Econ 371

[Ajay]

Anyone taken Econ 371? Economic Analysis of Transportation. I registered for it for next semester in case none of my other choices open up but I'm not entirely sure it'll be that great of a class.

[BebeAphrodite]

It sucks soo bad. It's soo boring and if the teacher is elmer (I think that's his name) you should drop it.
The content is boring - so boring you'll find it hard to go to class.
I took it last semester with someone else.
Man, were we ever screwed because no one went to class and we had no notes. It was badddd.

btw, I'm an econ major and Id rather take one of the required econs over 371.

[kaput]

.

[silvercivicsir]

Took the class with Elmer and Liked it. Sure it sucked that it was a 3hr class on tuesday. but it was a easy A, kinda intersting. and not that boring.. could be worse..

[BebeAphrodite]

Econ 201 and 203 were the easiest and themost entertaining econ classes I've taken out of 14 econ classes.
Econ 201 and 203 were what made me go into Econ.. only to find out I royally screwed myself over because it actually became difficult and very hard to wing the classes.

[Gainsbarre]

Originally posted by kaput
Does econ get more interesting than 201 and 203? They sucked so badly that I'm tempted to just drop econ because it seems like a waste of time.

Some of it is OK. I found ECON 357 (Intermediate Microeconomic Theory II) and ECON 423 (International Macroeconomics) fairly interesting. Actually now that I think about it, I've essentially completed a BA in econ (except for ECON 359 :whipped: ) and it's all garbage. You're pretty much guaranteed to get shafted with a shitty econ grad student if you try to take any 300 level courses :thumbsdow .

I just saw the spring/summer 2005 timetable the other day and it looks like they're cutting back on the number of econ courses offered during the spring/summer. I think it's for the best...at least there won't be as many people being scammed out of $500 when they make the mistake of taking a course that's taught by one of the sorry grad students in the department. Plus it will force those misfits to find another way of financing their worthless degrees.

[Ajay]

Econ 423 - That's the class I'm trying to get into but it's full but I'm hoping someone will drop it before the semester starts so I can snag their spot.

I got into 433 - Wage Determination by just checking back...just want to take 423 instead of 371 if I can.

[kaput]

.

[Gainsbarre]

ECON 423 is a great class with an even better prof. Zuzana Janko is a very dedicated instructor, and she's very nice. ECON 481 and 403 would also be good options for 400 level econ classes during Winter 2005, mainly because of the profs that are teaching it. I've heard that Chris Bruce (the professor that's teaching 433) is a real wanker, so look out.

If you're hoping that ECON 371 is interesting...take a look at these two comments:

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=121226

Furthermore, I'm in a similar class to ECON 371 right now (TRAN 301 -- Transportation Systems and Analysis). I took it because I thought it would be somewhat interesting, but it has turned out to be anything but. The prof (Nigel Waters) keeps on going off on these ridiculously long tangents about nothing (e.g. Beckham's penalty miss versus Portugal at Euro 2004, so-an-so's graduate thesis that he supervised, the NHL lockout, Sociology and social networking, his conversations with other faculty members, driving his son to high school....), which is probably a good thing because the actual course material on transportation is completely devoid of excitement.

[Weapon_R]

I would recommend you take Econ 425 before you take 423. 425 was much easier than 423, which I found considerably more difficult.

[maximus]

Actually Econ 371 is quite interesting. And its not hard to wing econ classes. I love it when I hear that people take Econ because 201&203 were soooo easy with Holden and then shit their pants in later classes. It actually gets way more interesting in later courses than 201 and 203.

Bruce is not a wanker. His class is just not an easy A. He expects you to apply what you learn and makes you earn your marks. You won't get points for bullshitting or guessing, actually you may lose marks.

But don't listen to Gainsbarre he has some sort of problem with the econ department. Most profs are very good. Anyway you shouldn't listen to someone that thinks Econ359 is hard. :poosie:

[BebeAphrodite]

Must be your teacher for 371.
Elmer is soo boring.
This class was hard to wing for me because no one had notes because of the 5 people that I knew in that class of 30 something, no one went.

