I disliked how overly simplified micro and macro 101 were. The models were counter to what I knew was obviously true, so I didn't go any deeper until graduate school. Once I took some advanced courses, I realized how valuable the topics were.
Being an econ major is also very different from being a business major. I view it as analogous to being a math major versus being mechanical engineering. One is more theory, the other is more practical. Neither is better or worse in an absolute sense.
This is a bit of topic, but your comment brings up a point that I often see talked about on HN, but doesn't match my own personal experience. You say:" I view it as analogous to being a math major versus being mechanical engineering. One is more theory, the other is more practical." Now here's the thing. I have a degree in electrical engineering, and to get that degree, I had to do a full unit load of maths, physics and computer science. By full unit load, I mean that I had to do as many units in these subjects as a maths major / physics major / CS major would do in their respective courses. And these weren't 'lite' versions of the units, they were the same - we had maths / physics / CS majors in the lecture hall with us, and we did the same exams. The only real difference was that we didn't get to choose which units we did in these subjects - whereas the subject majors got to choose from a wider range of curricula, we were simply told that we would be studying statistics, or quantum mechanics, or operating system design.
Was my university a special case, or is the oft-repeated claim that engineering is less theory and more practice actually just a false generalisation?
I should of course note that after graduation the stereotype probably does hold true - engineers spend much less time worrying about formal proofs, or highly-accurate physics calculations, approximations are generally fine for what we do. But that is not the case whilst studying, at least not in my experience.
I think the issue is, if it's like the schools I'm familiar with, you took the 1xxx, 2xxx and maybe 3xxx stats/calculus/linear algebra courses. You didn't take their 3xxx/4xxx follow-ups that the math and CS (different courses, same idea) took. At Georgia Tech, CMPEs took 2130 Languages and Translation. The course introduced compilers, it introduced language hierarchies (regular, context-free, etc.), but the 3xxx or 4xxx CS theory and compilers courses were where the material was really taught. And CMPEs rarely took those courses. If they did they were seeking a second major (no minor in CS was offered at the time, IIRC).
The same is true in math. EE/CMPE, probably every E, took through differential equations, maybe another math course or two, but few took number theory, numerical analysis, real analysis, the 4xxx stats or 4xxx linear algebra courses.
The depth at the undergraduate level between what an engineering major gets from the other departments (math, physics, cs) is nowhere near the depth that those majoring in those programs will see (depending on school, I'll grant some schools may not have strong science or math programs beyond the core engineering majors need).
My impression is that Engineering majors take as many Physics and Math classes, but they tend to be more on the practical side.
For instance, a math major can take a bunch of set theory, number theory and topology that an engineer wouldn't see. The math major could also take a curriculum that is indeed more similar to what the engineer takes.
I disliked how overly simplified micro and macro 101 were. The models were counter to what I knew was obviously true, so I didn't go any deeper until graduate school. Once I took some advanced courses, I realized how valuable the topics were.
Being an econ major is also very different from being a business major. I view it as analogous to being a math major versus being mechanical engineering. One is more theory, the other is more practical. Neither is better or worse in an absolute sense.