S.12-8
Section 2- Dean's comments and endorsement of the Action P l an:

MEMORANDUM

OFF

E OF

THE

CE-

ESIDE

r\D

MTC

OVOS

8888

vers

Burna

TEL:

82.3925

: 778.782

876

S.12-8

vpacad

www.

fu.ca

vpaca

ATIENTION

FROM

ate

DATE

ece

14,

2011

Bill

Krane,

cting

Presid

, Aca

nuc

PAGES

M .. A/ }{. __

nd Provo

st, a

tin

Chair,

SCUP

L 1/t/.1"

~I..

RE:

Fac

ult

s a

Soc

ial

es: Exte

rnal R

epo

of the

Dep

rtment

Eco

1111c

(SCU

P 11

-5

)

its November 23, 2011 meeting SCUP reviewed and approved the

Action

Plan for the Department of

Economics

that resulted from its

ternal

Review.

Motion:

That Senate approve the Action Plan for the Department

Economics

that resulted from its

External

Review.

ncl.

Myers

J. Craig

SIMON

FRASER

UNIVERSITY

THINKING OF THE

WORLD

SCUP 11-51

OFFICE OF THE ASSOCIATE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND ASSOCIATE PROVOST

8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC

Canada

VSA 1S6

MEMORANDUM

ATTEN110N

Jon Driver, Chair, SCUP

FROM

Bill Krane, Associate Vice-President, Academic

and Associate Provost

RE:

External Review of the Department of Economics

TEL: 778.782.4636

FAX: 778.782.5876

DATE

November 14, 2011

PAGES

1/1

avpcio@sfu.ca

www.sfu.ca/vpacademic

Attached are the External Review Report on the Department of Economics and the Action Plan

endorsed by the Department and the Dean.

Motion:

That SCUP approve and recommend to Senate the Action Plan for the Department

of Economics that resulted from its External Review.

Following the site visit, the Report of the External Review Team* for the Department of

Economics was submitted in April2011.

After

the Report was received, a meeting was held with the Dean, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences,

the Chair of the Department of Economics, and the Director of Academic Planning and Budgeting

(VPA) to consider the recommendations. The Department then prepared an Action Plan based on

the Report and these discussions. The Action plan was then submitted to the Dean who endorsed

this Action

Plan.

The Reviewers concurred with 'the widely cited ranking compiled by

Research Papers in

Economics

(RePEc) which has them [the Department of Economics] standing

fifth

in the country

where they now dominate all others except

the traditional "big four'' (UBC, University of Toronto,

Queen's,

UWO).'

SCUP recommends to Senate that Department of Economics be advised to pursue the Action

Plan.

Attachments:

1. External Review Report- April, 2011

2. Department of Economics -Action Plan

3. Departmental written response

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

THINKING OF THE WORLD

External Review Team:

Dr. William Scarth

(Chair), McMaster University

Dr. Ann Carlos,

University of Colorado

Dr. Robin Boadway,

Queen's University

Dr. Mark McPherran

(Internal), Simon Fraser University

John Craig, Dean, Faculty of Arts

Social Sciences

Gordon Myers, Acting Chair, Department

of Economics

External Review of the Department of Economics. Simon Fraser University

Introduction

Professor Robin Boadway, Queen's University

Professor Ann

Carlos, University of Colorado

Professor

William Scarth, McMaster University

April26, 2011

This Report on the SFU Economics Department is based on the committee's detailed examination of the

Department's extremely careful

Self-Study Report,

our extensive meetings at the University (March 16-

18}, and

our discussions together (during the campus visit and on March 19, and afterwards via e-mail).

Our

examination went smoothly and credit is due to the Department Chair and Associate Chair,

Professors Nic Schmitt and Gord Myers,

to our helpful internal co-reviewer, Mark McPherran, to the

senior administrators who offered valued perspective, and to Bal Basi who coordinated our campus visit.

The

detailed schedule of our interviews .is summarized in the Appendix. This

Report

involves four

substantive sections - on the faculty and their research, the operation of the undergraduate program,

the graduate program, and the general administration of the Department. Following these sections, our

main recommendations are summarized in

the concluding section.