At least with other Econ classes it's still hard to wing but easier than 371 because it was more common sense so you can apply other graphs to it.

I've never had Holden so I wouldn't know what his classes are like.

I've also never found any classes interesting past 201/203. Just incredibly boring and dry dry material.

Atkins was the most interesting prof so far and all lectures were boring and only interesting because of the jokes he would crack.

I agree with Gainsbarre, most econ profs are pretty bad. I've only encountered 3 that I've liked: Tracey, Atkins, and MacFayden. And even though I liked all three, I could only stand to go to 2 of the teacher's lectures because the material was so dry.

And it's not hard to wing Econ classes? It's really hard to wing econ classes when you have no text book, scattered notes, and attend a few classes. Applying the same amount of effort would result in higher marks in other faculties.

[Ajay]

Alot of Econ classes aren't wingable (not a word...I know). And I'm with maximus on this one. I didn't find Econ 201/203 superbly interesting nor entertaining....I actually got a C- in 203 and I took it with Holden.

All the classes I've taken since (300, and 400) have been pretty interesting to me. Econ is always dry but I like it! :D

[BebeAphrodite]

well who is the professor teaching that course because if it's Emmer I seriously recommend changing it. He has got the be the most boring prof I've ever taken and keep in mind that he's not really an econ prof because when I asked him some questions regarding Econometrics he had no idea how to answer it and sidestepped it and said 'there's no need to go that far into depth' when it wasn't into depth at all. He's some guy who teaches and he's from transportation Canada or something.

[Gainsbarre]

Actually, I that's just what I've heard others say of Bruce, and that doesn't necessairly reflect what I think of him. I have not takenany classes from him, and likely never will. In addition, I haven't even taken ECON 359 yet (read an earlier post of mine in this thread). The only econ courses that I didn't find easy were 315 and 301, and 301 wasn't because of the course material.... hell, I've received an A in the last 5 econ classes I've taken, and one of those was 357.

But most econ classes aren't "wingable" and you probably shouldn't be looking at ECON courses as GPA boosters in the first place. Check out http://www.oia.ucalgary.ca/Reports/615_2595.pdf and note that economics classes have the second lowest class GPAs of 2.7 out of all senior courses. Only senior mathematics and applied mathematics have lower class GPAs; both are tied at 2.5. The whole document isn't a bad read actually...you can find out what departments to take classes from if you want a GPA boost For example, Music History and Literature has an average senior course GPA of 3.9 if you're a social science student (so sign up for MUHL 309!!!), LTSO courses have an average senior course GPA of 3.7 across all faculties, and so on...

[maximus]

*flamesuit on*


Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel
Must be your teacher for 371. Elmer is soo boring. This class
was hard to wing for me because no one had notes because of the 5 people that I knew in that class of 30 something, no one went.


Yes I had Emmer. That’s just it you don't really need notes for him. If you just listen to what he says it’s not that difficult. The course is basically looking at 4 or 5 major modes of transport and comparing them. The economics of it are fairly simple and not that advanced. Its fairly straight forward. It’s actually one of the only econs that you can apply to real life without major assumptions, exceptions etc. I found it quite interesting. But don’t waste your time writing what he writes on the board. Write what he says….actually that goes for most classes. And acutally Emmer is qualified for the course. He has a graduate degree in economics and works at Transport Canada. I don't really see how Econometrics has anything to do with that class. I cant imagine how or why you would ask him about Econometrics in the first place.


Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel
And it's not hard to wing Econ classes? It's really hard to wing econ classes when you have no text book, scattered notes, and attend a few classes. Applying the same amount of effort would result in higher marks in other faculties.

