micro first. A lot of the macro models/concepts use underlying micro principals. Its not like you will be unable to understand macro without micro, but you will get the whole picture in the right order this way.</p>
<p>Microeconomics requires more math, at Harvard, than Macroeconomics.</p>
<p>While it does not usually matter the order, there may be different requirements to take the class.</p>
<p>It just depends on how you learn. I took Macro first, because I like to be familiar with general overview of how money flows in macro economy/economies, before getting down to the 'specifics' of individual households or businesses. </p>
<p>Just a thought. btw, also an econ/phil major. Again, check out the course requirements, and understand how you learn and you'll be fine.</p>
<p>Good luck. :)</p>
<p>Some schools have you take macro then micro, while others go micro then macro. It doesn't really matter. i took macro first and thought it gave me a good conceptual understanding of what's being taught. I enjoyed both equally. </p>
<p>Just make sure you have a good instructor. It can make all the difference between an A and a B. I use RateMyProfessors.com to find the best instructors.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>I took macro first and was really glad I did. My experience was the exact opposite from the earlier posters - you need macro to understand micro. Just look in any comprehensive econ book (one that has both macro and micro). All of the chapters that discuss macro come before the chapters that discuss micro. I really think it just depends on how your college teaches micro b/c when I took micro we started with a macro review. When I took macro there was no micro review. Therefore, macro is needed to understand micro more than micro is needed to macro. Make sense?</p>
<p>My school requires macro before micro b/c they feel all the math in micro is a turn off for students.</p>
<p>I took macro first and did really well. I also enjoyed more than I thought I would.</p>
<p>i'm not an economics major.</p>
<p>in my CCC's course catalog, there are no prerequisites listed for either.</p>
<p>macro = for business?
micro = more math?</p>
<p>i was taking a calculus course last semester which was supposedly for business & social science majors, but it focused more on business with the professor using all these accounting terms. i had to drop it.</p>
<p>eh, now i don't feel like taking either.</p>
<p>This is my second time through micro and macro (refreshing MBA prereqs).</p>
<ol>
<li> Macro is still easier than micro for me.</li>
<li> I took both at the same time and I didn't see any advantage of taking either one before the other sequentially.</li>
<li> ratemyprofessors.com is your friend if you don't want Bs or worse</li>
</ol>
<p>If you take econ at a lower division level there won't be any math - just a lot of graphs! For there to be math there needs to be a req of calculus or similar.</p>
<p>I also have to point out that not ALL comprhensive econ books begin with macro and go on to micro. Mine was just the opposite.</p>
<p>Both my econ teachers debated whether micro or macro should come first. I don't think it matters that much. I do have to agree with other posts and say that micro is definately harder than macro. Might want to get that one out of the way first?</p>
<p>I'd take Micro first, macro kinda builds upon Micro...but it really doesn't matter. Macro is easier, in my opinion, and more interesting. You can take both at the same time if you wanted to...I knew people who did that.</p>
<p>i took micro last quarter simply because the class was a better fit for me, time slot wise.</p>
<p>i think micro is easier. maybe i just can't concentrate on macro (im taking it now) when the weather is so nice. or im just more of a math/business type of girl.</p>
<p>i think a lot of macro is built on micro. macro gives the general overview, though. micro is easier to grasp as its more quantitative.</p>
<p>no....</p>
<p>macro = poli sci
micro = business</p>
<p>Its simple</p>
<p>Macro is Basic concepts</p>
<p>Micro is everything indepth.</p>
<p>Ive take both and this is what it was at NYU. Micro is finite and macro is idea.</p>
<p>take both at same time</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Micro is for EVERYTHING</p>
<p>Macro is introductory</p>
<p>If this is the first econ class you take, then go for micro because it is much neater than Macro. Everything is symmetrical in micro while in Macro, the business cycle theories are quite sticky. Moreover, Macro is built on micro. So it's better to know some micro stuff before move on to Macro.
Don't worry about math if it's an introductory course.</p>
<p>As a soon-to-graduated Econ. major, I would suggest taking micro first. Micro establishes some basic concepts that are used in macro. However, it's really not a big deal to switch the order.</p>
<p>What grades have you guys gotten in micro?</p>