Boring subject. Copies from the textbook. Content heavy where lecture goes through the basics "what is unemployment" but tutorial questions are hard. Lecturers didn't bother putting together proper tutorial questions and took them straight from the textbook (i.e. Chp8 Q1). No effort teaching = no students willing to actively participate. They try to combat low attendance with compulsory lecture attendance rather than improving teaching quality.

You get taught so much useless content. Not to hard though.

Proof that teaching quality matters cos Stella absolutely makes this course easy to study which in term made me appreciate the core macroeconomic concepts from all different angles. Additionally a potential WAM booster, provided you caught up on lectures, tutes and work on every past paper you can find. This is coming from someone who almost failed 1st year macroeconomics btw.

its a compulsory subject for the economics major, which means you have to get it done. Unfortunately it is unbearably boring. The lectures are long and monotonous and graham white is knowledgeable but he can speak for 3 hours straight in the same tone without any breaks and it is hard to keep up / keep interest. The lectures are all really long and unenjoyable. Normally a 2 hour lecture is bearable if they split it into parts but this subject is pretty rough with lectures The tutors are all pretty good and help in understanding the content, and the essay and mid sem are relatively easy to go well in. the actual assessment components of the subject aren't too bad but the content is super boring and difficult to derive all the mathematical equations

Was taught by Christopher Gibbs and I mostly liked the way he taught and managed the unit. During lectures, he would show relevant examples (outside of his slides) that built upon the content being taught but most lectures couldn't cover the week's slides on time and tended to spill over to the next week's. Content was manageable but got a bit dense near the end. One thing I wished they did was to follow the standard tutorial structure - 4 tutorials were dedicated to discussing the problem set assignments instead of the week's content. I think a video and discussion thread would have been enough.

for god sake never ever choose this course taught by Graham White, 2020 s2 is his first time to teach this half-semester. Not only did he have a very boring tone of voice in class, but he also had no primary or secondary. After 15 minutes, he was almost lethargic in his bass, while introducing many complicated and unimportant theories. Understanding these theories will not improve GPA, but it will waste a lot of time. At the same time, the form of the exam focuses on the grasp of language and logic, so that the number of words in the multiple-choice questions is very long, and there is no connection between the options, like doing true or false questions in the abcd option. So for this core course, the performance of white is more suitable for philosophy courses, so I think the school's attempt to arrange the first half of the semester is a failure, and I look forward to Matthew's return in the second half of the semester.

Pretty challenging unit but the lecturer taught it at a good pace. Rather content heavy and it requires a good amount of work.

Quite a lot of content, and rather boring theoretical content too. Lecturer explained things pretty well but you really had to understand the underlying content (not just memorise notes) because the exams were a bit of a 'jump' from lecture content.

Matthew Smith is a good lecturer who explains the concepts well. However, his reluctance to upload ANY practice papers really made the unit unnecessarily hard. The unit is quite boring as well, but I feel like you have to learn this stuff one way or another.

Very useful subject for economics in macro field. Can be challenging due to heavy work load.