Painfully boring. Fair grader (~40% A range). Light workload (4 problem sets). Don't take this class because Prof Dang makes me want to fall asleep/drop out of school.
AVOID THIS COURSE!!! Professor Dang is extremely intelligent, but he is as just as much disorganized. Every lecture is 80 slides loaded with details, that he simply reads off to the class. I took this course anticipating it to be an easy and fun econ elective, but I was bitterly mistaken. The biggest drawback of this course is the fact that the slides are so unclear. Perhaps it is a language barrier, or maybe simply a style, but even after reading the same slide 5 times it is still not clear what is going on. There are some pros: -Exam is "open book". -Light work load. -Older problem sets that you can find online for inspiration. Cons: -Enormous amount of repetitive and irrelevant details in the slides. Huge number of slides (almost 1000 slides for each exam) -You won't learn a thing. -There is no good way to prepare to the final / midterm. Hit or miss. (the mean on the exam was 55/75 and was adjusted with a light curve. Only the upper 20% will get an A in thus course) - The curve will most likely not work in your favor (if you are looking for an A or an A-)
The course is not bad, but be aware that Prof. Mehrling teaches his "money view" which is not well-known yet. It clearly goes beyond its goal of "being abled to understand almost every financial article on the Financial Times". You can feel though that the content taught still needs some development and refinement in comparison to standard economic/finance theory like IS-LM or CAPM. Attendance is not necessary, because the material provided online is very good.
This class is terrible. Like another has posted, I don't understand how this man has a silver nugget. There is almost no structure to the class. There does not seem to be any purpose to it. Further, Mehrling seems to just be using the podium to 1) Sell his shitty books that nobody cares about and 2) feed his massive ego. Seriously, every single lecture somehow leads back to how he figured it all out in his second book he wrote. His covered topics are based off of readings from the 1920s and 1930s, which is not by itself unreasonable for the field of economics, except that he is attempting to apply them to post recession central bank policy which is unprecedented in action. This just adds to the idea that, while no doubt incredibly intelligent, Mehrling just "teaches" this class to feed his ego. Don't take this class, there's nothing exciting to learn. Read some financial newspapers and Google terms you don't understand. The reduced stress and time commitment will yield the same stated goal of the class: "To give you the ability to read and understand Financial Times"
This is an awesome class. The professor is incredible and one of those that make you love going to class. All the lectures are uploaded online and you just watch them while looking at the notes that he posted as well. Honestly, I go to class just to talk about awesome current events and discuss them in depth and maybe clarify some questions about the lectures. If you go to class and watch his lectures, you will get something out of this class and enjoy it. The only thing is that he is in love with him self, which I think I would too if I were him. All in all, if you are interested in the monetary system and the fed this is the place to be.
This was one of the single best courses I took at Columbia because of its relevance to our modern financial markets. While some of the material was difficult, it is well explained and Mehrling goes to incredible lengths to publish deeply detailed lecture notes which explain the entirety of the course in depth. Some of his lectures and the readings are boring at times because it covers history or abstract ideas. However, in the beginning of the semester Mehrling recommends that you read this things not to memorize them, but to get a better idea of what is happening. He will not quiz you on insignificant details and prefers to see that you are bringing the entire course together. On the exams, you can get both of the identifications of authors wrong, so long as you are clear in establishing why the ideas are important. On the topic of exams, they were doable and I made a few careless mistakes, but still did very well. The midterm was out of 45 points with three sections. The first was compare and contrasting of like terms. Here Mehrling gives you a pair of terms and you are to explain their relation, importance, and difference by using examples, balance sheets, etc. The second section works on the ideas you've learned and is usually an interpretation of modern events through the lens of the models used in the class. This ensures that you actually understand the models and the component parts, not just memorizing formulas. They are not particularly difficult models either. The final section are identifications (2) of the readings and the authors. The identification part is pretty irrelevant, but it is more to see how you connect it back to the course. The problem sets for the class are difficult because they do focus more on the math side of things which you don't usually cover in class so you generally need a group of people. You can submit one problem set for up to four people and TAs are good about helping clarify things. Additionally, his lecture notes and the Stigum reading explains concepts more in depth. Overall this was a very good course and I enjoyed it thoroughly. If you put in the work, you will do well. However, many people didn't and so the average on the midterm was 27.5 out of 45. This is normal according to Mehrling and there is a curve which is rather generous. Still you do need to understand his approach which is rather visual (using balance sheets) but he explains it clearly. I would recommend this class to anyone who wants to learn about the financial world and learn to talk about the markets as well. It is tough if you don't work, but if you do, it becomes actually relatively easy.
