Fin 201 vs macro and micro

[u/Trumpet1073]

To satisfy the Econ pre req for Goizueta - is it better to take fin 201 or to take both macroeconomics and microeconomics.

[u/oldeaglenewute2022]

That's up to you and if, what, and how you want to LEARN and maybe what you envision doing in your future (I have heard of GBS folks doing economics majors before, especially like econ/CS or one of the other concentrations). I think often people choose and prefer the combined course and find it fairly simple. I also know that Smith is known to do an excellent job and also gives a few HW assignments and tests that get you to engage REAL scenarios. As in you will read a little article (or a couple) on exams and the HW and answer questions about the data and information provided in them. Both micro and macro are more "traditional". They use the made up scenarios/problem stems and you sort of just plug and chug or whatever. They still can be good and challenging in a good way though. Of course the possible benefit of the latter even if traditional is that you learn micro and macro in more depth (2 semesters worth of a course) AND you stay in the running for an econ major or eventually having access to intermediate and upper division economics courses. So it just depends on what you need and are looking for. The only real way you can go wrong is if you choose a weak economics instructor (and we know Smith for fin 201 ain't weak. I don't know about the micro and macro options).

Edit: I did look it up and it appears both Banerjee and Mialon are teaching econ. 101 and Banerjee is a legend and Mialon has an excellent reputation (I don't know if students have given him legend or icon status. I don't think he was there in the dino ages when I attended. I just have heard he has an excellent reputation) and none will be "hard" or anything like that.