I
?
S.94-26
FOR INFORMATION
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC ?
MEMORANDUM
To: ?
Senate
From: ?
J. M. Munro, Chair
Senate Committee on Academic Planning
Subject:
?
External Review - Department of Economics
Date: ?
March 17, 1994
Attached for the information of Senate is a summary of the external review of the
Department of Economics which was carried out in June, 1993. The report and the
response of the Department were reviewed by the Senate Committee on Academic
Planning at its meeting of February 16, 1994 and the Committee approved a motion
to receive the report. The full report and the response by the Department are
available from the Secretary of Senate for senators to review.
The review team had the following membership:
Chair: ?
Dr. James R. Melvin
Chair, Department of Economics
University of Waterloo
Members: Dr. C. Frank Mathewson
Professor, Department of Economics
University of Toronto
Dr. John McCallum
Professor, Department of Economics
Dean of Arts
McGill University
Dr. W. Cleveland of the Department of History was the internal member of the
committee.
?
&&MAO
0
External Review - Department of Economics
?
Summary
Undergraduate Program
The review committee noted that the structure of the undergraduate program
differs from many other undergraduate programs; however, a complete
overhaul of the undergraduate curriculum had recently been undertaken which
was felt to have resulted in substantial improvements. The committee
recommended that the review of the Honours program continue.
Late tutorial assignments have contributed to difficulties with tutorials. The
committee recommended that assignments be made well in advance of the first
week of classes, and that t.a.s and faculty meet to coordinate their activities.
Furthermore, faculty may not always be accessible to students and it was
recommended that access by undergraduate students to faculty responsible for
the course be encouraged.
Students in the joint majors in Economics and Business Administration
appeared to face difficulties in conflicting course scheduling, and the review
committee recommended that the Department should produce annually a
handbook detailing program regulations and courses to be offered.
Graduate Program
The committee felt the quality of the graduates as seen by their success in
obtaining appropriate employment reflected well on the quality of the graduate
program. The committee encouraged the upcoming evaluation of the graduate
program which will consider the current micro and macro offerings, and the
question of exam timing and breadth of comprehensive examinations.
Faculty
The committee noted that the faculty complement is strong and dedicated to
high quality teaching and research. Recent additions have strengthened the
Department considerably. The committee warned that the salary scales at
10 Much, 1994 ?
Page 1
•1
SFU, particularly the ceilings, encourage faculty to seek other forms of
remuneration and could
lead to faculty eventually leaving.
Recruitment and coverage of the discipline were also discussed in the review.
The committee noted that the Department did not have sufficient faculty to
provide a core of three faculty in each area. The Department should avoid
making isolated appointments to cover a particular field, since it is extremely
difficult to work without the support of and interaction with other faculty. The
review committee also recommended that new faculty should be given
orientation to the Department and the University.
Research and Teaching
It was stated by the review committee that the department carries a very heavy
undergraduate and graduate teaching load, and the distribution of the
responsibilities is somewhat unequal, partly caused by the imbalance between
theoretical and applied research, and partly caused by the semester system.
The committee felt that a well-defined policy on research, teaching and
supervisory responsibilities should be devised by the University.
Departmental Governance
The committee suggested that support staff meetings should be initiated to
improve communication, identify issues and problems, and make the lines of
authority clear. The committee also suggested that the Graduate Curriculum
Committee should meet at least once a semester, and that the graduate
students should be more organized and formally elect a representative to act as
spokesperson for the group.
Relations between Economics and Other Units
The committee commented on the relationship between Economics and
Business Administration. The principal area of
concern
affecting the
Department is the position of Finance as an option in the Ph.D. program, and
the joint appointments which were arranged when the Department of
.
?
Economics and Commerce split into the Faculty of Business Administration
and the Department of Economics. At the time of an impending retirement,
Page 2
?
10 March, 1994
I
L
Economics will have to determine whether Finance is its highest priority
position. If it is, the Finance option probably can continue. If Finance does
not appear as its highest priority, the option should probably be discontinued
unless other resources are made available. Another problem area noted by the
review committee was the rationalization of the other joint appointments
between Economics and Business Administration.
Gender Issues
The committee was
critical
of the Department with respect to significant
problems in the area of gender bias in the Department and some reports of
inappropriate behaviour. The committee recommended that a Gender and
Racial Issues Committee be struck with representation from all the interested
parties in the Department.
.
.
10 March, 1994
?
Page 3
SCAP 94 — 12
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
EXTERNAL REVIEW
JUNE 1993
a.
.
Report by:
G. Frank Mathewson, University of Toronto?
John McCallum, McGill University
?
James R. Melvin, University of Waterloo
0
• ?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
PREAMBLE ...................................................1
2.
OVERVIEW ...................................................1
3.
THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM ................................2
4.
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM ......................................3
5. FACULTY ?
....................................................6
6.
RESEARCH AND TEACHING .......................................7
7.
EXTERNAL RESOURCES .........................................8
8.
SUPPORT STAFF AND DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES ..................9
9.
DEPARTMENTAL GOVERNANCE ...................................9
10.
INTER AND INTRAFACULTY RELATIONS ..........................10
11.
GENDER ISSUES ..............................................12
12.
RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................14
A.
For the Department ...........................................14
B.
For the University ............................................15
REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
?
.
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
1.
PREAMBLE
The External Review Committee for the Department of Economics consisted of Professors
Mathewson, McCallum, and Melvin and the Committee began its Site visit on the morning of
June 22nd. The external reviewers were joined by Professor Bill Cleveland from the Department
of History. The Committee initially met with Dr. Evan Alderson and Mrs. Alison Watt, who
outlined the procedures to be followed and indicated some of the areas that they hoped the report
would cover. For the remainder of Tuesday and for Wednesday and Thursday the Committee met
with faculty, support staff, undergraduate students, and graduate students. We also met with Dr.
Shapiro, Dean of the Faculty of Business Administration and Dr. Clayman, Dean of Graduate
Studies. Although we clearly did not meet with all faculty and students, it is our belief that any
individual who wished to see us was able to do so, and if there are issues or difficulties that were
not brought to our attention it was not because individuals were excluded from the process.
The External Review Committee's task was substantially facilitated by the presence of Professor
Bill Cleveland, whose participation in both the formal and informal aspects of the review
proceedings went well beyond the call of duty. Whatever success the review achieves is due, in
no small measure, to Professor Cleveland's conscientiousness.
The Committee would also like to express its appreciation to all members of the Economics
Department, including faculty, support staff and students, for their cooperation and for the
hospitality shown to us.
2.
