ECON 1110 (Introduction to Microeconomics) vs. ECON 3010 (Microeconomics)

<p>Hi fellow Cornellians. I'm trying to make a choice between ECON 1110 (Introduction to Microeconomics) taught by Dr. John Abowd and ECON 3010 (Microeconomics) taught by Dr. Daniel Benjamin, the latter supposedly being a mathematically more rigorous version of the former targeted at non-majors. </p>

<p>Incidentally, I am a prospective economics major, but unless I'd miss out something taking ECON 3010 instead of ECON 1110, I feel that I may prefer the mathematical rigor and the (implied) cohesive structure of the former. </p>

<p>I'd love to hear from anyone who has taken (or in some other way, knows about) either course and can comment on the rigor of the course material, the typical workload, the quality of the particular professors teaching it and so on. For a reference, I hope to be taking four other classes this fall: GOVT 1817, ECON 1120, MATH 2210 and the FWS.</p>

<p>it looks like 3010 covers the material also covered in 3130 (intermediate micro) and if you use 3010 for your 1110, then you still have to take 3130. it would be boring to see that stuff twice. I bet the whole deal with counting 3010 toward the major is for people who take that course and then decide to become econ majors. unless you are in a credit or time crunch, I'd just take 1110.
(I took 3130 but neither of the other two, but I can assure that the 3130 material is not so difficult that you would want to see it more than once.)</p>

<p>The thing is, I'll be taking ECON 1120 as well and from what I can tell, the first halves of both 1110 and 11120 are almost the same. If I'm going to have repetitiveness no matter what I take, I'd rather have the overlap occur on slightly more difficult concepts and across two terms than concurrently on the topic of basic supply-demand.</p>

<p>The disparity in difficulty cannot be overstated, the 3000-level econ is a weed out for potential econ majors while 1000-level is for people to get in their required econ classes. There's no harm in just starting off with 1000-level, its good for the ol' GPA</p>

<p>Actually, 3010 will cover BOTH your 1110 and 3130 requirement.</p>

<p>@chendrix: I believe you have it the other way around. Are you sure it isn't 3130 (Intermediate Microeconomics) that covers 3010 (Microeconomics) and 1110 (Intro to Microeconomics)?</p>

<p>Nope.</p>

<p>Taken from the Econ departmental website:
"Economics 3010, with a grade of B or better, substitutes for both 1110 and 3130; Economics 3020, with a grade of B or better, substitutes for both 1120 and 3140. The 3010-3020 sequence is designed for students who have strong backgrounds in mathematics (for example, engineering or science students) and do not intend to major in economics. If Economics 3010 is applied toward the major, Economics 3130 cannot be applied; similarly, if Economics 3020 is applied toward the major, Economics 3140 cannot be applied. "</p>

<p>no, chendrix is entirely correct, and I apparently cannot read! I wish I could go revise that previous post instead of leaving the misinformation sitting there forever. :(</p>

<p>My mistake, but this just has me more willing to take 3010.</p>

<p>How familiar are you with Microeconomics and how good are you at Math?</p>

<p>I've read several introductory texts (Mankiw, Bernanke & Frank, stuff like that) and am tolerably familiar with the vocabulary of basic microeconomics, but overall I would say that my knowledge of the subject is limited. </p>

<p>As for math, I've done calculus at and slightly beyond the BC level (and had a 5 on the AP) as well as one semester of game theory. I went to a HS that specialized (almost exclusively) in math and science, which explains the reasonably strong math background and the lack of any real economics curriculum.</p>

<p>Then you should be absolutely fine in 3010.</p>