<p>Could anyone tell me the difference and also which one is harder/easier, and which contains more material (memorization)</p>
<p>Oh and also, if I were to self study for either one (without taking a class), would it be enough to just use a prep book like Princeton Review? I looked at the PR one, and it is only like 200 pages.</p>
<p>Why dont you take both?
Difference is in subject material which is why they have different names.
Micro deals with the economics of firms/businesses and macro deals with the economics of a nation and/or the world (a nation's economy/globalization/intl trade).</p>
<p>Micro has A LOT of little things, a lot of graphs and shapes to memorize, so I guess it would be harder. Yeah I did better on macro than micro.</p>
<p>Shorter books arent exactly better. I bought 5 steps to a 5, most books have both micro and macro. A class definitely would help. But if you dont get it, ask for help! Some econ concepts are hard to grasp.</p>
<p>I second the suggestion to take both. </p>
<p>I took a macro class (more like a free period than a class) so I basically self studied both. It's not that bad. There is a little overlap. I used Princeton Review + Barrons for an excellent combination. It felt as if the two books really complemented and reinforced one another.</p>
<p>^ is just one book good enough or do I need both?</p>
<p>Well... personally, I think reading both helped especially since it was self-study. And they are both rather small. I guess you *could *get by with one, but if you asked me to pick one, I don't think I would be able to. The way I see it, it's better to overprepare than to underprepare. Maybe someone else can share their experience?</p>
<p>Microeconomics is the man.</p>
<p>Macroeconomics is boring as hell.</p>
<p>^ really? I thought it would be the opposite</p>
<p>^I did think the opposite. =P I loved Macroeconomics. Micro can suck it. ;P</p>
<p>My AP class solely studied from Barron's, and I got a four on both tests (don't know about the five others, though =P). I can't say anything negative about PR in general, though. Plus, if you start studying in September, you can definitely overprepare and easily do both. Using one book is perfectly doable, though, and starting in September is definitely not necessary.</p>
<p>I do think Barron's included things that would never be on the test, according to my teacher. Like kinked demand curves, although I could be wrong, and that is only one thing.</p>
<p>My suggestion is to do both, and either PR or Barron's is good. Go with the cheapest if you must. =P Both wouldn't hurt, either.</p>
<p>Macro > Micro.
Micro has more math ;D not fun math either; tedious math. Macro's just about getting the big picture, cause and effect, etc.</p>
<p>The math in both classes is not very sophisticated, but everything in micro can be converted to a mathematical situation. If you like (tedious) math and/or it comes very easy Micro is a good class for self study.</p>
<p>Macro is no harder/easier, but it is not readily converted to math.</p>
<p>Average students that take one or the other in a class situation need to learn a few "pictures"/graphs and they should be at about a 4(class):3(self-study) score area. If they are particularly bright or motivated they are probably 4/5:4 students. </p>
<p>My students take macro in class (1 sem macro/1 sem Gov US) and if they are interested in challenging micro I give them some packets of activities to do, a textbook, and have tham take released exams starting around April. I ask them what they want to acccomplish through their self study: scores/credit/learn the material or whatever and provide resources in accord with their stated purposes. If they want to really learn the material I have no shortage of readng materials and practice activities. If they just want their best score with lowest effort I can assist with that as well.</p>
<p>Students that do the activities have never scored less than a "4", but many students that think self-study sounds good never follow through and they tend to hit the "2". The econs have high raw cut scores for the "5" and in my opinion most students that really know the material get to the "4" level. (Great students that really know the material frequently slip to the 4) </p>
<p>Weaker students that are well trained should get "3"s, but the 3 range of the cut scores is very narrow- it includes well trained 2s that were asked just the right questions on the FRQ and 4s that made uncharacteristic errors.</p>
<p>Bottom Line: If you are serious about self-study both econs is quite doable. They are short exams with overlapping concepts all addressed in many adequate single study guides. Every self-study for the sake of _____ should be judged based on what you will give up to do it. If the self-study costs you time better spent with friends/extra-curricular/coursework of more interest/etc you should really think carefully about what you are trying to accomplish and the person you are trying to become.</p>
<p>Good Luck!</p>
<p>I took both. Micro is more about running one business (in simple term) and Macro is more like running the government and how the Fed Res works with a little about international trade.</p>
<p>Micro to me seems to be more interesting, but Macro is fairly easy.</p>
<p>I took both AP exams, and the Macro test was super easy (at least I thought it was) and I thought I aced it. The Micro test seems to be a lot harder and was more challenging to me; however the result turned out that I made a 4 on Micro and a 3 on Macro. I'm not sure if there's anything wrong on grading the Macro since I did way better than on it than I did on the Micro ...</p>
<p>I suggest you to take both cause they're fun :)</p>
<p>What level of math is used for micro?</p>
<p>My school only requires Algebra 2 for AP Economics (though you REALLY don't need it IMO). They're both not too difficult and I didn't really pay attention in class.. It's fairly logical IMO, and if you use the Princeton Review book, you should be fine. (This coming from the kid who didnt get his scores back though.. my teacher projected both 5's).</p>
<p>theres no math involved really >.> ....
It's just very common sense math!
I mean there are formula for elasticity .. but that's just formula, all you do is plugging in numbers, as simple as that.</p>
<p>When you take Micro, make sure you remember MC=MR , and you'll ace any test ;).</p>
<p>Oh , and for the book, I suggest you to get the 5 ways to make a 5 in the Micro/Macroeconomics . It was a very helpful book!</p>
<p>Macro has a lot less math and it is heavy on cause-effect relationships. It's so much tougher, too. I hated it. HATED.</p>
<p>Micro was easy, but I forgot a lot and didn't pass the AP exam. oops</p>
<p>I've taken Macro, and there are a lot of cause/effect relationships that you have to know. You do have some wiggle room and it's not as strict as Math or Physics in terms of rules.</p>
<p>I mean I don't mind doing a bit of math lol math is actually one of my stronger subjects. I'm just kind of lazy and want the easier one :P if there IS no easier one I might just do macro or both</p>
<p>hmmm easier is more of a personal reference really...
I like the subject that was taught in Micro more because it's about a small business rather than the gov actions on recession... etc .</p>
<p>What is the CC consensus for best prep book for Micro/Macro?</p>