The one thing that micro and macro taught me was that I didn't want to be a Business major.
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.
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.
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).
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.