<p>Hi, I'm trying to decide between taking these two courses. Does anyone know which one is easier/more interesting? I took AP Macro and got a 4. Thanks.</p>
<p>Personally, I prefer Macro, but this semester you can’t go wrong with either option, as Prof. Wissink is teaching Micro and Prof. Kyle is teaching Macro, and they are both well known and popular professors.</p>
<p>I never had your “dilemma”, I chose both :D</p>
<p>I think most people would probably like Macro better, but most people who take one will probably end up taking the other.</p>
<p>Personally, I feel like Micro is much more interesting; it can afford one an extremely valuable prism through which to see the world. Ever heard of Freakonomics? Thats applied Microeconomics. Not to mention that understanding price theory and the economic decision-making behind firms has many practical applications for many jobs in the real world. </p>
<p>Not sure if the same can be said for Macro. Sure, you get to learn about the Fed and monetary policy–which is informative but not as essential, in my opinion, as the knowledge garnered in Micro. Plus, isn’t Macroeconomics, as a field, going through a little bit of intellectual crisis right now? Microeconomics is settled science. Only drawback for some may be that Micro tends to be more math intensive. But if you least understand what the math is trying to explain and use the textbook as an aid, you should be fine.</p>
<p>since you already had macro why not take micro?</p>
<p>Personally, I feel Micro to be a lot more enlightening than Macro. I see the beauty of microeconomics in my daily observations of life. Not so much for macroeconomics though…</p>
<p>I had Tom Evans for Micro and Bill Schulze for Macro. Tom Evans was a great guy for Micro… Bill Schulze was okay for Macro, but I guess Tom Evans set a high standard for me…</p>
<p>@reptil
can we choose both Micro and Macro in the same semester?
is that recommended in terms of work load?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, I think this varies by college. I talked to a counselor in ILR who said that JTF would allow me to add both but once I got to Cornell they wouldn’t let me keep both (I think because both classes are requirements for the ILR major).</p>
<p>I’m not sure if macroeconomics is in an intellectual crisis, but i do know that they have been at odds with austrian economics–murray rothbard?-- for quite a while. I guess within neoclassical economis there exists a divide between pro and anti keynesian thought? Not too sure, though. Interesting stuff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and this debate has been somewhat amplified in light of the current economic crisis. Keynesians, like Paul Krugman, have sparred with economic “purists” (Neoclassics) on how to best deal with the aftermath; Keynesians clamoring loudly for fiscal stimulus while purists are steadfastly opposed. </p>
<p>I would say that the field is in a sort of crisis right now. Many of Macro’s basic assumptions, such as seamless capital markets and the efficient market hypothesis, have been seriously called into question in the last year or so. Fittingly, many are calling for a reevaluation of the science. </p>
<p>But the point is, like I said before, the ideas in Micro are very much settled science–or at least much more so than in Macro. And with that in mind, I think if you had a choice between taking one of the two, (like the OP) I would say Micro is the better choice.</p>
<p>i prefer macro to micro, as i’m more of a “big picture” type of person. it’s a lot more theory as opposed to math and it’s also more easily applicable to other topics - or at least that’s how i view it.</p>
<p>Since you have a 4 in Macro, and if it’s still fresh in your mind, you can go ahead and take Micro anyways. It’s my opinion and I think that Micro may be more interesting since it usually have principles that is used to support Macro. In my Economic textbook, Microeconomics and Macroeconomics were in the same textbook, but Microeconomics topics were in the beginning half, which then led into Macro.
It is interesting to know how things work small scale before it hits big scale. Plus you need Micro anyways if you are an Economics Major since you need both, and skipping one class may help you in the long run by allowing time for another class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see you’ve read Krugman’s the Return of Depression Economics lol. I found it pretty interesting myself.</p>
<p>They’re both so freakin’ easy they should both count as 1-credit courses. Just take them both.</p>
<p>I’ve had Wissink and can vouch she is a great professor. She is generally considered a challenging professor (but very fair) but ultimately you end up learning a lot with her (I didn’t take intro with her though, upper level though I think it still applies).</p>
<p>You’ve already learned macro, so it’s time for you to learn micro. Normally I would say macro if it’s one or the other since after intro macro, you can understand basically any newspaper article on the economy, but you’ve already taken that so go with micro.</p>
<p>Roneal:</p>
<pre><code>I don’t understand the reasoning, because they are both required for the major you can’t take them both???
</code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think she’s challenging in the sense that she doesn’t like to curve, not necessarily in difficulty.</p>
<p>But man, getting that A+ in her classes is just so f’n hard…</p>