I’m not trying to flame you but are you sure you belong at the UofC?? It seems that that much lack of preparation for classes is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Especially with the massive tuition costs. I don’t think that Ajay or anyone should be taking advice from someone that has that kind of attitude towards class. Your opinion doesn’t really carry any weight when you really don’t care at all. Sounds like you look for the easy way out. I think thats why people have no respect for degrees from humanities like philosophy and religious studies.



Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel

I've also never found any classes interesting past 201/203. Just incredibly boring and dry dry material.

That’s actually quite interesting. Most people I’ve talked to that have taken econ courses and are not part of the faculty feel the opposite way. But to each their own I guess. I can’t stand humanities even though they are sooooo easy. I’d rather learn about how the world works rather than what some philosopher wrote.


Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel
I agree with Gainsbarre, most econ profs are pretty bad. I've only encountered 3 that I've liked: Tracey, Atkins, and MacFayden. And even though I liked all three, I could only stand to go to 2 of the teacher's lectures because the material was so dry


That’s funny because they are the easiest profs!

And Gainsbarre, you are right. I thought that you had problems with 359 because you put :whipped: by it. I misunderstood and apologize. But again, I'm not flaming you, but I'm kinda getting sick and tired of you pissing and moaning about the econ dept and that the profs suck. Yes there are some grad students that are teaching courses. So? If you look at the courses they are the easy ones like 301. Since you get straight A's you should have been able to just read the text and skip class and still get an A. Oh ya, an A in 357 isn't that impressive. An A in 315 would maybe impress me! The profs are (obviously) highly educated and very well respected. Some work for gov't and such. They are just not there to babysit and spoon feed. I mean seriously, I hear stuff that comes out of students even at the 400 level and wonder how the hell they made it that far. Don't forget, the people that do no work and get low marks always blame the professors.

And I think that my definition of wingable is a little different than everybody elses. I mean that you can read the text and/or notes day before the exam and pretty much get B/B-. Maybe that's just me, but I consider that wingable since you are doing the absolute bare minimum amount of work. If you are doing even less work than that, then you should really check yourself and reconsider if you should be at the university in the first place.

But I also think that the GPA's reflect the fact that for some reason students today don't want to learn....they want everything handed to them. Thats why professors like Tracey are so popular. They basically tell you to re-write their notes they give you in class. But thats not learning. I had Econ301 with Tracey and was on of the few people that ended up getting an A after the final. He said that soo many people failed. Why? Because the questions weren't from the notes. Come on!! That had to be the easiest final I have ever written. All you had to do was apply his notes. People complained basically because they didn't see the questions before. But econ is easy in the sense that once you learn the model you can apply it to anything. So for exams you don't have to memorize the notes but learn the notes and then apply them.

Sorry for the long post but the bad rep the econ dept is getting on here is unfair and uncalled for.

[BebeAphrodite]

Originally posted by maximus
*flamesuit on*



Yes I had Emmer. That’s just it you don't really need notes for him. If you just listen to what he says it’s not that difficult. The course is basically looking at 4 or 5 major modes of transport and comparing them. The economics of it are fairly simple and not that advanced. Its fairly straight forward. It’s actually one of the only econs that you can apply to real life without major assumptions, exceptions etc. I found it quite interesting. But don’t waste your time writing what he writes on the board. Write what he says….actually that goes for most classes. And acutally Emmer is qualified for the course. He has a graduate degree in economics and works at Transport Canada. I don't really see how Econometrics has anything to do with that class. I cant imagine how or why you would ask him about Econometrics in the first place.


His class is incredibly dry - if you don't attend classes then you need the notes. So that's why I said you need notes. I didn't talk to any person in that class who didn't find him dry. He brought econometrics into the first two classes and he did something strange that I hadn't seen before so I asked a question about it and he couldn't answer it.