2. Faculty and Research

The Economics Department is a very collegial and mutually supportive group, whose members are

publishing regularly in very good journals. Since the last review, the Department has increased in the

rankings among Canadian economics departments. The widely cited ranking compiled by

Research

Papers in Economics

(RePEc) has them standing fifth in the country, where they now dominate all others

except

the traditional "big four" (UBC, University of Toronto, Queen's, UWO). We concur with this

ranking. The proportion

of the department that is funded by SSHRC grants is good (for example, higher

than

at McMaster that ranks sixth in Canada}, and it is above the norm for FASS at SFU. Since economics

research

is not expensive, we regard this indicator of SSHRC support as a more useful measure of the

research standing of the Department than measures of the monetary value of the grants that are more

important in other

disciplines.

The Department has a good balance of faculty members by field and age, and has hired very well in

recent years.

As with other good economics departments, there is constant turnover of faculty. The fact

that some are attracted to other institutions should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness, since

it is a reflection that good persons are being hired in the first place. Virtually all faculty members are

active in research and

publication, with publication by some in the very top academic journals and a

good proportion

publishing in the top field outlets in each area of specialization (for example, the

Elsevier

field journals). Publication in these field journals should be given high weight in judging the

research of the Department, which is not always adequately reflected in the emphasis placed on

publications in top-five or top-fifteen international journals. Some top field journals might not appear in

the top-15 list,

not because of quality issues, but simply because field journals are necessarily more

specialized and appeal

to a smaller segment of the profession. In addition, the best papers in top field

journals might

not be published in top general interest journals because their subject matter is too

specialized for the general reader. A department like SFU's should aspire to publishing in the top field

journals,

and faculty members should be rewarded accordingly. This is not to downplay those persons in

the Department who do

publish in the top-five journals. There are those that do, and this is an excellent

achievement. However, it is unrealistic to assume that all young persons should publish there. Finally,

while

the general publication record is strong, it is the case that some high-profile faculty members have

retired

or will retire soon. Their loss will reduce the public visibility of the Department. One hopes that

there will be others who will take their place.

As is common within the economics profession, there is a lot of joint work. Department members are in

contact

frequently through informal discussions and there is considerable collaboration with those in

other institutions.

In addition, the Department has a very active seminar series. Bringing through

excellent speakers on an ongoing basis is a cost-effective strategy for maintaining stimulation, and it has

expanded value if graduate students are meeting with these more senior researchers during these

visits.

We have just

two concerns regarding general research activity within the Department. First, there

appears

to be limited collaboration with SFU graduate students. We encourage more such collaboration

that results in joint papers. This is an important element of graduate student training. Not only does it

facilitate PhD students moving through the program more quickly, but also it enhances their position on

the

job market. Second, we recommend that the Departmental Working Paper series be much more

actively used. Indeed, without the faculty circulating their research through this series, which would be

automatically linked to

RePEc,

there is an ongoing cost to the Department in terms of visibility and

RePEc

ranking.

Permanent

Faculty members are committed and effective teachers, judging both by undergraduate

student teaching

evaluations and by the enthusiasm with which the Department pursues its teaching

obligations. Evidence suggests that the permanent faculty tend to do better than sessionals in teaching

evaluations, which is not always the case in universities. The small number of students we spoke with

expressed satisfaction

with their course instruction, more so than with the quality of the tutorials.

Our

main concern in terms of Faculty issues involves their number. The

Self Study Report

makes a

compelling case that, compared to virtually all other units in FASS and the University, the Department is

very much understaffed. Apparently this is mainly due to the surge in students, especially international

ones, who have opted for Economics as their field of study. There may be some disagreement as to how

to share the responsibility for this. Department members argue that they did not resist allowing their

student numbers

to rise because they were promised additional faculty to cope with the increases, and

that these increases did

not materialize. Others might argue that the recent financial constraints faced

the university made it difficult for any promise of significant additions of faculty to be fulfilled, and

that

the Department itself should take measures to restrict growth in their enrolment, for example, by

increasing grade requirements. We are not in a position

to judge how to apportion responsibility. What

is clear is that the situation has evolved to the point where the size of faculty is so limited relative to

student numbers that program quality at both the undergraduate and graduate level is in danger of

being eroded seriously.