OVERVIEW
In
general we were very favourably impressed by the Economics Department at Simon Fraser
University. The Department takes teaching very seriously and has a strong commitment to
research. John Chant has done a first-class job as Chair and seems to have the support of almost
the entire Department.
As is true in any department in any university, there are some difficulties, and some of these are
identified below. For the most part these are minor in nature and it seems to us that adjustments
to take care of the concerns expressed will be fairly straightforward. A major problem facing
the Department is identified in Section 11. There is a strong feeling of cooperation within the
Department, and there is a strong desire among all individuals—faculty, support staff, and
students—that the problems that do exist be solved.
Reports such as these, for obvious reasons, tend to focus on weaknesses rather than strengths. It
does seem to be important to begin by emphasizing the fact that, while not all of the problems
?
46
-1-
-2-
are minor, there is a serious willingness to solve them and a serious desire by all individuals to
make the Department an even better place in which to work.
3. THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
The undergraduate program differs in structure from that found in most other Canadian
universities. Among the differences most obvious to outsiders is the fact that the general degree
is a four-year degree rather than three, that there are tutorials at all levels of instruction, that all
fourth-year courses are seminars, and that many of the upper-year students are transfers from
colleges. The overall program seems to have served the students well, and these differences are
mentioned here only because they make comparisons with programs at other universities quite
difficult.
The Department of Economics has recently undertaken a thorough review of the undergraduate
program, and has put a number of rather fundamental changes in place. It is our impression that
these changes have been well thought-out and will result in substantial improvements in the
program. Because they are as yet untried, they should certainly be given a trial period before any
additional changes are recommended.
Some of the more important of the changes recommended are consequences of the structure of
the undergraduate program at Simon Fraser mentioned above. Having the basic theory course in
the third year rather than in year two, as would be the case in many other universities, is a result
of the Department's view that it must maintain some control of the theoretical skills of students
transferring from colleges. The Committee feels that this is a very sensible approach. A series
of field courses at the second-year level have been introduced, and it is anticipated that many of
these will be taught at the colleges. This again seems like a very appropriate change and one
which, as we understand it, has met with approval by the colleges.
Some concern was expressed about the structure of the honours program, and the Committee was
surprised to find that the current registration in honours is only about five students. On reflection,
however, this may not be too surprising. The four-year general program with the availability of
fourth-year seminar courses makes the general program much more comparable to honours
programs at other Canadian universities. In many universities the typical general student in a
three-year program would not be exposed to the range of advanced courses available at Simon
Fraser, and almost certainly would never have been in a seminar course.
But while the general program has characteristics found in honours programs in other universities,
we nevertheless feel that some additional changes to the honours program would be appropriate.
The Department is in the process of formulating plans to review the honours program and we
think that this process should continue. We recommend, for example, that the Departmental
Committee consider making the basic fourth-year theory seminar courses compulsory for the
Honours Degree. Students also suggested that it would be appropriate to add some additional
courses at the fourth-year level, and certainly some new courses would increase choice and would
thus make the program more attractive. There is the obvious resource cost of adding new courses
that must be considered, however, and given the current size of the honours program, designing
new courses entirely for the honours students would not be efficient.
-3-
An issue that was raised in our discussions both with faculty and with students was the roll of
the tutorials. While in general the tutorial system seems to work very well, and is a feature
which adds strength to the current program, there were some areas of concern. It was reported
that on occasion tutors were not aware of what had been covered in class and depended for their
information on the students. There seemed, in particular, to be difficulties in the beginning of
the semester when tutors did not know until well into the first week of term which tutorial
sections they were responsible for. Faculty also noted that they had very little opportunity to
prepare students for their initial tutorial sessions. It was observed that the assignment of tutors
to
sessions occurred rather later than is common in many other departments in the Faculty and
that this resulted in some of the difficulties identified above. It is recommended that, if possible,
tutorial assignments be made well in advance of the first week of class and that tutors be asked
to meet with faculty to coordinate their activities.
Another problem that may relate to the tutorial system was the report that some faculty were not
always accessible to students, either because they were not in their office or because they made
it clear to students that they were not welcome. It seems possible that some faculty are using
the existence of tutors as an excuse to avoid contact with undergraduate students. In so far as
this is true, it does not seem appropriate and we would recommend that access by undergraduate
students to faculty responsible for the course be encouraged.
A final concern expressed by students was the problem of coordination of joint programs and,
particularly, the joint economics and business program. Students expressed the feeling that they
were treated as second-class citizens in their dealings with the Business Administration faculty.
They also noted that on occasion required courses in business and economics were scheduled at
the same time, making it impossible to take both. There was also some concern about the clarity
of regulations governing joint majors, and inconsistencies concerning rules for progression. It
was felt by some that it would be helpful if the Department produced a handbook on a yearly
basis, perhaps with amendments each semester, that would clearly spell out, not only the rules
and regulations, but also the availability of courses in the foreseeable future.
4. THE GRADUATE PROGRAM
There was general satisfaction with the way the graduate program is operated. Students have
generally enjoyed their experience and feel that they have been well served by the program.
Both M.A.s and Ph.D.s have been very successful in obtaining appropriate positions, and given
the state of the market this is a tough test. It is our impression, for example, that Simon Fraser
Economics Ph.D.s have been more successful in the market than students from such places as
the University of Western Ontario and the University of British Columbia. The success of M.A.
and Ph.D students in obtaining positions is certainly a reflection of the high quality of the
program, but also indicates the much higher profile that the Department has enjoyed in the
Canadian profession in recent years.
But while the program is basically strong there were some areas of concern. It is our
understanding that a major evaluation of the graduate program will soon take place in the
Department and in our opinion this is appropriate. Changes that are required for a graduate.
program are much more obvious to students and faculty in the Department than they are to
-4-
outside observers, and we are confident that the appropriate Departmental Committee can correct
whatever minor difficulties presently exist. No two graduate programs in Canada are the same,
and this is clearly a strength of the overall graduate system in Economics. Thus we will propose
no specific changes but will simply identify some of the areas that have come to our attention
as needing some further consideration.
Both faculty and students noted the need to reconsider the basic micro and macro sequences. At
present there is an imbalance in the sense that there are more micro courses required then macro,
and while we understand the historic reasons for this difference, the appropriateness under present
circumstances needs to be reconsidered. Some concern was also expressed that some of the
required courses do not prepare students for the comprehensive exams that they are required to
take. There is, of course, no universal rule that comprehensive examinations should cover the
material covered in the basic micro and macro examinations. In some graduate programs the
material covered in comprehensives goes well beyond the course material. The point is simply
that students should be aware of the relationship between the basic micro and macro courses and
the comprehensive exams. If it is the Department's policy that the basic Ph.D. courses are a
preparation for the comprehensive exams, then it is important that the theory courses cover the
appropriate material.