I’m not trying to flame you but are you sure you belong at the UofC?? It seems that that much lack of preparation for classes is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. Especially with the massive tuition costs. I don’t think that Ajay or anyone should be taking advice from someone that has that kind of attitude towards class. Your opinion doesn’t really carry any weight when you really don’t care at all. Sounds like you look for the easy way out. I think thats why people have no respect for degrees from humanities like philosophy and religious studies.


ha ha ha
That disclaimer there hardly works when you initially started your post with *flamesuit on*.
hmmm.. I seem to recall that you said that Ajay shouldn't be taking any advice from Gainsbarre who thought 359 was hard but in reality he just hadn't taken it.
ha ha ha, hmm. I'm sure I should be in university - just because I put minimal effort into classes doesn't mean that I'm failing out. I said I screwed myself over because the classes are harder than I had anticipated.

My my.. no respect for people with humanities such as philsophy and religious studies. Why is that? Because it's easier than classes like economics. I've had higher marks in some econ classes than I've had in humanity classes because there is so much to cover. A lot of people I know can't do the humanities because it's memorising a large span of things such as history and applying it to different topics.
I have a second degree, history, and my historical studies are so much more fulfilling to me than any economics class has ever been. But I guess no one in my field gets any respect because it's soo easy. :rolleyes:

Once again, the teachers in history can really affect the enjoyment of a class. But I've only had one teacher in my history classes that I didn't like vs having only 3 teachers I did like in econ.




That’s funny because they are the easiest profs!


Actually I didn't find them any easier of profs than any others. I'm not even saying that I got better in their classes than any other profs. I attended their classes because I found them interesting but I got the same marks in other prof's classes that I never attended as I did in my three favourite profs.



And Gainsbarre, you are right. I thought that you had problems with 359 because you put :whipped: by it. I misunderstood and apologize. But again, I'm not flaming you, but I'm kinda getting sick and tired of you pissing and moaning about the econ dept and that the profs suck. Yes there are some grad students that are teaching courses. So? If you look at the courses they are the easy ones like 301. Since you get straight A's you should have been able to just read the text and skip class and still get an A. Oh ya, an A in 357 isn't that impressive. An A in 315 would maybe impress me! The profs are (obviously) highly educated and very well respected. Some work for gov't and such. They are just not there to babysit and spoon feed. I mean seriously, I hear stuff that comes out of students even at the 400 level and wonder how the hell they made it that far. Don't forget, the people that do no work and get low marks always blame the professors.


Yes... you're right Mr. Smarty Pants, an A in 357 isn't impressive! :rolleyes:
IMO, an A in that class is sure as hell impressive - it's not an easy class! I did better in 315 than I did in 357.
Why you'd make someone's accomplishment less than what it is is beyond me.
Economics professors are definitely very smart people but they are crappy teachers. They get respect for their intelligence but not respect for the way they teach.
For example, Professor Coe has got to be one of the most intelligent economists profs that I've ever met. But that's his problem, he doesn't realise that everyone else is not up to par with him and therefore his teaching makes no sense to the common person. His class averages are disgustingly low as well - I had a class with him where 1/3 of the students talked to the Dean because nothing made sense - 13 of us met at the econ floor and there were around 32 students in the class. I had exactly 50% on one of his classes and I beat the class average.

Just because we don't like teachers doesn't make us an idiot.
I, for one, don't blame professors for low marks. I've done no work, had teachers I hated, but still received good marks. I've done partial work, had teachers I liked, and received low marks. So no, people don't ALWAYS blame the professors for low marks.



And I think that my definition of wingable is a little different than everybody elses. I mean that you can read the text and/or notes day before the exam and pretty much get B/B-. Maybe that's just me, but I consider that wingable since you are doing the absolute bare minimum amount of work. If you are doing even less work than that, then you should really check yourself and reconsider if you should be at the university in the first place.


If you have school smarts then why shouldn't you be in school? I don't think anyone except for Gainsbarre has really mentioned their marks here so you're just assuming. Don't assume people are stupid because they don't like the class that they are in. And why not skim by with the basic amount of work if you can and still get better do better than your classmates?



