This guy is the pits! I cant say one good thing about this class. Lets just say that this is the first prof that I have ever had that made the final so ridiculously hard that the entire class failed, that decided not to curve it but make everyone take a second final two weeks later based on more material that was equally as hard that the avg was still a 70 or something. Yet still refused to curve! On top of all this anxiety you have to go through he is the worse lecturer. You better be a math genius to understand a damn thing. He is equally as unclear one on one. NOTE: He curves around a (B-/C+) So prepare yourself!
Ericson's choice of textbook is suspect, seeing how the class is all about math. He presents clearly enough, and goes though all the topics, it's just a misfortune that he's quite monotonous. He does seem to care about his students, though, and is willing to answer questions. However, he seemed rather disappointed with the class, and threatened to curve the class to a B- after the midterm due to a less than 50% mean. If you're not a math person, this may not be the class for you, but otherwise, you definitely get to learn the material well.
This professor is for the conscientious - those people who go to all the classes, stay after class to ask questions, like spending time with the TAs. If you're not one of those people, then this class is horrible. His lectures are very in depth - people who said he's a machine were right. He teaches like a textbook and with more detail than one. He doesn't teach the impossible math that fills the problem sets, and makes the midterm and final even harder. Some people said he was a nice guy, but, really, who gives an 'optional' second midterm because the class didn't live up to his expectations in the first one??? If you feel like spending a semester nerding it out, go ahead - if not, skip this class.
There is really only one thing to consider when thinking about professor Ericson: are you a math person or not? That is the basic divide in the class - everyone who could handle the math didn't mind Ericson, and everyone else did not. The math is not difficult, but you have to not hate it. The class is well structured in general. He gives solved problems for each major topic, which I advise you learn cold. Basically, it's learning a math technique to solve a particular type of problem. The class, homework, and exams are all structured around those problems.
Ericson is a white bearded econ machine who works tirelessly from exactly 9am-10:25 every Tuesday and Thursday. He ouputs random calculus onto the board while pausing once every while to ask "any questions?", to which no one has ever even begun to make a sound. He then turns back to the board and resumes machine mode. The book sucks because it has no examples, and almost no solved problems. Some may say Ericson is a nice guy, but i contend that ericson is more machine than man, and as such, has no capacity for emotion or human understanding. Overall: Take econ if you like learning from a Robot. If Jesus had to take econ, he'd take it from somone else.
Ericson is a good teacher. He is clear and straightforward. Micro is inherently a heavily math-based subject so he assumes people know how to do the math (about the level of Calc IIS). Lectures may be boring but he is very thorough and approachable after class. TAs, though, were not so good.
Try to avoid if possible. If you must do the course with him, make use of the text book and try to get extra material. Attend all available TA hours, because the close to speed of light ,math extensive and lengthy explanations in class are hard to follow. Unless you are a true morning person, don't take this course early in the day with him. Typical weed out class with a prof the goes with the program. It does not seem that he wants you to understand the material as much as he wants just to finish the alloted quota he decided to "teach" that day. Something must be wrong if the prof decides to let us have a "voluntary" midterm, but does not let us know what the real (curved) grade of the first one is. Bottom line: for a course and prof that should help me build a strong knowledge base in Micro, it failed.
Ericson is really not so bad. Sure, he likes to go into the math concepts, but that's micro. Most of the time he uses the math to explain the graphs, and inevitably you're expected to learn how the math explains the theoretical concepts. He's no dancing monkey, but he explains everything clearly and pauses every once in awhile to ask if people have questions. People fall asleep because it's a 9am class, but going to class is worth it if you force yourself to stay awake...it saves you the trouble of reading the book and learning the math stuff on your own. He gave us the opportunity to take a makeup midterm and took the better grade of the two. All in all, he's a nice, understanding guy who is really into his econ.
Microeconomics or Calc IIIS? This class was one of the worst academic experiences of my life. Ericson complete ignores the theory of microecon and spends all his time on the math. What makes matters worse is that he doesn't explain half of his calculations, and those which he does explain are done so quickly you need three hands to take notes. He also decided to start class 10 minutes early on his own accord. Of course no one has a class that conflicts, why should he ask us?
Back in the days when Intermediate Microeconomics was divided into the Calculus and non-Calculus section, Prof Ericson taught the Calculus section. Now that there is no longer any distinction between the different sections of microeconomics, expect Prof Ericson's section to still pay homage to the great calculus gods. No, not a very fun class and lots and lots of math. I suppose you won't have much choice when you're picking your micro teacher, so let me add one positive: his English is certainly understandable, unlike quite a few other Econ professors. Yeah, you're not going to enjoy this class and you probably won't enjoy the Econ major, so sucks to be you.