This is a GREAT class. Prof. Andrews is a great professor who really cares about his students unlike some other professors I had this past semester. He wants to know all of his students (and that is why he often "complained" about the class size) - he wanted to be able to hear everyone - which is certainly very tough to do when you have 100+ class (eventually it shrank, but still was not a seminar type class) One thing that I found many students complained about was the non-clearenes of the assignments, but this was changed - only b/c professor Andrews really cared about our progress and asked the class what was wrong (the first midterm was not that great on average while 2nd midterm was much better). Overall, professor Andrews is a caring professor. Sure, he has his own point of view (as we all do), but he never let that affect the judgment of the exams. One thing that would definitely make the course more exciting is attendance of his OH. He is amazing at supporting conversation and helping out during the OH - that is when he has more time to get to know you and to really understand what is the missing part that makes you struggle. Moreover, professor helped me with my other class by providing me with the list of readings and by talking to me about the topic. So he was a true professor for me not only for MB class but for my other course as well. My conclusion is that if you want this class to be amazing, it only depends on you. If you have the desire to learn, professor Andrews will provide you with all the necessary tools. He will contribute to your knowledge 100%. Having said that, I STRONGLY recommend attending his OH. Finally, I was shocked to hear that prof. Andrews was not given the tenure. It is said to see such a great professor to leave CU.
You may not be able to take good notes from what he writes on the board, but if you just listen to him and try and understand what is being said, you'll see how great of a lecturer he is. He also cares about his students so definitely go to his office hours and talk to him if you're feeling lost or have a question. His tests are reasonable. The first may have been too technical and he realized that, so the second was purely short answer and very conceptual. The final was also very focused on basic concepts -- the course is all about basics, which he constantly repeats. He also stresses that he only cares about what you know at the end of the course, which means you can make up for poor past performance on the final. It saddens me to hear that a professor like Marcellus is not getting tenure. Yes, this semester's class may have been a little hectic due to (1) the class being oversubscribed past the point he was comfortable and (2) him having personal issues, including being diagnosed with cancer again. He's not a perfect human, but he is always the first one to admit his flaws and apologize to for letting his personal life interfere with the class. He clearly cares a lot about his students and is very dedicated to running a high-quality course. That's more than you can say for the majority of professors.
The reviewer below seems to have forgotten that Andrews has been teaching this class in the middle of being diagnosed (for a second time) with cancer. A few weeks into the course, he was the victim of an attempted mugging at gun point. A week after that his home in NJ was out of power for a week and his young son had to be cared for because his school was closed. Yeah...try to have that NOT affect your performance as a lecturer. Despite all that, he's being doing a FANTASTIC job. He saves a lot of the math for exercises, but he (really) only cares that you understand the subtle and complex links that underlie today's complex financial system, many of which were at the heart of the recent financial crisis. An understanding of those links, combined with an understanding of how they affect and are affected by risk, are really at the heart of this class. If you care about those issues, Andrews is a professor you will be interested in. People seem to be a little intimidated by him...which I don't really understand. In fact, he seems to actually care quite a bit about his students. Admittedly, he tried to scare some of them away (which he acknowledged), but that seems to have worked. Next time, when he caps the course, that won't be an issue. All in all, a great class.
DO NOT TAKE THIS CLASS! He is the most disorganized professor at Columbia. He lets everything that is happening in his personal life affect his teaching. He forgot to cap his class to 80, and he had 160 students. A day before the first midterm he explained that he had been teaching madly so people drop the class. His midterm was crazy, he had not explained half the stuff in it. His HW are intense complicated numerical problems, which are unrelated to the syllabus. He does not include these during lectures or exams. Hence, you are supposed to break your head and never use the concept again. Though he is a good lecturer, it is not worth breaking your head on this class.
Professor Albanesi has her pros and cons. On one hand, the material is mostly reasoning rather than math, which makes it an easy class as an economics elective. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting, by the way, because I found that it usually is, especially the parts about regulation that other reviewers seem to dislike. That said, her presentation is a bit off-putting. In the first few classes she tried to use a digital pen that quickly proved useless, she can be somewhat... continuous in speaking, forgetting to take in some air, which is annoying. But overall, I think she tries hard to make this class pleasant, is always willing to explain, and is generally a nice person. I think bringing in someone from the Fed for a lecture was a nice touch, and close to the end of the semester there was also a screening of "Inside Job."