But I also think that the GPA's reflect the fact that for some reason students today don't want to learn....they want everything handed to them. Thats why professors like Tracey are so popular. They basically tell you to re-write their notes they give you in class. But thats not learning. I had Econ301 with Tracey and was on of the few people that ended up getting an A after the final. He said that soo many people failed. Why? Because the questions weren't from the notes. Come on!! That had to be the easiest final I have ever written. All you had to do was apply his notes. People complained basically because they didn't see the questions before. But econ is easy in the sense that once you learn the model you can apply it to anything. So for exams you don't have to memorize the notes but learn the notes and then apply them.


I love how you put in here how 'superior' you are to other people because it was such an easy class and you don't know why people failed. I guess I must be a complete idiot because I usually tend to do really poorer in Tracey's classes than I do in other classes. His finals are pretty brutal because people don't expect it considering how easy the midterm and assignments are. I attend some of his lectures they are funny.



Sorry for the long post but the bad rep the econ dept is getting on here is unfair and uncalled for.

The econ department has received the bad rep it has because the teachers blow. :rolleyes:
Lastly, you should take a look at the school debate. A degree is just a piece of paper that says you know how to study if you only have an undergrad.

Economics isnt all that important, I know tons of economics students who have done nothing with their degrees regardless of how well they did in their classes.

[maximus]

Actually you missed the whole point of the last 3 paragraphs (and you assumed a lot of stuff). A lot Economics is actually easy and straight forward. You only need to learn like one model compared to hundreds of facts and apply it. But a lot of students today basically want to see the exam before they take it. I was not trying to be 'superior' in my 301 example but show the laziness of students today. All you had to do for that final was write your notes and then erase the increase to decrease and all the effects erase and put the opposite down. But no it was soooo hard because it wasn't word for word out of the notes. This is bad because in the real world you need to apply. If you can't do it simply in 301 how do you expect to be sucessful in the real world?

And I wasn't minimizing Gainsbarre's achievements. He's obviously a smart person. BUT, if you are going to come on here and brag, you should brag about something worth it. 357 is not hard like say 315. Its like being all cocky and saying I got straight A's in all of my comp sci classes.....and one was 203! So there!

Professors do know how to teach. And looks like I need to continue to stick up for them because of people like you. People believe what they read or hear. Unfortunately with internet nowadays people that are unqualified to make an opinion are the first to make one. You seriously need to step away and read your posts as if you were someone else. You come on here saying that econ professors suck. BUT YOU DON'T EVEN GO TO CLASS!! How can you believe that your opinion is worth anything? Thats like saying that Hondas have the worst suspension even though I have never driven one. :rolleyes:

Another thing that puzzles me is that you think that Econ is dry, the professors all suck, you like humanities way more AND you get better marks in those classes. So why the hell are you an econ major??

So basically people shouldn't even consider your posts to make an informed descision on the econ department and the profs. But I'd like to hear Gainsbarres side to why he dislikes them soo much. I understand that there are some grad students teaching but you'll find that in a lot of departments not just econ. As long as they don't teach the higher level ones I don't see a problem. And don't forget, all the profs that are there now were at point grad students too. You have to give them a chance.

[rockym20]

Wow, seems like things have really improved in the Economics department since I did my degree :rolleyes:

I recently threw out all of my books (finally). Its funny, at the time I went through some of my old term papers, and had no clue what I was talking about (I finished my degree in '96).

Anyways, as bad as some of the profs are, none of them can be as bad as this one Turkish guy I had for intermediate micro (I think, it has been a while). He actually had a few sexual harassment claims against him from some of the women in the class and a huge number of people took a "W" as they couldn't handle him. He was like a drill seargent in the class - a real dick. However, if you stood up to him, you would get his respect and back off. It seemed like I was one of the few people who figured that out though.

As far as my other experience went, I really liked Emery in Labour Economics. There were some pretty interesting term papers to be done. I seem to remember doing mine on employment perks and declining profitability in businesses (or something like that). Its too bad that Mansell is now the Dean of graduate studies, as I remember him as being pretty good as well.

