It's impossible to understand microeconomics without a study of macroeconomics first. Research has shown students who study macro first perform better academically in both macro and micro than students who study micro first.
When you study macro first, things in micro look…bizarre. Many micro texts try to explain minimum wage and impacts on employment as if there's only one product, thus higher wage causes increased unemployment rates (as in permanently, not structural change); yet from a macro perspective you know there's wage compression, labor-labor substitution giving productivity benefits, a money supply, the lot, so there'd only be reorganization of labor into different jobs. The trade and tariff discussions often suggest open trade moves the price of a good to the "world price", but if you've studied macro the concept of currency markets comes up and you realize "world price" has no real-world meaning.
Micro is basically spherical-cow economics. From what I've seen, most of the bad theory out there is due to application of microeconomics to macroeconomics problems. I tend to think micro is negative education (i.e. so completely wrong it's damaging to the student and reduces their level of education), but I'm also solely focused on public policy and have basically zero use for micro.