There was a suggestion by some faculty that it would be preferable to have both the micro and
macro comprehensive examinations taken in the same exam period. Some departments insist that
students write both exams together, with perhaps a week or tell days between the two exams.
Practice varies substantially from university to university, and the appropriate format for
comprehensive examinations clearly is a function of the specific nature of the program. We are
not recommending that a change be made, but only that it would be useful to consider whether
the present format is the most appropriate one.
An issue raised by Dean Clayman and some faculty members was the length of time to
completion for both
M.A.s
and Ph.D.s and the number of late withdrawals. We note first that,
relative to the rest of the University, the Economics Department has a rather good record in terms
of completion times. At the M.A. level, Economics is fourth best with a medium time of six
semesters relative to the medium time of nine semesters for the University as a whole. At the
Ph.D. level, Economics ranks fourteen out of eighteen with a medium completion time of
eighteen semesters which is slightly higher than the University's average of sixteen semesters.
Thus for M.A.s the Economics Department does significantly better than average and is not much
above average at the Ph.D.
Relative to completion time in other Canadian Economics M.A. and Ph.D. programs the
completion times at Simon Fraser seem relatively long, although this is an impression rather than
a fact, since we do not have information on completion rates at other Canadian universities.
There are several features of the Simon Fraser program that would tend to make completion rates
slower. The work load for teaching assistants at Simon Fraser is significantly heavier than for
most other universities in Canada. Even thouzh we understand that the rate has been reduced
. ?
recently at Simon Fraser, it is still higher than the mandatory maximum of ten hours per week
allowed in Ph.D. and M.A. programs in Ontario, for example. Furthermore, students at many
-
?
other universities typically work far fewer hours than the time for which they are paid. With the.
tutorial system at Simon Fraser this seems less likely to be true. Although there is undoubtedly
-5-
variation in the amount of time students spend on their tutorials, due in part to the fact that with
experience the total preparation time can be reduced, it nevertheless seems clear that on average
students at Simon Fraser spend more time working than they do at other comparable universities.
One immediate consequence of this larger time spent on T.A. responsibilities is that the same
course load cannot be carried that is common elsewhere. Thus, at Simon Fraser two or three
courses per semester constitute a full load, whereas in most other universities four courses would
be considered the normal load.
Another reason for slow completion times may be the fact that a large proportion of the graduate
students work in part-time and in some cases even full-time jobs off campus. It has also been
reported that many foreign students, who do not have the option of staying in Canada after their
degree has been completed. may prolong their stay in the graduate program as a method of
prolonging their stay in Canada.
But whether or not the completion rate in the Economics Department is slower than it should be,
relative to other departments in Simon Fraser or to economics departments elsewhere, the
principal issue would seem to be whether this completion rate adds substantially to the cost of
running the graduate program, or is disadvantageous to students. In other words, the issue is
whether there are significant resource costs to low completion times. Several faculty members
to whom we spoke suggested that the resource cost did not seem to be large. Slow completion
times often result from the fact that students take jobs at colleges or with the government before
completing their degree, and while this sIo\vS down their program, because they are not holding
T.A.'s, it does not impose resource costs on the University. Thus, while we feel that the issue
of completion times needs to be carefully examined, this examination should be carried out in
terms of what the real cost of slow completion times are for the Economics Department, the
University, and the students.
Statistics provided by Dr. Clayman suggest that the time to withdrawal for M.A. and Ph.D.
students was longer than would be desirable and certainly the statistics provided do suggest that
withdrawals often do take place well into the program. There is some question, however, on the
meaning and interpretation of these statistics. It has been suggested that some students withdraw
well after they have actually left the University, and if this is the case then such late withdrawals
really have no resource costs to the University. Furthermore, on looking through the withdrawals
statistics we noted at least one student shown to have withdrawn who clearly has not done so.
Indeed this student was on campus to do his Ph.D. final oral during the time of our appraisal.
There would seem to be a need to examine carefully the withdrawal statistics to make sure that
they accurately reflect real withdrawals, and whether such withdrawals result in resource costs
to the University.
A concern about the graduate program expressed by several graduate students was the fact that
communication between students and the Department is not always ideal. It was reported that
students did not know their tutorial assignments until well into the first week of classes and some
concern was expressed about how the tutorial assignments were made. In general, the students
felt they lacked a forum for expressing their views and asking questions about how the program
worked. Although students are represented on the Graduate Curriculum Committee, this
Committee does not meet on a regular basis, making it difficult for students to organise or obtain.
the information they seek. We think it would be useful if the Graduate Curriculum Committee
held a regularly scheduled meeting at least once a semester, and that the students be advised well
in advance of the meeting date so that any concerns they may have about the program and its
administration can be brought
forward
and discussed. We will return to this issue in Section 9
later in the report.
5. FACULTY
The faculty complement is strong, and almost all seem dedicated to high quality teaching and
research. The strong support for research that exists among the faculty is important and has
resulted in a cohesion and single-mindedness in tenns of the direction in which the Department
should go that is not often found in economics departments in Canada. The virtual unanimity
in the importance of research among faculty members has facilitated the important hirings that
have taken place over the past six years. The recent additions to the faculty have not only
strengthened the Department but have also significantly increased the Department's profile both
nationally and internationally. While the Department would not be seen as ranking among the
top two or three departments in Canada it could well rank in the top six.
The importance of the recent hirings, and the importance of retaining these recent recruits at
Simon Fraser should not be under-emphasized. It would be very unfortunate for the Department
and for the University if the high-profile individuals recently hired cannot be retained. An
important issue here is salary, and it is noteworthy that Simon Fraser has salary caps that are both
lower and more restrictive than exist in most comparable Canadian universities. The University
must seriously consider ways of either removing these caps for selected individuals or providing
some mechanisms that would allow salary increases for individuals that are above the current
maximum levels. Without some loosening of the current restrictions it seems likely that some
of the better faculty will eventually leave.
Another disadvantage of relatively low salary caps is that they encourage faculty to seek other
forms of remuneration. Thus, if faculty feel that they are being underpaid for their academic
contributions they will seek additional income through sources such as consulting. There is
already a feeling among some faculty members that too much consulting is being done, and that
this puts a strain on the limited resources available to the Department. Although there is no
evidence that the current consulting practices are a consequence of salary ceilings, in the future
such ceilings would be expected to result in more consulting and this will exacerbate the present
problem.