Professor Mehrling is one of those professors who leaves you with a feeling of disappointment, because you feel they -could- have been great, but were admittedly sub par. The quality of his lectures fluctuated wildly. Sometimes, they were so dull that half the auditorium was falling asleep and/or just not coming (after a particularly long segment in the 1st half of the semester) but sometimes they were fascinating. I went to every lecture and can tell you that most of the first half of the semester will be painful and dull, then the second half will be much more interesting with only the occasional extra-boring lecture. If the professor reads this, I would recommend that he critically evaluates the visible class responses to some of his lectures and revamps them so that the quality is more consistent. The workload is heavy. There aren't a lot of problem sets, but when you get to studying for the midterm, you'll be buried in paper. Mehrling's midterm is -very- late in the semester, so not only was the overwhelming majority of the lectures on the exam, but also nearly all the outside readings, and the majority of the Stigum reading. A decent midterm grade requires mastering well over a thousand pages of very tough material. There is just so much of it that I felt confused as to what was relevant for the exam and what was not. The Final was similar but had the add-on of an essay on one of two books and didn't have that much extra material. Mehrling is trying to teach a "way of thinking." This is a very big goal and he doesn't really live up to it. Many people I spoke to felt that the class was a waste, and I can see why. We were so buried in material that we didn't really process anything and there was virtually no practical application to what we learned. This is not what students generally expect from a class called Money and Banking. I wanted to write this review before I got the grade, because I feel that if it was good, I would feel compelled to give a more positive review and vice versa. The grading on the midterm was alright - one of the TAs was nitpicky, the other was lenient, so it balanced out to something normal. The class is gigantic, so Professor Mehrling made the TAs grade everything. Overall, I would not recommend this class to anyone except a person with a very empty, light schedule. Don't be deceived by the first class - this course is not easy, not that consistently interesting, and bound to disappointed the majority. If none of this has deterred you, however, then good luck.
Professor Andrews is one of the greatest professors that I have had at this school. He is very intelligent and well-read, but really approachable, which is a rare thing here--especially in the econ department. He is uniquely honest and passionate about the subject. His frankness can be alarming, but he knows how to hold your attention. I had him for Economics of Money and Banking. Andrews really tried to communicate the information and to reach out to the class. For a room with 100 people, he made it seem almost like a seminar, taking questions and directly addressing students. He did a great job at making the material relevant and recommending outside reading and such. The textbook was good and he generally taught in accordance with it so I always knew where he was. However, Andrews is more interested in general theories and their practical application, so do not get to caught up in the specifics of the text like vocabulary terms. His class is challenging, but doable and he does his best to help. He always make things so interesting that students actually want to go to his lectures. He is one of a few professors who really tries to make students understand economics.
I quite enjoyed this class. Mehrling was so excited to have a real life economic crisis going on while he was teaching this class. He goes into really intricate detail sometimes, so the TA sessions help you grasp the big picture. If you put in the effort, this is not a complicated class. You don't even have to do all of the reading. Pay attention to what he likes to say in class and make sure you understand those things because they will be on the test. It is interesting material.
What can I possibly say about Perry Mehrling? He is the among the worst professors I've ever taken at Columbia, which might explain why he's been an associate professor for over 16 years. Don't get me wrong: Mehrling is REALLY nice and wants to teach his course in a way that's easy to understand and in touch with the current situation. That's great but as a lecturer, he is shockingly unclear, no one learned anything (students were asking about basic concepts and definitions during the midterm review, like what is an FRA,) and he talks down to his students like they don't know anything about economics. Mehrling's lectures are comprised of the following format: discuss an article from the FT, which he loves (ok, interesting,) bring up some sweeping statement about money and/or banking that's so general that it's completely inarguable and use the latter hour to utterly confuse the class with simplistic terminology, abstract concepts that are never explained, endless balance sheets, and stupid diagrams. Mehrling wants to teach an entire class using only balance sheets and no numbers but this is ridiculous: how can you teach students about an FRA or CIP without showing the formulas to compute them? The only formula Perry ever brought up in class and on the homework was WRONG, in that it wasn't time-adjusted so all the answers would turn out to have negative interest. I had to go to a Catalan economics website to get the right one. That, essentially, sums up Perry as a teacher. The mean on the admittedly easy midterm was 60%. 60%! The only saving grace of the class was that the books assigned (Stigum's Money Market and a choice between a book on hedge funds and one on global finance) were fantastic. I'm much the better for reading them.
