Anonacc

which is why I said that the student should focus on identifying the problems and fixing them, then retry (if the possibility exists) instead of giving up the goal of doing a Ph.D because one failure "means that you can't handle it", which is BS. I will MP you about the other concern (accounts) Not sure if I should laugh at this or answer. No one really knows what the right choice for OP is, one can only advice given some hypothesis. I made the hypothesis that the student has sufficient math knowledge for Micro II. From my experience, I would say that doing Micro before Macro makes more sense than Macro before Micro, not sure I understand your reasoning. Most macro sections use general equilibrium results (Arrow Debreu, Sequential Markets, Recursive CE, etc) which are taught in micro (however, no one thinks you have to study it as rigorously as in micro to use it for macro. In fact, it is often taught in macro before in micro). Also, the structure often differs from one school to another. Micro, in my opinion, can be done independently from macro, and I do know some people who did micro only before getting into a Ph.D. For Bellman equations, it's simple for someone who has a good math background. As I said, something that can be complicated for one might not be for someone else with a diff background. Usually, if OP was permitted of doing micro, it's because he either did a math camp, or the dept considered he had a sufficient preparation for it. I already told him under what premises I recommend taking micro II : that he/she may not get the opportunity otherwise. I don't know if it's the case. I don't doubt that the two posters who said this are experienced in economics. I know some well-reputed profs that think like that, too. It's a pretty common idea in academia. And a lot of academicians have self-esteem issues, and do what they are doing to make up for it. It's actually pretty sad. I'm not saying this is your, or the two posters' cases. But does their experience make them De Facto right? Obviously not. Please accept that there is divergent opinions about virtually everything in academia. That some people other than insecure undergrads have opinions.

Please, Jayd, whoever you are, don't ever listen to the bolded. We hear this much, much too often and this myth has to be put to rest. Some people seemingly like to think that they are part of a small select group of exceptional people and that when people face issues, they simply "aren't smart enough to handle it" (read "not as smart as them"), while reality is much more nuanced. Believe it or not guys, mathematics, graduate economics, etc... can be learned, by a lot more people than we may think. But it requires experience, time, and an important background. Mathematic ideas (and the same can be said for economics) are mostly simple, yet they are far from common experience and are the result of centuries of worldwide work (=> you need to learn about what have been done before handling modern math. Even if you're smart. The greatest genius of all time wouldn't understand anything about it without the necessary prerequisite.). People who aren't familiar with the underlying ideas needed to understand the whole thing refer to this as "complicated". Believe me when I say that something that looks impossible to you today can become trivial after some time, when you understand some new underlying things about it. Most of the time, when some people can not handle academic material, it's because there's a prerequisite that has not been learned correctly, and they didn't take the time to actually learn/fix it. But it can be done. You don't have to be a genius to get through grad econ classes. It's easy when you have the background for it. If you want my advise, try to understand genuinely why it didn't work. Find what was lacking. Fix it. And then you'll be fine. Believe me, it works. Don't listen to stubborn people who will simply tell you crap like "you're not good enough for it". It's too simple to be out of reach for most people. Experience and time matters. Some people will fail because they have skipped steps and did not learn what was needed. Some people will fail because they don't have the time for various reasons (health, addictions, family problems, financial problems, doing something else than going to school at the same time, etc etc), some people will fail because of pressure (and yes, in most case, dealing with pressure can be improved), and many other reasons. The most important thing is to identify the problem, and take the necessary actions to fix it. As far as research goes, it is not always true that people with the highest grades in theoretical classes will have the best ideas and will write the better papers. While there is a correlation, it's not that significant. Sadly, you might not get another chance to prove yourself after being rejected to grad school. It you have the chance to take Micro II to redeem yourself, jump on it, unless you really think you won't have the time to do it. Later it might be too late.