In discussions with faculty members several issues in the research area were raised. One issue
is the balance between theory on the one side and policy and empirical work on the other. An
imbalance between theory and empirical analysis puts a strain on those faculty who specialize
in empirical- or policy-related research. This is particularly evident in graduate supervision
where M.A. projects and Ph.D. theses require supervision by someone familiar with modern
empirical techniques.
Having identified the imbalance between theory and empirical work as a problem, we can offer
• •• ?
no easy solutions. This is a problem which exists at most Canadian universities that have.
graduate programs, and although it will be of small comfort, the problem is clearly much less
-7-
severe at Simon Fraser than it is at some other departments in Canada. The source of the
problem stems, at least in part, from the fact that a disproportionate share of the very bright
Ph.D. students at major North American departments specialise in theory. For whatever reason,
theoretical research seems to have been more highly regarded than solid empirical research.
Thus, while there are some good empirical economists on the market in any given year, the
preponderance of highly qualified people are theoreticians. Any attempt to hire "the best
candidates" will therefore almost always result in more theorists being considered.' At the same
time the demand for supervision of theoretical M.A. projects is almost nonexistent and the quality
of Ph-.D.
students at Simon Fraser, and indeed at any Canadian university, results in a majority
doing empirically-related theses.
An issue concerning recruiting was whether the Department should attempt to be broadly based
and cover all areas or whether there should be more specialization. The Department is relatively
small and its effective size is further reduced by the semester system which results in a
significant number of faculty not teaching in any given semester, and by the fact that consulting
activities reduce the time that some faculty spend at the University. As a consequence, any
attempt to cover all the legitimate fields of interest in economics would result in one individual
or at most two, in any given field. It is widely believed that research is substantially facilitated
by the existence of a core of individuals that have similar or overlapping research interests.
Some universities do not offer fields, for example, unless at least three faculty members have a
primary or strong secondary interest in that particular area. The difficulty of working by oneself
in a particular area, particularly for junior faculty, cannot be overestimated.
Given the faculty size, we have no recommendation regarding specialization versus a broad
coverage of fields. We feel, however, that it is an issue that must be addressed by the
Department. We did not detect any consensus on this matter in discussion with faculty members,
but would recommend that serious attention be paid to this issue before new appointments are
made.
A point made by a junior faculty is that there is little in the way of orientation for new faculty.
Given that the program at SFU differs substantially from most other programs in Canada, this
can cause confusion for new faculty. An orientation meeting for new faculty would be
appropriate.
6. RESEARCH AND TEACHING
Several of the issues that fall in the area of research and teaching have already been discussed.
A problem identified by many faculty members was the small real and effective size of the
Department. The Department carries a very heavy teaching load; a load that would be
substantially increased if all students wishing to take economics were allowed to do so. Given
the very large undergraduate student enrolment and the large M.A. and Ph.D. programs, a strong
case can be made for increasing the size of the Department. The case is strengthened by the
I
To provide one example from elsewhere, at the University of Waterloo nine tenure track
appointments have been made in the last three years. Of these nine, all but one are theorists.
S
-8-
recent success that the Department has enjoyed in recruiting and by the high profile that the
Department now enjoys. Hiring strong faculty will be progressively easier in the future, and
given the recent successes, a policy of building on strength would certainly suggest that, when
new appointments are available, serious consideration be given to allocating some to the
Department of Economics.
Discussions with faculty and students and documents on student supervision indicate that there
is an unequal workload within the Economics Department. As was mentioned above, this is due
in part to the imbalance between theoretical and applied research and by the fact that in any
given semester a relatively small number of faculty are available for supervision. Again, this is
not a problem that is unique to the Economics Department at Simon Fraser, and it is not one for
which any easy solution is evident. Balancing the work load by assigning more teaching
responsibilities to individuals who do not carry their share of graduate supervision is one
alternative, but we feel strongly that this is not an action that can be taken unilaterally by
departments. It would, however, be very helpful to the Economics Department, and presumably
to other departments as well, if a well-defined policy on research, teaching, and supervisory
responsibilities were devised by the University.
A feature of the teaching activity that was noted by many was the large number of sessionals
used by Economics. A related concern was the small number of legitimate visitors in the
Department. Visitors can add enormously to the research climate of the Department, often
relatively inexpensively, and distinguished visitors would almost certainly find Simon Fraser an
attractive place to visit. Recent budget reductions that have required a reduction in the visitors'
budget have been unfortunate, and it is to be hoped that the visitors' program can be
strengthened. One would ideally want to replace many of the sessionals with permanent
appointments, but one understands that resource constraints may make this difficult or impossible.
7.
EXTERNAL RESOURCES
In the area of external grants to support research, the faculty seems to have been quite successful.
Although the information provided in Table 2.4 in Volume 2 of the Internal Review is
incomplete , 2
and although it is not clear to what extent some of these grants have actually had
an impact on the activities in the Department, the list is nevertheless substantial. It is noteworthy
that only half of the departmental members have received external research support. This would
be a low percentage relative to support in natural sciences but probably compares very favourably
with other economics departments in Canada.
On external support for Ph.D. students, we were provided with no specific information. It is our
impression that few Ph.D. students have received SSHRCC fellowships, but it is known that
SSHRCC fellowships have been difficult to obtain in recent years and we have no indication as
to whether such research support has been sought. If applications are made, failure to receive
support could be a reflection of the quality of the average Ph.D. student; but may also simply
reflect the overall competition. It should also be remembered that other grants usually have a
2
The amounts for several of the research grants are not given.
-9-
large student support component.
8.
SUPPORT STAFF AND DEPARTMENTAL RESOURCES
Although all departments would prefer to have a larger support staff and a larger non-salary
budget there is a general consensus that the Department has been treated fairly by the University.
The Department has also been fortunate in being able to attract and retain a very competent
support staff that works well together. Although there could be an improvement in
communication among staff and between staff and the Department administration, points to be
discussed in the next section, in general it is our opinion that the support staff has done an
excellent job and has the strong and general support of the faculty.
Computing activities in the Department seem adequate and new faculty in particular have been
provided with up-to-date equipment. There has been some concern about the relationship
between the University computing centres and the network maintained by the Faculty of Arts,
and more co-ordination in this area would make an improvement in the overall efficiency of the
unit. The Departmental non-salary budget, while not generous, seems adequate.
Space has been a problem for the Department, but this seems certain to be resolved by the move
to the new building. The new building will also provide adequate space for computer equipment,
and will provide much needed and improved space for the housing of graduate students.
The library facilities seem quite adequate, or at least we heard no major complaints. There were
some complaints made about the constraints being imposed by the Library on the offering of new
courses, where unrealistic demands for resource transfers to the Library were imposed for
changes that were nothing but a name change or a switch for a course from one year to another.