By all means STAY AWAY FROM HER. Money and Banking sounds very practical if you are interested in finance and such, but this instructor can totally destroy your hope of learning anything useful with her dry and dull presentations, and horrible accents. The class mainly focuses on the REGULATIONS in the money market history, and has almost nothing to do with banking. The fact that you don't need to hand in the problem sets may seem appealing at the beginning, but without solutions you actually can't learn anything. Then you look at the midterm and final, and can't even realize where you have learnt the stuff. She is also very rigid when she deals with students' questions and concerns.
The class was hard, but it was a very good class. I think a lot of people thought it would be an easy class, but most were very supprised to find out they had no idea what the midterm was asking after missing the whole first half of the semester. Unlike some professors, Prof. Mehrling is interested in what takes place in the real world and could care less about academic theories that only work in the Economics Department. His class is very focused on real life money and banking. Doing all the readings is a good idea, but you can figure out which ones you really need to read.
Prof. Mehrling's class was great. Highly conceptual and idea driven, no real number crunching, lots of writing. If you want a class where you're doing a lot of math, not a good one. If you want to understand how banking works in an innovative and updated way, go for this class. Probably the best Econ class I've taken. Mehrling is affable, easy-going, and his lecture notes are excellent.
I was very impressed with Professor Mehrling. His knowledge of the Fed and the monetary system is unbelievable; I never thought I would learn so much about these topics as I did from him. He did a good job of breaking down some very complicated material and made himself very available to answer student questions. The outside readings were sometimes annoying and could have been covered more in class but ultimately were helpful in understanding the course material. Recitations were not helpful or worth attending.
Prof. Mehrling definitely knows his material inside out. He is also a good lecturer. He encourages questions and does the best he can to ensure that any ambiguities are cleared up. I would recommend this class because it provides a great understanding of the banking system and the Fed.
Professor Mehrling is truly a nice guy, obviously veru capable of teaching the class and respond to question. There is a notion of "ease off", but the exams are rather difficult as opposed to what we actually learn in class. The reading assignments , although interesting are not reviewed in class and are hardly mention. Yet, the student have to reading identifications in the exams which is hard to follow with having a hint of where it would come from(the are not discussed, but with the TA). The information is disorgenized, so it's hard to follow up. The good point are that we do have very orgenized lecture notes posted which are in accord with the class lectures and the Mehrling which is, again, a good professor and approachable. If he would orgenize the information and direct it more towrds the exams the class would be more productive.
All her lecture notes were available in Courseworks, but I recommend you go to class because some stuff she covers isn't found on the slides. Read the Mishkin text and make sure you understand the fundamental concepts. But more importantly understand her lecture notes. The exams were analytical. It isn't pure regurgitation. You had to think critically and apply what you learned analytically. There isn't any hard math like calculus, but you should understand any concepts that use graphs. Also there is required reading that you should be familiar with as well. And make sure you understand the problem sets well. This course teaches you to think critically. And if done correctly you should come out with a decent grade. Good Luck.
Prof. Mehrling is simply excellent. I don't know what some other students were talking about, but his lectures were interesting, engaging and informative. The lecture notes were also excellent, and posted after every class. The Stigum and Mishkin aren't really useful, as I seldom opened them, but the lecture notes were evry useful for studying for the midterm and final. Overall a great class, I learned a lot.
Professor Skousen is every bit the ideal professor. He is engaging and witty, thoroughly knowledgable while still completely approachable. His class covered all the details, i.e. history, that seemed completely irrelevant at first. At some point during the course though, all the pieces began fitting together and I was amazed that I could have taken three years of Econ classes without really understanding these theories that guide Central Bank as well as fiscal policies. I didn't realize until pretty much the end of the course how much I had truly gained from this class. An added bonus: the course is rather macro in nature, providing lessons on many other countries and their economic/banking conditions.
