<p>I'm taking both AP Macro/Micro this year.</p>
<p>I'm looking at the 2006-2007 edition of the Princeton and Barron's book.</p>
<p>Which is better? And why?</p>
<p>I used Kaplan, got a 5 and a 4.</p>
<p>I own Kaplan and it's not so good. It's missing a lot of important information. It's Macro section is okay, but for Micro it's lacking. It doesn't go over things such as the charts you fill out in the free response, identifying DWL or consumer/producer surplus on graphs, etc.</p>
<p>PR covers everything you need to know and doesn't give you too much extraneous info. Barron's is good, but the way it's formatted isn't very good. It's broken up in sections, which don't flow well.</p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>Perky, did you use PR or Barrons or both?</p>
<p>I looked at both, but I used PR. I got a 5 on both exams.</p>
<p>So, I should PR, right?</p>
<p>Which year did you take them?</p>
<p>I see a 2006-2007 version out for both PR and Barron's.</p>
<p>is cliffnotes good?</p>
<p>I took the tests last school year. I used the 2006-2007 version. The books don't change from year to year...they just put a new cover on them. </p>
<p>Cliffs is NOT good for econ. My friend owns it and we were using it to study for a test...it's terrible. Stick with PR.</p>
<p>kaplans sucked...use 5 steps to a 5 or PR. I personally feel that 5 steps was better since PR looked like its missing some stuff. PR explains the nash equilibrium pretty well though</p>
<p>PR gives you a lot of extraneous info. For example, there's a whole bunch of stuff on aggregate expenditures and it doesn't even show up on the test!</p>
<p>And the tests are misleading as there are several history questions on them, which also never showed up on the real test.</p>
<p>If I were to self study, would I need a text? If so, which one (for both macro/micro)? And if I don't need one, could I learn the stuff from PR?</p>
<p>You don't need a text. PR is enough.</p>
<p>Ray, there are often history questions on the tests...this year there weren't any.</p>