These were doubtlessly a response to tight budgets, but nevertheless it would seem sensible to
allow departments to have the final say in whether the University library has adequate resources
for the mounting of a new or revised course.
9.
DEPARTMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Overall the Department has a rather unstructured and noninterventionist style of operation. The
Department has no regular faculty meetings, although meetings on specific issues can be called
at the request of any four faculty members. Although this could be seen as somewhat
unconventional, from the point of view of the faculty members it seems to have worked very
well. Practice differs from department to department within the University and also across
universities, and a system of not having departmental meetings is certainly not unique among
economics departments in Canada. In general, it is our impression that economics departments
meet less often as a group than many other disciplines. The point is there is no single
appropriate method of governance that suits all departments, and from the point of view of
faculty the present system seems to work very well. If there is a ground swell for more
departmental meetings in the future it should not be difficult to obtain the required four
signatures.
S
-10-
While the lack of formal meetings and the somewhat unstructured style of operation seems to
work very well at the faculty level there is some evidence that this is not the case for support
staff and for graduate students. Although the support staff are very supportive of the operation
of the Department, there is a strong feeling that more structure and organization would assist in
the day-to-day operations of the Department. In some circumstances, for example, the chain of
command has not been clear and this has resulted in some anxiety among staff members.
Questions of who has responsibility in certain areas when a staff person is absent have sometimes
raised concerns. Several staff also suggested that it might be useful for the staff as a group to
meet on a fairly regular basis. We think this would be helpful in improving communication, in
making the lines of authority clear, and in identifying issues and problems that can be expected
to require support staff attention. How frequently these meetings should be held is a matter to
be decided by the Department or perhaps by the support staff, but initially it might be helpful
to meet every two weeks or at least every month. If in the future, such regular meetings are not
seen as necessary then a less frequent meeting schedule could be instituted.
As mentioned before, the support staff is very supportive of the Chair and of the operations of
the Department and they seem generally happy with the environment. They also seemed to us
to be a very competent group. Introducing a bit more structure and some more carefully defined
supervision could easily be accomplished and is likely to pay significant dividends for the longer
run.
The informality of meetings has also caused some difficulty for the graduate students. As
mentioned earlier, students have some questions about the organization of the graduate program
and about procedures, particularly having to do with the assignment of tutors; and there is
uncertainty about where they should seek answers to their questions. We feel that it would be
appropriate to have regularly scheduled meetings of the Graduate Curriculum Committee at least
once a semester. These meetings should be advertised well in advance, and a formal opportunity
should be provided for the graduate student representatives to raise questions and provide input
to the discussion. Of course, it is also important that action be taken on these requests, or at
least that students be advised as to why a particular policy is in place.
The graduate students themselves also seem somewhat disorganized. At our original meeting
with a group of graduate students, some did not seem aware that there was a graduate student
representative on the Graduate Curriculum Committee, and no one knew who this representative
was. It would be helpful if the graduate students would organize and formally elect a
representative, who would then act as spokesperson for the group.
10. INTER AND INTRAFACULTY RELATIONS
We heard of no concerns about relations among departments within the Faculty of Arts. We
therefore assume that there are no problems in this area. There are, however, some frictions
between the Department of Economics and the Faculty of Business Administration. Many of
these difficulties have their origin in the history of the organization of the University; and
. although some of the arrangements appear odd to outsiders, they can be explained by the history
of the relationships between Economics and Business. There are several areas that deserve some.
mention.
-11-
At the undergraduate level there are joint programs between Economics and Business, and
students expressed some concern over the coordination of these programs. From the students
point-of-view, attempts to coordinate the offerings and the program would be helpful. It would
also be valuable if some internal document, perhaps a handbook, were available to students in
which the rules for the various programs were set out clearly.
To an outsider the joint appointments between Economics and Business seem puzzling, to say
the least. There are faculty members in the Economics Department, for example, who do none
of their teaching in economics and whose course assignments are determined by someone in the
Faculty of Business Administration. One would expect that a rationalization of the appointments
between Economics and Business would simplify life for all concerned, but we understand that
this may be difficult. Certainly such reorganization would have to take place at the Decanal level
or perhaps at the level of Vice-President, Academic.
Another area of concern between Business and Economics are the BUEC courses. Although we
were not on campus long enough to gain a clear understanding of the full history of these
courses, we did obtain the clear impression that the students are well served by this system.
Again, using the principle that "if it ain't broke don't fix it' we recommend that the BUEC
program be maintained largely as it is. Issues of resources dedicated to mounting these courses
must be dealt with by the Dean of Arts and the Dean of Business Administration.
The principal issue between Business and Economics from the point of view of the Economics
Department is the future of the finance option in the Ph.D. program. Here there are several
issues. The first is whether the Economics Department feels strongly that this option should be
maintained. In our discussions with faculty there was no unanimity on this point, although it is
our impression that a majority of faculty would favour retaining this finance option. We feel it
would be important for the Department to take a clear position on this issue. In the event that
the Department feels that the option is worthwhile, then a strong effort should be made to put
the option on a sound financial basis. The issue would seem to be lack of resources to staff the
required courses for the finance area. It seems unlikely that additional resources will be provided
by the Faculty of Business Administration, and thus if the program is to be continued resources
from the Arts Faculty or the broader University community must be found to provide the required
funding. It is our impression that one additional teaching position in the finance area, given
resources already available, would be sufficient to maintain a high quality finance option
There are several avenues through which this additional position could be obtained. One option
would be the provision of a new position from outside resources. If such a position were to be
made available, the Economics Department would have to decide if it should be dedicated to
finance or whether there are other areas of more importance. Another option would be the
bridge-financing of a retirement position. It is our understanding that one of the joint
appointments between Business and Economics will retire in the near future. A common practice
in other universities that provides additional flexibility for departments, is to provide bridge-
financing so that a suitable candidate can be appointed before the actual retirement takes place.
This procedure is not very costly to the University in the long run, and does have some
advantages. It would allow a search to begin immediately, which may be important, for it may
not be easy to find a candidate who is mutually agreeable to both the Economics Department and
the Faculty of Business Administration. An early appointment would also allow the finance
-12-
option to be continued without discontinuity in the program. A third option would be to fill the
joint appointment when the position becomes available, but this has the disadvantage of holding
the finance option somewhat in abeyance until this time.
While the future of the finance option is of principal concern to the Economics Department and
the Faculty of Business Administration, there is a larger University issue. This option has been
quite popular in the past and has produced some good students. It may be that the University
would feel that this option is desirable even if it is not held in high regard by the Economics
Department or the Faculty of Business Administration. In this case additional new resources
could be provided on the understanding that they be dedicated to hiring in the finance area.