I was a bit skeptical of the professor at first. He uses an historical approach to economics, beginning with the conception of money and working forward. By the midterm I had a feeling that we would never get past WWII. I was wrong on this account; we covered material all the way up to modern day. It was until late in the semester that I realized how effective a method he had for teaching a class. I feel my ability to analyze current policy is strengthend by this historical approach. As a professor, Skousen is a wonderful guy. He is a free-market libertarian (probably the only one at Columbia), but he presents all sides of economic theory fairly. And while its clear that he prefers the latter, he gives enough information in class for students to defend either economist. Skousen has worked in the financial sector (and is still an investment advisor) so he earns more credibility because he draw from real-world experience. The Aplia assignments are frustrating and a waste of time. One was due each week, but some students finished them all in the first week. True these people might be overachievers, but it shows that little of the information on the tests is learned from Aplia. Simply put, if you already know something about Money and Banking, the Aplia is a breeze. If you don't, it can be an irritant. Overall, I reccomend this class highly. The teacher is wonderful, the lectures are interesting, and the result is reccomendable
This course changed the direction of my life. I began the semester as a late-blooming junior, having chosen a major by process of elimination, wholly without career options that aroused my interest. Professor Skousen conveyed such enthusiasm for economics -- particularly the voluntary exchanges that enhance the lives of millions every day -- that I started to fall in love with "the dismal science". Skousen takes a novel approach to economics, mirrored by the wit and wisdom of his book The Making of Modern Economics. (Am I the only one who read its unassigned chapters for pleasure?) Take this class to hear about the lives of pioneering economists, from Marx to Mises, Keynes to Friedman (Skousen brims with enthusiasm and respect for all, strangely enough). We studied the historical events that shaped these men's perspectives and continue to inform political/Fed decisionmaking. Oh, a hint: If you prefer Hayek to Krugman, freedom to tyranny, productivity to envy, and reason to ideology, you'll find a kindred spirit in Mark Skousen.
Hands down the best professor I have ever had. Every day with Prof. Skousen is a pleasure. He's full of energy, knows his subject as if it were his life story, and enjoys interacting with students. HIs personal views are more free-market than most Columbia professors, but Skousen is so incredibly fair and even-handed that you can scarcely tell he prefers Mises to Marx! TAKE THIS CLASS -- a once-in-a-lifetime experience with this brilliant author, investor, and business professor.
This man is too pretencious. He keeps sending students annoying emails with unnecessary decorative phrases on a simple matter, really, just keep things simple and clear--that should be the goal of teaching, not advitising yourself anytime any chance you can seize. By the way, if you wanna know more about what I am talking about check out this personal website that is under hisname.com....errrrrrrr
giorgio di giorgio is one of the worst professors in the western hemisphere. his classes are boring to death but the good news is that none of the notes you will take are actually relevant to the course ....the TA's try their best but the book that is recommended is even more useless to the course...in fact the only person who seems to know what is going to be on the exam is Giorgio and he makes it a point to keep it a secret. He made himself unavailable the week before the final and came to the final with less exams than there were students in the class which meant we had to sit in the final for like half an hour staring into space while the TA went to get copies. this course and professor are a DISASTER
DiGiorgio's Money and Banking has been a universally disappointing experience. His lectures are disorganized and often irrelevent regarding material on the problem sets. He simply throws a number of pointless overheads on the projector, says a word or two of little cosequence, and moves on to the next random slide. Rarely was an actual model presented -- even less likely was an explanation of that model. Giorgio missed the 1st class and had a much better lecturer cover for 2 others, effectively only attending 80% of his classes. Class objectives were never clearly defined. The textbook was essential for anyone hoping to learn anything. The class has been a study in disorganization. It is apparent that the TA's and Giorgio never speak. A good portion of the beginning of each class (there wer only 15 mind you) was spent trying to get co-ordinated, or so it would seem. I would highly recommend looking elsewhere for your Money and Banking professor.
This class started slowly, just going over monetary statistics, but once we got into the theory of money and financial markets the class picked up. Giorgio is a good teacher, clear lecturer who provides numerous handouts (online) which explain the material well. The textbook is good, but not really revelent to the course. The course is fairly easy, with only 4 or 5 models that are rather simple. The curve seems generous and it's rather easy to get a good grade in this class.
This class began with neither a syllabus nor a textbook. Prof di Giogio was arriving from Italy after the semester began. Although he's a decent teacher, with a cool and easy-to-understand accent, I haven't really learned anything from him. We had a substitute teacher one day and I learned a lot more from him in one session than I have from di Giorgio all semester. His handwriting is completely unintelligible. The TA's, despite beign really cool guys have already lost about 3 tests to date, and frequently send e-mails about the too-many-to-name typos in the problem sets, which aren't graded anyways.
he's a nice guy. BUT he cannot teach seminars for his life. i took his money and banking class. it was an experience. the material was pretty difficult but it was more memorization rather than ever encountering formulas or math. if you have an interest for econ. it's a good class to take. but make sure you're going to be able to sit through it all. if you don't like econ so much, you will get bored. as for his seminar class, he hadn't taught a seminar in a few years. he was unable to generate class discussion... but that was good because no one read the books anyways. the seminar books are many. it cost about $400 for all of them. but he says you don't need to buy them all. you just need to buy the ones for your presentation and seminar paper pretty much. suggestion-try to get your books for your presentation and paper on the same topic. it'll save you time and money.
