IronMike said:
OK. First of all. When I transfered to UNSW, I had to do MACRO and MICRO AGAIN as I was unabled to get credit. Introduction to Economics at UTS was very practical in that it FOCUSED on HOW business should be run in accordance with the economic cycle/facts and HOW various factors in economy affect the operation of businesses. Although, some people claim that this subject is very superficial in that it deals with MACRO and MICRO in one subject, for me it was just appropriate level of teaching for GENERAL business students (not ALL business students need profound knowledge in such field for obvious reasons).
In UNSW, I found that, for example MACRO and MICRO, subjects had very extensive content but it really lacked practicality. The subject content included many irrelevant concepts and ideas on economics that weren't necessarily important for all if not most commerce students. (I think the reason for this is that B Eco and B Com do the same subjects in the first year which means that they need to adaquately provide for B Eco students unlike UTS where they dont have B Eco and the first year subs are purely directed towards B Business students).
A few things to note:
1. Is it just me, or have I seen repeated references to a certain university, ie. UNSW? We are addressing the question of whether to study at Macquarie or UTS. So maybe, UNSW isn't as practical as you claim. Maybe, it is. Does that help our student in making a decision about which university? Not really.
2. I am sure that the Macro and Micro course at UNSW explained how economic cycles and trends affected businesses, and consequently how it was run. Whether this is explicited explained or not, isn't the issue. When there is a downturn in the market/recession it would mean that businesses hire less new staff, or even fire individuals. This is just an obvious example.
3. Whether people claim its (the subject/s in UTS) superficial or not, is not what we are arguing. Maybe it is superficial. Maybe it isn't.
4. Did you complete higher Economics subjects at UNSW or did just complete first year Economics only. An extensive theoretical background is more often than not taught in early years, whereas practicality is brought in later. The fact that it was an extensive background and only first year material shows that they cover the basics at least. It's like realising a wheel is round, before seeing and appreciating its applications.
5. Whether the entire course is 100% relevant to all students is not really an issue. Is it even possible to develop a course which is 100% revelant to even one student is hard to find. More often than not it's the skills you acquire which make a subject worthwhile. I'm sure many of your subjects weren't relevant in hindsight.
6. Economics is a fundamental part of Commerce. And you don't want to water it down just for Commerce students. If you're going to study something, you might as well do it properly. Further, if they water it down, then the Commerce students wouldn't be able to do higher Economics units because they'd have gaps in their knowledge.
Summary: Macquarie isn't UNSW, so any comparative statements between UNSW and UTS should be treated with care. Assuming Macquarie was UNSW, it's still hard to claim that UTS is any more practical.
In fact, UNSW and Macquarie (and Sydney) incorporate groupwork, case studies and presentations into their subjects which is much more practical than reading about applications from a textbook which we also do anyway.
You don't have to keep on harping about it winning Sdyney's "Ugliest Uni Award"