11. GENDER ISSUES
It became obvious to the Committee during our three-day evaluation that a significant problem
in the area of gender bias exists in the Department of Economics. The boundary line on
activities that would be considered discriminatory or would constitute sexual harassment will
always be difficult to define, and this Committee will make no attempt to add to the voluminous
literature in this area. Some of the events and actions that we were made aware of were
considered by some members of the Department to be unacceptable and by others to be
completely inoffensive. Drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour will
be difficult in any society, and it would be obviously inappropriate for this Committee to make
a judgement on such issues. We also feel the Department should refrain from attempting to
--
?
define a standard of conduct, for this is a task more properly left to the University. Indeed we
were made aware of a set of University guidelines already in place.
But while it is difficult to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, we were
told of several incidents that all reasonable individuals would agree are inappropriate and that
would constitute sexual harassment under any reasonable definition of the term. It is essential
for the short-term and long-term health of the Department that these activities stop. The
statements and actions by certain male members of the Department clearly lie outside the bounds
of acceptable behaviour, and putting an end to such activities should be seen as the largest,
immediate challenge facing the Economics Department at this time.
While we were unable to determine the number of male faculty members engaged in these
inappropriate activities, we did determine that more than two or three individuals are involved,
and thus the problem is a serious one.
As was mentioned earlier, the activities range from minor irritants to clearly inappropriate actions
or statements. It is also probable that some these actions were unthinking and that no malice was
intended. Ignorance, however, can only be used as an excuse for such activities at most once.
It
was also made clear to us that some activities are ongoing and have continued for some time.
The Committee heard complaints from all sectors of the Department where women are
. ?
represented; from faculty, from support staff, and from students. There seems to be no question,
therefore, that this is a serious problem that demands immediate attention.
-13-
While complaints about the actions of certain male faculty were heard from all quarters, it is
noteworthy that all of these reports were made in the spirit of reason and with a clear goal
simply of ending the inappropriate behaviour. Indeed, we found the tolerance shown by the
women in the Department remarkable, and it is only their reasonableness that has prevented a
serious disruption. The situation is explosive and prompt action is required if the peace of the
Department is to be maintained.
The variety of reasons why the current behaviour is inappropriate, and the harm that can come
from the continuation of such actions, may well be obvious to everyone. Nevertheless, it may
be appropriate to identify some of the reasons that we feel a stop must be put to these
unacceptable activities.
1.
First is the issue of basic human rights. All individuals should be able to enjoy their
activities of research, teaching, study, or administrative responsibility without harassment
of any kind.
2.
The Department is a generally congenial place in which to work. If an explosive situation
develops it will sour the atmosphere of the workplace, set faculty, staff, and students against
one another, and significantly reduce productivity.
3.
At present, female members of the faculty and staff bear a very substantial burden in that
all individuals who feel they. have been improperly treated typically bring their complaints
to
members of their own sex. This substantially increases the workload of all women in
the Department and is particularly onerous for the women faculty members.
4.
A continuation of the inappropriate behaviour that exists at present will make it difficult to
retain existing female faculty and recruit others.
5.
Female students have reported that there is an internal network that advises incoming
female students against taking classes from certain male faculty members. It was also
suggested by graduate students that undergraduates from other universities are becoming
aware of the situation at Simon Fraser, and if the present situation continues will be advised
to avoid doing graduate work at Simon Fraser. This could have a serious effect on the
graduate program.
Overall, the consequences of the continuation of the current inappropriate behaviour within the
Department could be seriously disruptive. And while the situation is an unhappy one there is,
we feel, significant hope for an end to these difficulties. In our opinion, all members of the
Department share the goal of maintaining high quality research and teaching, a good graduate
program, and generally maintaining a cooperative and pleasant atmosphere in which to work.
In
our opinion, no one would wish to see a significant disruption in the Department. It is our
hope, therefore, that all faculty, students, and support staff will work together to solve this
potentially disruptive problem.
As a mechanism for addressing these issues, we recommend that a small Gender and Racial
Issues Committee be struck. It would probably be appropriate if this Committee include the.
Chair and the Departmental Administrator, and it is essential that it include a student or someone
-14-
who is seen to represent student interests. In general, it would be advisable to have the entire
composition of this Committee approved by all interested groups in the Department. Given the
spirit of cooperation within the Department this does not seem to us to be a difficult task. This
committee should consider complaints of sexual or racial harassment or any acts or activities that
could be so construed, either directly or indirectly through a Committee member. The Committee
should then meet with the individual identified in the complaint. If there is a denial of
inappropriate action, or if the accused demands to know the identity of the accusor, then the
Committee should decide on whether a confrontational meeting is appropriate. It should be clear
that if the difficulty cannot be resolved internally then the case will be taken to the University
Sexual Harassment Officer with full support for whatever disciplinary actions would be called
for.
Of
course, any individual would be free to take any complaints directly to the Sexual
Harassment Officer.
Again, we stress that we do not feel that it would be appropriate for the Gender and Racial Issues
Committee to attempt to define what actions or behaviour are appropriate and which are not.
This again is the task of the University, and any attempt to have local definitions of sexual
harassment would most certainly result in a prolonged and almost certainly unproductive debate.
There is also some suggestion that racial bias is present in the Department. The issues here seem
less clear and certainly less worrisome. Nevertheless, a forum for making representation of racial
bias or harassment should certainly be available.
12. RECOMMENDATIONS
A.
For the Department
1.
Every effort must be made to stop the sexual harassment in the Department. A Gender and
Racial Issues Committee should be formed to deal with complaints.
2.
The review of the Honours Program currently in progress should continue.
3.
Allocation of graduate students to tutorial sections should, if possible, be made before the
beginning of the semester.
4.
A Departmental Handbook providing information on program regulations and listing courses
expected to be offered at both the undergraduate and graduate level would be useful.
5.
An in-depth review of the Graduate Program should be undertaken. This should be left
until after the review of the Honours program is completed.
6.
The Graduate Curriculum Committee should have regularly scheduled meetings in at least
the Fall and Spring semesters at which questions from graduate students can be addressed.
7.
There should be an orientation program for new faculty.
-15-
8.
The Department should make a decision on whether new hiring should provide breadth or
add to existing areas to create specializations.
9.
The support
staff
should be encouraged to meet on a regular basis.
10.
Responsibilities and chain of command should be more clearly defined for support staff.
11.
The Department should decide on the importance of maintaining the Finance option in the
Ph.D. program.
