Learning from experience whether you like it or not is valuable - either way - and you'd want to get that information as soon as you can to inform your planning for the future.
Although I'm a macroeconomist myself, I think its usually better to take microeconomics first. There are ideas in macroeconomics that rely on microeconomics, but not so much vice versa. Good luck - I hope you enjoy your classes! It's impossible to understand microeconomics without a study of macroeconomics first. Research has shown students who study macro first perform better academically in both macro and micro than students who study micro first. When you study macro first, things in micro look…bizarre.
Aside from being parts of the field of economics, microeconomics and macroeconomics have a strong connection to one another. Microeconomics often reveals information that influences macroeconomics and vice versa.
AP Macroeconomics is just as comprehensive a course as AP Microeconomics, and includes the following study areas:. Each school has its own criteria for deciding which students to admit into both of these AP courses. Because of that, it might be harder to get into AP Micro and Macroeconomics in some schools than in others. You might have to go through some kind of application or testing process if too many qualified students want to take these classes. Each class is worth one college credit depending on how you score on each AP exam.
Your school might have already made that decision for you by only offering one class for the fall semester and the other for the spring semester. They might also try and teach both in a single semester.
After all, microeconomics in college is supposedly to literally assume the role of a refresher course or introductory for few individuals whose understanding on economics is very poor. Besides, microeconomics can be simply learned at home - a sort of self-studying. Hence, its outline technically illustrates only the Household HH - Business Firms BF relationship which is effected and discussed within the context of theoretical and real economics mechanisms such as the Law on Supply and Demand, the Production Resources and Functions; the different markets, etc.
Again, this is because there is already an obvious understanding in any high school graduate - only that they are immature and lazy to refresh their learning on a subject discussed for an entire year. However, if you are a real beginner on the subjects of Economics, it is best advised and really preferable to take and study Microeconomics first hence, it en-houses the fundamentals of the whole Economics viewpoint and learning.
Thus, my stand is: Microeconomics as a prerequisite course before studying Macroeconomics depends on the level of your learning phase. Well you must take micro first because it will learn you the basic ABC of economics,you know that the micro means study of individual three and macro is the study of hole forest.
It is not necessarily to take micro before macro or vice versa it is not just matter. In my own opinion macroeconomics consider the performance of the economy as a whole. In a logical way, we should first to crawl before we able to to walk Yes,because by itself Macroeconomics is only half of Economics. For more than half a century,Economics has been divided into two branch;Macroeconomics and Microeconomics.
Microeconomists examine the economy in the large focusing feedback from one component of the economy to another and studying the total level of production and employment. In contrast,Microeconomics which was probably the subject of your last economics course,deal with the economy in the small.
Microeconomists study the markets for single commodities,examining the behavior of an individual households and businesses. For me, it is possible to venture into macroeconomics without studying microeconomics because just like when you have identified the main problem macroeconomics , you would think of the reasons microeconomics why you have that.
0コメント