<p>I am wondering if it is better to take Microecon or Macroecon first? Which one is easier?</p>
<p>I hear Micro is easier than Macro, and plus I hear that Dr. Rush is an awesome prof.</p>
<p>micro is much easier than macro. macro will have a new professor who hasn’t worked with undergrads much (though he’s young), which may or may not be a good thing for students taking it this fall.</p>
<p>i’d definitely take micro first if you’re not an econ major. i took macro first as an econ major and was glad i did because its the much more engaging course. or it was. but micro wont overwhelm you, and is a better start for non-majors.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree my macro class was more memorization about monetary and fiscal policies whereas micro delt with much more math and formulas and graphing</p>
<p>Micro- geared more towards the business side if economics. Much more individualistic to how markets and firms run. Lots of graphs, formulas, and math. </p>
<p>Macro- geared more towards how to manage a country as a whole. Not many graphs. Lots lots of policies and theories, but all tie into a big picture.</p>
<p>curious, did you take it with dr. denslow?</p>
<p>I like the sound of memorizing policies and theories more than more math, formulas, etc. So there will be a new macro professor this year? (I’m taking this class to try and decide if I want to double minor in business)</p>
<p>there are formulas in both classes, but in micro you learn them from scratch while in macro you’re expected to know them already, though he’ll probably review them accordingly. theres a great deal of overlap in the math, but the topics covered in macro are much more eclectic and dont build on each other like they do in micro.</p>
<p>economics is a field of applied math. what you cover in these intro courses is very basic algebra. they use the same formulas for elasticity and demand curves, except that macro adds a bunch of other random formulas and mathematical concepts for the various topics it covers. regardless of which one you take, you have to be prepared to work with basic equations to do well in the class. you’ll also have to be able to sketch models out as graphs in both courses. the graphs in micro build on each other, the graphs in macro don’t.</p>
<p>that being said, micro is much more grounded in intuition than macro is, and there are a number of topics in macro that are just plain hard to understand. my point being, macro is almost universally thought of as being the harder of the two. if you’re even halfway decent at math, and you feel like challenging yourself, or taking the more stimulating course, take macro. if you’re looking to fill a requirement (thats you journalism majors), or if you just want a taste of economics, take micro.</p>
<p>Thank you very much that helped a lot</p>
<p>Wow. Denslow isn’t teaching ECO2013 anymore? That’s an end of an era.</p>
<p>Aside from all the great advice given here, I’d go with Micro if only because you’d be the guinea pig class for Macro this year.</p>
<p>Funny, I was another non-major who enjoyed Macro far more.</p>
<p>yeah denslow retired. its a shame really. Dr Knapp is the professor now. he’s been teaching it over the summer for the last few years, so he’s not totally new, but i don’t have any idea what his curriculum will be.</p>
<p>On ratemyprofessor Professor Knapp is highly rated. So, considering he is the new professor, is macro or micro easier to learn in general? I always here macro is easier</p>
<p>knapp is a pretty cool guy. i’ve spoken to him in his office, and he’s very down to earth and personable. i’ve also heard he’s not as thorough as denslow. unless someone here has taken knapp’s class over the summer, i don’t think anyone can really say, because i would expect his curriculum to be different than denslow’s. its pretty much impossible to say which is easier at this point without someone having first hand knowledge of knapp’s class.</p>
<p>pretending we were having this discussion a year ago: denslows class was harder than rush’s. he talked about 3x as fast, didn’t go from a textbook, and made a point of challenging his students. the curves on his exams are very consistently higher than rush’s. last year he introduced weekly problem sets, which didn’t occur in micro last i heard. he also didn’t allow formula sheets, which rush did (does?). some people prefer macro. macro is a much more stimulating and engaging course. thats great. i still think macro is harder, and that micro is a much more forgiving intro course to economics. micro builds on its self, and is based on intuition. the keynesian cross is not initially intuitive, and has no relationship with the intermediate and long term models, or models for innovation, education, and banking. while pretty much all of economics is built on intuition, those are much more abstract concepts than marginal cost and the like taught in micro.</p>
<p>I would choose Micro first. Micro comes down to “If you make money DO IT, if you dont then dont… except for some circumstanses.” Macro is much more like someone does something to the economy, now tell how the whole economy will crash as a result. If you choose macro, foreign currency markets drove me crazy. i didnt understand them until the day before the final.</p>