B. For the University
1.
Some attempt should be made to loosen the salary ceilings. Otherwise, it will be difficult
to maintain high-profile faculty.
2.
Some attempt should be made to define the workload for faculty. This could involve larger
teaching loads for faculty not involved in graduate supervision or who are not active in
research.
3.
The Faculty of Arts should consider increasing the faculty complement in Economics.
4.
A rationalization of appointments between Economics and the Faculty of Business
Administration would be appropriate.
5.
Serious consideration should be given to adding a position in Finance to be shared by
Economics and Business.
[1
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
Department of Economics
RESPONSE TO EXTERNAL REVIEW ?
February, 1994
The Department of Economics believes that the members of the External Review have
been careful and conscientious in assessing the current state and future prospects of our
department.' We appreciate that the reviewers were in general "very favourably impressed
by the Economics Department at Simon Fraser University..." and found "ft]he Department
takes teaching seriously and has a strong commitment to research." We recognize, like
the reviewers, that any department will have difficulties and appreciate that, with one
exception, they are minor. As will be discussed more fully, the department has moved
rapidly to seek a solution to this more serious problem.
Undergraduate Program
The Department, prior to the review, had undertaken the most thorough revision of the
Undergraduate Program in many years. Among the motives for this revision was a desire
to integrate transfer students from community colleges more successfully into our
undergraduate programs. The Committee stated that "these changes have been well
thought-out and will result in substantial improvements in the program." As the
Reviewers noted, the changes to the curriculum appear to have received the approval of
community colleges.
The Committee noted that the Major at SFU provides more opportunities for in-depth
specialization than comparable three year programs in Ontario. Nevertheless, they
encouraged us to develop the Honours program more fully. The revision of the Honours
program has differentiated the Honours program more fully from the Major than
previously by adding an Honours seminar. The response of students to these changes has
been enthusiastic. The Department will consider the Review's recommendation that the
fourth-year seminars in economic theory be made compulsory for the Honours degree.
One of the Reviewers' concerns at the undergraduate level was not directed to the
Department of Economics. The Reviewers encountered a feeling among students in joint
programs between Economics and Business that they "were treated as second class citizens
The members of the External Review Committee were extremely well qualified
for the task. Melvin, the Chair, is a former Chair of Economics at University of
Western Ontario and is currently Chair at Waterloo. Mathewson, one of the most
prominent Canadian scholars in Industrial Organization, is at the University of Toronto.
.
?
?
McCallum is a former Chair of Economics and currently Dean of Arts at McGill. The
?
Department is very grateful to Bill Cleveland of the Department of History for guiding
- ?
the External Reviewers through the intricacies and peculiarities of Simon Fraser.
in their dealings with the Business Administration faculty." We hope that SCAP will call
this to the attention of Business Administration so that that faculty can determine whether
these feelings have any basis and, if so, to undertake remedial measures.
Graduate Program
We are heartened by the Reviewers' general judgement of our graduate programs:
Students have generally enjoyed their experience and feel that they have been well
served by the program. Both M.A.s and Ph.D.s have been very successful in
obtaining appropriate positions, and given the state of the market this is a tough
test. It is our impression, for example, that Simon Fraser Economics Ph.D.s have
been more successful in the market than students from such places as the
University of Western Ontario and the University of British Columbia. The success
of M.A. and Ph.D. students in obtaining positions is certainly a reflection of the
high quality of the program, but also indicates the much higher profile that the
Department has enjoyed in the Canadian profession in recent years.
Prior to the announcement of the review, the Department had been planning a review of
its graduate programs comparable to that undertaken for the undergraduate program. The
Reviewers have endorsed the need for a review of the program at this time.
During the 94-1 semester, the Graduate Curriculum Committee will start a review of the
graduate programs. The GCC will appoint subcommittees to advise it on the curriculum
in the three core elements of the curriculum: micro, macro, and quantitative. These
subcommittees will review the pattern of required courses and the coverage by required
courses of the material required for the Ph.D. comprehensives.
The Committee has mentioned the Department's approach to assignment of TAships in
both the Undergraduate and Graduate sections of its report. The Department has now
implemented a procedure under which TAships are assigned well in advance of the
beginning of the semester. While the system appears to work reasonably well, the
strictness of the TSSU agreement makes it more difficult than in the past to gain the best
match between TAs and their assignments.
Faculty
We are pleased that the reviewers have endorsed the quality of the faculty and their
efforts to provide high quality teaching and research:
The faculty complement is strong, and almost all seem dedicated to high quality
teaching and research. The strong support for research that exists among the
faculty is important and has resulted in a cohesion and single-mindedness in terms
of the direction in which the Department should go that is not often found in
S
2
economics departments in Canada.
Here the reviewers raised a number of issues, one of which -- salary levels for
distinguished faculty -- is beyond the powers of the department. Nevertheless, it is an
important issue. Under the present system, the best faculty reach the salary ceiling at
a relatively early stage of their career. From this point onward, the only salary increases
that they will receive are adjustments to the scale. Not only is this prospect
demoralizing, it will make their salaries less attractive to competing offers over time.
The Department has followed the suggestions of the Reviewers this year in seeking
candidates for a replacement appointment. The Department's advertisements state that the
department, as one of its priorities, is seeking candidates with skills in the "applied
quantitative" area. If we are successful, the person hired should be able to help with
the supervision of empirical research of graduate students.
The other key issue raised by the Reviewers is the emphasis between specialization and
broad coverage of fields with respect to faculty hiring. Despite the encouragement of
the Reviewers to resolve this issue, the issue is unlikely to he resolved in any permanent
fashion in a department of our size. Indeed, both the Department as a whole and the
Appointments Committee has discussed the issue since receiving the Reviewers' report.
In both cases the discussion has been inconclusive.. In our hiring this year, we have
emphasized some areas where we have relatively few faculty (labour economics, resource
S
?
?
economics and public finance) and others (applied microeconomics) where we have
?
considerable strength.
Research and Teaching
The Department appreciates the Reviewers' recognition of "very heavy teaching load"
together with "the small real and effective size of Department" and their observation that
"a strong case can be made for increasing the size of the Department." The Department
has relied on sessionals to an extreme and undesirable degree in the past. Our analysis
also showed that the Department has one of the highest student/faculty ratios in the
Faculty of Arts and in the University. We agree that both the current high
student/faculty ratio and "a policy of building on strength would certainly suggest that,
when new appointments are available, serious consideration should be given to allocating
some to the Department of Economics."
