<p>
</p>
<p>So…the course wants you to use formulas that aren’t perfect so they can charge you for learning them. And classical economists (as in, not-behavioural-economists? I sense that you are not arguing the difference between keynesian economics and adam smith and/or lafferism/moneteristic economics) don’t want to use practical problems given to you in an interesting way (as in, examples in day to day life), but would rather make you look at numbers all day, and solve mathematics problems on exams. Also, you dislike the way they try to make economics into a simple set of rules. </p>
<p>Well, maybe we are being taught differently, but I don’t have that much of a problem with macro so far. (Haven’t taken micro yet) Our problems are given to us in creative ways, and we are told to think abstractly, as that is the only way to do economics, abstractly. However, we also look at numbers in order to see how our abstractions are doing, to make comparisons from year to year, and to see the progress of our economy in terms of GDP, GDP per capita, inflation rate, unemployment rate and net exports compared to our history. </p>
<p>So I don’t seem to have the problems you are having. My textbook was co-authored by Ben Bernanke, and someone else…Frank, I think. It’s a pretty good textbook. Also, my teacher has written some textbooks. I enjoy his style of teaching, and our textbooks structure. </p>
<p>Perhaps other teachers on your campus would teach you economicsin a way that you would enjoy learning it?</p>