[canadian_hustla]

DO NOT

and I mean DO NOT!!

take Econ475 "Natural Resources Economics"
it is all high level math, calculus, partial derivatives, differential equations, etc. etc.

I got up to 2nd year engineering and quit to move to economics major, this course is much harder than all the engineering i did.


it is like being raped in hell..

Hope i could save some of you.

[BebeAphrodite]

Originally posted by maximus
Actually you missed the whole point of the last 3 paragraphs (and you assumed a lot of stuff). A lot Economics is actually easy and straight forward. You only need to learn like one model compared to hundreds of facts and apply it. But a lot of students today basically want to see the exam before they take it. I was not trying to be 'superior' in my 301 example but show the laziness of students today. All you had to do for that final was write your notes and then erase the increase to decrease and all the effects erase and put the opposite down. But no it was soooo hard because it wasn't word for word out of the notes. This is bad because in the real world you need to apply. If you can't do it simply in 301 how do you expect to be sucessful in the real world?


Yes, you'd have to read Tracey's notes to do well on the final but I didn't have many of his notes so there was nothing for me to study. Why would you need 301 to do well in the real world? When I study for an econ class, I look at all the graphs, have no idea what they mean, memorise where things go, walk into the exam and draw every graph I memorised onto the first page and refer back to that page to do the entire exam. I'd look at which graphs fit and which didn't. ha ha ha, and btw, I did fine in 301 - but that has no correlation to doing well in the real world.



Professors do know how to teach. And looks like I need to continue to stick up for them because of people like you. People believe what they read or hear. Unfortunately with internet nowadays people that are unqualified to make an opinion are the first to make one. You seriously need to step away and read your posts as if you were someone else. You come on here saying that econ professors suck. BUT YOU DON'T EVEN GO TO CLASS!! How can you believe that your opinion is worth anything? Thats like saying that Hondas have the worst suspension even though I have never driven one. :rolleyes:


Why would you need to attend an entire semester to know that the teacher blows? Attending say even 6 classes in total at random would give you a great idea of the teacher's teaching skills. Even attending the first week you have a good idea of how teachers teach. The first day is usually nonsense but after that they they go into their material. So you know pretty quickly if the teacher is good or not. Teachers don't change their teaching style from day to day. Most econ teachers are no good at teaching. I said it before and I'll say it again. They're basically all very very smart people who know what they're doing, they just don't know how to teach what they know. Their first job is typically not teaching - lots of my econ teachers would talk about all the research they were working on and their findings because that's what they do.
And it's like getting a winter beater (I'm using Hondas because it was in your example) driving the Honda for a week and then trying to use it as minimally as possible because you think the suspension is no good. What else would you do in that situation? Get used to the suspension that you don't like?
I had to stay in those classes because they were required.



Another thing that puzzles me is that you think that Econ is dry, the professors all suck, you like humanities way more AND you get better marks in those classes. So why the hell are you an econ major??


Because I didn't know what was involved in Econ before I finished it. 17 year olds are quite impressionable and hearing from adults that Econ would be the best route because it was the most useful of the humanities. I don't like sciences and I knew early on that I would probably like to do something in the humanities area. I only liked the first two econs and it was because of people like you who seem to think the world of econ who assured me that I wouldn't get anywhere with any other degree in the humanities. ha ha ha, what a waste of my time. I should have just done the first year in general studies rather than jumping straight into Econ. And Econ isn't my only degree. So at least now I'm doing something I like.



So basically people shouldn't even consider your posts to make an informed descision on the econ department and the profs. But I'd like to hear Gainsbarres side to why he dislikes them soo much. I understand that there are some grad students teaching but you'll find that in a lot of departments not just econ. As long as they don't teach the higher level ones I don't see a problem. And don't forget, all the profs that are there now were at point grad students too. You have to give them a chance.