We accept the Reviewers' point that there may be an unequal workload within the
Department. To the extent that some inequities result from peculiarities in the
curriculum, the matter will be reviewed over the next semester. We are less sanguine
than the Reviewers about the contribution that could be made by a University policy on
research, teaching and supervisory responsibilities because of the difficulties of making
appropriate comparisons. ?
While less severe, these difficulties are still present at the
?
departmental level.
*1
?
3
Communication and Governance
?
0
The Department has heeded the Reviewers' suggestions about improved communication
"among
staff
and between staff and the Department's administration." Regular meetings
have been held by the support staff. These meetings have dealt with issues raised by
individual staff, as well as a detailed review of existing job descriptions to determine their
continuing appropriateness. In addition, the Support Staff have been attending
Departmental meetings.
The visit of the Review Committee has revitalized the graduate student organization. For
the first time in recent years, the graduate students elected representative to relevant
Departmental committees. The Department also accepted the suggestions of the Reviewers
and has advanced the appointment of TAs. The Department also plans to consult the
graduate students with respect to its summer graduate offerings in 1994.
Interfaculty Relations
We endorse the Reviewers' views of the problems that exist between the Department of
Economics and the Faculty of Business. We support the review of the joint appointments
by the Deans or by the Vice President. The Department has been advocating such a
review since 1990. Though we also believe that the BUEC courses serve the interests of
both units and should not be changed in any fundamental way, we continue to believe
that a reorganization of responsibilities for different areas should improve the program.
In particular, the assignment of the statistical methods courses as a whole to Economics
should allow for more coherence between the courses in the area. Similarly, Industrial
Relations and Law probably could be administered more easily by Business.
The Reviewers have accurately recognized the problems in the collaborative field between
Economics and Business in Finance as part of our department's Ph.D. At one time, this
field was served by members of the Finance group who are joint appointees between
Economics and Business. With the establishment of the day-time MBA, their teaching
efforts as well as some of courses were directed more to the needs of this program.
There is a feeling among some in the Department of Economics that Finance as a
doctoral field has been an attractive feature of our program in the past. The field is
now offered in a makeshift manner that cannot continue. Without the dedication of
additional faculty, the Department will be forced very soon to remove the field from its
announced offerings.
Gender Issues
The Review Committee was strongly critical of the department with respect to the
problem of "gender bias" that they perceived. The members of the Review were told
of "several incidents that all reasonable individuals would agree are inappropriate and that
would constitute sexual harassment under any reasonable definition of the term."
4
. Moreover, they maintained that the "statements and actions by certain male members of
the Department clearly lie outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour." While unable to
determine the number of members of the Department engaged in these inappropriate
activities," the Reviewers stated that more than two or three individuals were involved
and that the problem is serious.
The Department recognizes the seriousness of these concerns raised by the Reviewers and
is determined to correct the situation. Prior to the External Review, the Department had
taken action by being one of the first departments in the University to have the
University's Harassment Policy Coordinator conduct an Awareness Seminar. Subsequent
to the Review, the Department followed the spirit of the recommendations of the
Reviewers and established a Committee with representation from support staff, graduate
students, undergraduates and faculty to recommend to the department mechanisms that
would be judged most appropriate for dealing with these problems. The Committee
expects to make its report shortly.
Recommendations and Action: Summary
A. For the Department
1.
Stopping the sexual harassment and the formation of a Gender and Racial Issues
Committee.
The Department has established a broadly based committee to determine the
appropriate form and terms of reference of the Gender and Racial Issues
Committee. This Committee's report is imminent. It will be circulated to
the four constituencies (undergraduates, graduates, support staff and faculty)
for their endorsement.
2.
The Review of the Honours Program should continue.
The Department has implemented additional changes to the Honours Program.
Further changes will be considered next semester by the UCC.
3.
Allocation of graduate students to tutorial sections should be made before the
beginning of the semester.
The Department has done this in 93-3 and 94-1.
4.
Handbook at Graduate and Undergraduate levels.
The Department will endeavour to provide greater notice of expected
offerings than in the past.
I
5.
ri
7.
8.
10
11
An in-depth review of the Graduate Program should be undertaken.
Such a review is planned beginning 94-1.
The Graduate Curriculum Committee should hold regular meetings to address
questions from graduate students.
Planned for 94-1. Orientation meeting for new graduate students was held
93-3.
There should be an orientation program for new faculty.
Most recently hired faculty will be asked to assist new faculty in the
future.
The Department should decide between depth and breadth in new hiring.
The Department and the Appointment Committee have both held discussion
without reaching a conclusion.
The Support staff should be encouraged to meet on a regular basis.
The support staff have held regular meetings.
?
S
The responsibilities and chain of command should be more clearly defined for
support staff.
The support staff have reviewed the responsibilities of all staff positions.
The job descriptions have also been distributed to faculty.
The Department should decide on the importance of maintaining the Finance option
in the Ph.D. program.
The Department does not believe the field can be continued without greater
support from the Finance group in the Faculty of Business (including the
joint appointees). An additional appointment does not really address the
problem. The Finance option requires the commitment of a substantial
portion of the Finance group.
6
0 ?
B. For the University
1. Loosening of salary ceilings.
The Department believes that the university must consider ways to retain high
quality faculty who have their salary progression halted through reaching the salary
ceiling.
2.
Definition of faculty workload
The Department is less sanguine than the Reviewers about the productivity of
further efforts to define workloads. Nevertheless the Department does recognize
the need to give recognition for heavier loads in areas other than classroom
teaching, especially graduate supervision.
3.
The Faculty of Arts should consider increasing the faculty complement in Economics.
We certainly support the Reviewers' recommendation that the "Faculty of Arts
should consider increasing the faculty complement in Economics." We believe that
this position is supported by the teaching that the Department does in relation to
its effective size of faculty. Moreover, the Department is now in a position to
become one of the leading departments in Canada. The current momentum can
be sustanined by allowing the Department to recruit judiciously.
4.
Rationalization of appointments between Economics and the Faculty of Business.
The Department supports the review of the joint appointments between the
Department of Economics and the Faculty of Business. The poor communication
between the Faculty of Business and the Department of Economics means that the
issue should be resolved at the level of the Deans or by the Vice President
(Academic). Any resolution of the issue of joint appointments must take into
account the future of the Finance field.
5.
Adding a position in Finance
The Finance option in the Ph.D. program has served its students quite well.
Unfortunately it cannot continue with its present lack of support from the Finance
group in the Faculty of Business. An additional appointment in Finance cannot
by itself preserve the program. The program could be preserved if resources
equivalent to half the two joint appointees between Economics and Business (with
their home in Economics) were directed to the program. At present, the teaching
of these joint appointees is solely in Business courses.
.7
