which is more boring? micro or macro economics?

Question

either one will satisfy my requirement.. just wondering which is more "fun"?

Answer 1

I'm REALLY glad I took micro before I took macro. Micro gave me the theoretical background that I needed to understand macro, which was like the "real world" application of economic theory. If you're into public policy, though, you might prefer to slog your way through macro without the theory.

Or if you don't really care, I'd go with the one taught by the best prof (ask around) - both can be fantastically boring unless taught by someone who can make it meaningful.

Answer 2

I was a econ major an had to take both plus both in advance levels. However, I'm not the best at math, so I found Macro to be a lot easier. Macro dealt with more policies and overall progression of the economy, while Micro dealt with more specific issues such as employment rates etc. Don't get me wrong tho, cause they both still do require calculations and analyzing. In the end, it really depends on what your interested in, and most importantly who's teaching the class will definately make a difference. Good luck.