None of my history teachers thus far have been grad students and I've completely maybe 3 less history classes than I have econ classes. Why shouldn't people consider my posts to make a decision? I've done all the tests, seen the materials, looked at the notes, even looked at the textbooks. It's just soo dry I can't be motivated to do it. My opinion is from someone who was unfortunately wrongly influenced to go into something I didn't like. I've done as well on my tests as others have done so if I get the same marks as someone who studies a lot then why shouldn't my input matter?

[Ajay]

Didn't know this thread was still kicking!

I talked to some peeps firsthand that took the class (Econ 371)and they told me it blew big donkey wang (exact words). Instead I registered for Econ 379 (Economics of Health) but I'm still hoping a spot in Econ 423 opens up.

[maximus]

Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel


Yes, you'd have to read Tracey's notes to do well on the final but I didn't have many of his notes so there was nothing for me to study. Why would you need 301 to do well in the real world? When I study for an econ class, I look at all the graphs, have no idea what they mean, memorise where things go, walk into the exam and draw every graph I memorised onto the first page and refer back to that page to do the entire exam. I'd look at which graphs fit and which didn't. ha ha ha, and btw, I did fine in 301 - but that has no correlation to doing well in the real world.

Again you missed the point. Its not that you will specifically need the concepts used in Econ 301 in the future. The point is you have to learn to apply things. Thats why teachers like Tracey are only adding to the increase in lazy students. When you get a job do you think your employer will hand you a manual and say memorize it. Then every month or so he will ask you to do exactly what the manual says or repeat to him what it says word for word?? And you say you didn't have any idea what they meant? Thats my point. You didn't learn.



Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel

Why would you need to attend an entire semester to know that the teacher blows? Attending say even 6 classes in total at random would give you a great idea of the teacher's teaching skills. Even attending the first week you have a good idea of how teachers teach. The first day is usually nonsense but after that they they go into their material. So you know pretty quickly if the teacher is good or not. Teachers don't change their teaching style from day to day. Most econ teachers are no good at teaching. I said it before and I'll say it again. They're basically all very very smart people who know what they're doing, they just don't know how to teach what they know. Their first job is typically not teaching - lots of my econ teachers would talk about all the research they were working on and their findings because that's what they do.
And it's like getting a winter beater (I'm using Hondas because it was in your example) driving the Honda for a week and then trying to use it as minimally as possible because you think the suspension is no good. What else would you do in that situation? Get used to the suspension that you don't like?
I had to stay in those classes because they were required.


I think that is a very sad excuse. Maybe you should look at yourself and see maybe its you that dosn't want to learn. You said that you don't like the material so maybe that has some sort of effect on you actually trying to learn. There was only one professor that I found that couldn't "teach what he knew". A lot of professors are very good at explaining things. But if you have no background or have a very lax attitude about the material how can you expect to follow them and learn?? And you expect to jump in on 6 random lectures and undertand everything? You need to build the material. So if you weren't there the day before how do you expect to go the next day and understand. See, its becoming more clear that its you that can't follow the prof because you don't attend or at least read the text. But oh no, its not the princesses fault, its the prof that sucks.

And for your honda example....YES, you should get used to the suspension you don't like!! If you are in a situation where you have to use it then get used to it. I am guessing you've had a very coushioned life. In the real world it won't be all roses. There will be times/jobs/co-workers/bosses that you will have to get used to.


Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel

Because I didn't know what was involved in Econ before I finished it. 17 year olds are quite impressionable and hearing from adults that Econ would be the best route because it was the most useful of the humanities. I don't like sciences and I knew early on that I would probably like to do something in the humanities area. I only liked the first two econs and it was because of people like you who seem to think the world of econ who assured me that I wouldn't get anywhere with any other degree in the humanities. ha ha ha, what a waste of my time. I should have just done the first year in general studies rather than jumping straight into Econ. And Econ isn't my only degree. So at least now I'm doing something I like.