Mehrling is a really nice person and knows what he is talking about really well. The way he explained the topic (the diametric opposites) is very useful in understanding the course and applicable to most of it once you get the hang of it. The Stigum book is horrible, I did not read a page of it. Mishkin readings are not always very relevant though they are interesting and easy to read. Overall I think this was my favorite econ elective and helped me internalize concepts that I had memorized in micro/macro but did not quite have a feel for.
Merhling is a shockingly unclear speaker and writer; most of the class could not follow his lectures or the lecture notes he posted for us. The TAs were not helpful at all; one even admitted he hadn't done the reading and actually asked the students factual questions at a recitation so that we could fill him in on what he neglected to read. Even simple definitions and his beloved "diametric opposites" are never clearly stated. The textbooks are long and won't help on the exams or help you understand the lectures; only the supplemental course packet has interesting and useful content.
I wish I hadn't taken Money and Banking. This class is miserable - Professor Mehrling takes a broad topic which should be interesting, the workings of financial markets, and completely butchers it to death. The format of the course is choppy on all levels - the textbooks are either useless (Mishkin) or dense and impossible (Stigum). Add to that lectures which don't flow very well (if you even bother going, which you probably won't) and you have a class with 90% saying "what is he talking about?" If you have any interest in economics - don't take this, unless you want to leave hating the subject.
This course is great if you want to learn about the banking system. There are like 3 texts that he requires you to read. Don't waste your money and just photocopy the relevant materials as you will not be using the entirty of any of the books. There's a lot of reading. You have to do a book review on the final. He post's lecture notes online, which is helpful, but I would suggest actually going to lectures in person, with a large cup of coffee as it is very difficult to get through his boring lectures. The TAs hardly spoke English and some were awfully condescending.
Extraordinary. Mehrling's lectures are pure gold. He makes the subject fascinating by applying creative frameworks to every topic. The course is a little short on the technical analysis of transactions, but the theoretical understanding is very sound. The approach he takes is particularly effective because of the nature of the subject. If he just presented all the institutions in the banking system and said "they exists, this is how they work", it would be very confusing, and difficult to digest. Mehrling gives historical and analytical methods to view the banking system, and the result is a terrific course. Take if you're an econ major. If you're not, take it anyway. Macro and Micro are required, but they're not actually necessary. the class pretty much stands alone
Whoever wrote that this class is an easy A, and that the tests do not need much preparation DID NOT take the same course I did. If you are perpetually lost in class, you cannot expect to do well in the tests. This guys class was very interesting. It is a shame that his tests do not reflect what he actually teaches in the class. Having said that, if you manage to grasp the basic ideas in the end, it really gives you a good idea of how the banking system and financial markets work.
A new hire by Barnard and former Federal Reserve Bank regulator, Prof Davidson offers a pretty comprehensive introductory look into the world of money supply and banking institutions. This is not a very difficult class, especially for those who have photographic memories and can copy down everything she says. Concepts are very easy to understand as everything introduced is quite basic. Her voice is sort of monotone which can lull you into the wonderful bliss of unconsciousness, so try taking her class when you know you can be up.
This guy makes NO sense in class, and to really know what he's talking about you need to be a money market professional. That said, if you can tolerate being perpetually lost in class, he's not a boring lecturer, and it's a pretty easy A.
Prof. Mehrling is a really cool guy, and I found his class to be a lot of fun. His stories and jokes are really good too. You should definitely take this as an econ elective if you're a major because this is one of the few good classes in the department.
Professor Davidson is new to teaching and has almost a high-school quality format to her lectures. Expect notes to be carefully outlined and definitions to be copied from the chalkboard. This isn't exactly one of the more intellectually demanding econ courses, but it's a good class to take for you investment banking wannabe's. Not all that exciting of a course but not too much work either. Expect picky grading (she almost has to when tests and problem sets are so easy) -like I said, high school stuff. As for the textbook and the so-called 'mandatory' reading, do not waste your time or money touching it.