ECON 2010

overhyped

Elizinga is a really nice professor, but sometimes his lectures didn't match with the material on the exam. The class was really difficult at first, but it got much better once it "clicked," meaning I understood how to draw and shift graphs. Two midterms and a final. Performed slightly above average on both, but somehow ended up with an A-. I think that was from the dutch knockout. Also pay attention and take advantage of your discussion section. The 25 points don't seem that significant, but they are relatively easy points as long as you know when your TA is giving quizzes.

He lives up to the fame. Lectures are fun and he comes off as a really nice very approachable guy. That said, don't get fooled by how easy it seems, those tests can be monsters if you're not prepared. Also a lot of your score depends on if your TA is horrible or not.

Elzinga's lectures were great since they were new and interesting and not directly from the book. With that, you do need to read the book. It is crucial. Make sure you take good notes from the book and ask questions during discussion and you will be fine. If you can, take Yoo. He is a great TA and tries really hard to make sure everything is clear and understood. If you try, he will give you all the attention you need.

Elzinga is a fantastic lecturer, and is incredibly engaging. Having said that, the majority of his lectures is applications-based -- not material-based. If you've never taken Micro before, don't take it with Elzinga. Take it with a professor who covers all of the information (Elzinga is spotty at best) in a smaller class. If you are willing to put in more work and stress than necessary, take Elzinga's class for the sole purpose of getting to know him.

Elzinga's class is extremely overrated. If you are interested in Elzinga as a professor, then I would take his class. Otherwise, his lectures are irrelevant and concepts can be taken directly from the book in more detail. His exams are difficult, and the final has a reputation for being nearly impossible. I studied hard all semester, and I ended with a B in the class. Better off with a TA

Over-rated. He seems like a nice guy and all but his lectures were extremely unorganized. His PEGS (outline thing) was useless and his lecture is hard to follow, especially for someone without previous econ experience.

I took this because I thought it would be interesting, and I was sorely mistaken. The tests were hard and the final is worse. Elizinga is a nice guy, but his class is boring. My TA was horrible, which did not help. Do not take if you are not interested in career in business.

I don't understand why everyone is so crazy about this class. Elzinga is cute as a button and wicked brilliant, sure, but he teaches in broad, generic terms that help you very little on the specific test questions. Collander and ConnectPlus are incredible resources, but still not enough as I studied for 30+ hours for the final and still got a C. All in all, unless you're already knowledgeable about econ or really good at math (neither of which I was) then take microeconomics with Leonard Mirman in the spring or with a T.A.

Not sure why people are calling this class-overrated or stressing that you need to have an econ background in order to do well. It's a principle's class, by definition, so that makes literally no sense. Elzinga is a great professor and if you keep up with the work, attend class, and study for the tests, you should be fine. Collander is a great resources and oftentimes goes more in-depth then Elzinga. Use that and Khan Academy to supplement what you did in lecture.