I withdrew from this subject on the census date, and ngl I'm gonna change degrees partly due to the fact that higher level macro is apparently taught similarly to this subject. To sum it up, this subject basically epitomises everything wrong with the commerce faculty as a whole - they just get you to rote-learn these garbage ass formulas/models that don't make much sense if you try to understand them deeply, and then toss you easy exams/assignments so people don't complain. It basically feels like they're trying to take a set of content that would be best taught in a qualitative way, and forcibly cramming it into these quantitative models for some reason. So yeah I wouldn't recommend this subject if you're actually trying to get value out of it. I also did the readings every week and attended every class and the content still felt abstract/meaningless/empty on a fundamental level, so it's not like I wasn't putting in the work. Just my 2c though, some people seem to like it

While the content can be challenging, the final exam for this subject is quite easy. The trick is to understand the logic behind concepts, so that you can apply the theory to novel situations. Overall an interesting subject with a great lecturer.

To be honest, lectures are long and quite boring. Make sure you watch the review sessions, it's very helpful. Compared to Introduction to Microeconomics, it's more light on math (calculations are less lengthy), so your grade on assignments and finals really depends on how well you can apply theories to your writing.

I found this less interesting than Intro Micro because it focused more on the banking system than economic policy as we had learnt in ECON10003. The assignments were boring and convoluted, and the exam was very challenging for what we had learnt. If you didn't understand one concept completely, it was very difficult to then catch up. The lecturer was good at explaining the concepts, but it's a very dry subject and difficult to grasp if you are not mathematically inclined.

More theory and less interesting compared to intro micro. I spent the most time and effort studying for this subject and it did me dirty.

It is an interesting subject and the concepts are easy to grasp. However if you have not done economics before, you must make sure that you understand the logic behind it. The subject will be easier to understand and remember then. However there might be some misinterpretations in the various past exam papers since they change the assumptions frequently.

Well taught subject with very interesting concepts taught.

Lecturer Nahid was okay. Content was okay and clearer, more straightforward than intro microeconomics. Tutes were a bit boring as it's all doing exercises. Concepts were well taught and sufficient help was provided in consultations and pit stop tutorials. Have a generally good understanding of the models and diagrams and you're good to go!

I only did this subject because it's compulsory for the foath course. I really had no choice but to do it. I don't like any of the coordinators because they marked my perfect diagrams so harshly. Shame on them! I'll be dropping out of this uni for sure

Personally, as an economics major, I love macroeconomics. However, for this semester, I did not enjoy the subject. The lecture slides were too bulky and word heavy (about 60 slides per 1 hour lecture). I prefer much more Intermediate macroeconomics which I am doing right now (sem2, 2018)