Thats another sad excuse. When you declare your major its not a contract. If you went directly into econ and didn't even do general studies then you would have done 301 and 303 in 2nd year. So why didn't you simply change majors? It takes maybe 10 mins to do so. And all your classes taken would have been considered options. But now I can see your position. Your attutide is very defeatist. Since you declared econ major you did it because you probably felt that you had to. You didn't do anything because your attitude was 'what could I do?'. So you go to class and don't understand/find the material dry. The teachers suck because you don't find the material interesting but what can you do right? So just don't go to class or read the text. What could you do.....the teachers suck. You definately couldn't have read the text or tried to find some interesting examples or even gone to talk to the profs. You show no initiative. And it took you untill you finished to realize that you didn't like it. So you are a very slow learner then? That kinda hurts your position as well.


Originally posted by CuteAsianAngel

None of my history teachers thus far have been grad students and I've completely maybe 3 less history classes than I have econ classes. Why shouldn't people consider my posts to make a decision? I've done all the tests, seen the materials, looked at the notes, even looked at the textbooks. It's just soo dry I can't be motivated to do it. My opinion is from someone who was unfortunately wrongly influenced to go into something I didn't like. I've done as well on my tests as others have done so if I get the same marks as someone who studies a lot then why shouldn't my input matter?

ummm....because you posted that you didn't go to class or read the text. How can someone make an informed descision based on your opinion? You simply don't go to class, you don't like the material, you feel wrongly influenced, so how can you yourself make an informed/unbiased opinion? And I have a hard time believing that you had no notes, no text and did as well as anyone else. Because if you did all that, you wouldn't even know the topics being discussed. And I find it hard to believe that you could simply do exams and do well without having any explanation from profs or text. So I don't know if you actually did go to class and/or read the text even though you said you didn't, or you did poorly but say you didn't.

Sorry but your arguments are full of holes and don't make sense. But every prof sucks because you say so. Couldn't be you eh?

[maximus]

Ajay, take Wage Determination, that's usually in the winter sessions. It's interesting and then when people complain about their pay you can explain to them why and in some cases that they are getting paid too much and shouldn't complain at all. Very interesting course and Bruce is a pretty good prof.

[Ajay]

Yah I'm registered for that one as well next semester. Read the course description and it seemed interesting.

[BebeAphrodite]

Originally posted by maximus

ummm....because you posted that you didn't go to class or read the text. How can someone make an informed descision based on your opinion? You simply don't go to class, you don't like the material, you feel wrongly influenced, so how can you yourself make an informed/unbiased opinion? And I have a hard time believing that you had no notes, no text and did as well as anyone else. Because if you did all that, you wouldn't even know the topics being discussed. And I find it hard to believe that you could simply do exams and do well without having any explanation from profs or text. So I don't know if you actually did go to class and/or read the text even though you said you didn't, or you did poorly but say you didn't.



:rolleyes:

I already explained how I got through the classes. Econ GPA is still pretty low so it's not hard to do better than those around you. Assignments also bring up the marks. I don't usually have no notes - I've only had no notes for 2 classes. Usually I have scattered notes and someone usually has a textbook to look at before the exam. As for marks, I did well in some classes and poorly in others but those marks even if they were poor were either class average or higher. Which is what I meant by still getting the same marks as those around me. As for slow learner, no.. thats not the case I knew in 301 that I didn't like it. Unmotivated, yep, completely - up until this year. I did econ just to get the degree and now that I basically have it, it's over and done with and it was definitely a lesson learned. Don't do something you hate because others think it's the best option for you. I think my opinion counts as much as someone else who enjoyed Econ. Both people have the marks for it, just went about it different ways, and both have their say.

[canadian_hustla]

take Econ527 "Oil"

readings, readings, and more readings

one midterm, one term paper, one final

midterms based on readings

although there is a lot of math and models and stuff in lecture notes, tests are based on NON mathematical concepts.


stay away from Econ405, and 475
you hear people talking about how hard econ315 is, imo those two econ courses are incomprehendibly harder