One

of the most serious reflections of this pressure is that Undergraduate Majors often find it

impossible to complete their degree in the time that is indicated as appropriate and expected in the

Calendar.

This disappointment, that students appreciate only a couple of years after they choose to

attend SFU, simply must be rectified. The Department can make some changes on its own to address

this

problem as discussed later under the Undergraduate Program, but one of the adjustments that is

needed to accomplish this fix is the addition of more faculty. We recommend net additions of two

assistant professors in each of the next three years. In addition to this, not as a substitute for any of

these positions, the Department could consider hiring one additional teaching-track professor

(Lecturer), since these

individuals can often serve the Department's objectives more effectively than a

set

of Sessional Instructors that would be displaced.

We appreciate that it will take courage on Dean Craig's part to permit this sequence of appointments,

especially since Economics was granted most (perhaps all) of this year's new appointments within FASS.

But the data are there for him to defend this strategy as one of repairing an existing imbalance, not one

of preferential treatment.

We recommend that the new appointments be at the junior level. The SFU salary grid allows the

Department

to be competitive in this segment of the market, as long as the existing teaching reduction

for junior hires (a four courses reduction in the first two years, or a one course reduction for four years,

which

reflects the market norm) is maintained. Senior hires are very difficult for most departments and

especially at SFU, since the salary cap precludes the Department's offers being competitive. Indeed,

retaining those who are already in the department (except for those who have developed a preference

to live in Vancouver despite the housing prices and restricted salary increases) is and will be an ongoing

challenge. The practice of making anomaly adjustments in full-professor salaries at the time when

individuals are promoted to that rank and in reaction to outside offers should be continued. One final

point concerns these new hires. The Department should continue with the patience and the standards it

has demonstrated in its recent hires- acquiring active and effective researchers. Of course, from time to

time a hiring season may end with a position unfilled. When this happens, the administration needs to

support the high-standard approach by guaranteeing the carry-over of that position without question,

and without later positions being delayed. Constraining departments to fill open positions in a given

year

serves no long-term purpose, and risks causing the appointment of inferior candidates simply to

avoid losing the position.

Another reason

for preferring to hire at, or close to, the entry level is that there is no pressing need for

the Department to change the seniority distribution in the Department, or to make up for "deadwood"

at the senior level. As mentioned, all faculty are research-active, and the Department is fortunate that

the removal of mandatory retirement has not resulted in any problem ofthis sort being a concern.

The Department has significant strength in theory, econometrics, applied labour, public economics, and

history- in addition to being generally solid. We have no particular recommendation regarding priority

fields for the new hires but do suggest attention toward applied theory fields. At the margin, we

recommend focusing on researchers whose work

will be particularly appealing for the PhD students that

the Department will most rely on to fill their program.

The growing PhD program is most likely to attract individuals who are interested in applied theory and

empirical work which is the current focus of the profession. To this end, it would be helpful in attracting

PhD candidates if the several active Centres that operate within the Department were even more visible

to PhD students as they choose their dissertation topics. For example, the CERP initiative fits very nicely

with the University interest in Aboriginal educational outcomes and the Department's expertise in

applied/empirical research. Funds, such as those coming from winning a contract from the First

Ministers' competition, can be more widely coordinated with PhD student support. Another example is

METROPOLIS. The issues that are the focus of this group- immigration and ethnic diversity within the

context

of an aging population- involve adjustments in labour markets that are of immense importance

to society.

Again, more direct interaction between the professors involved and PhD students is to be

encouraged. Finally, as we argue in a later section of this Report, we think that a small infusion of funds

could increase the availability of the CRABBE initiative for PhD students. This further exploitation of the

adaptive

learning niche that the department has developed is desirable.

seems inconsistent to draw more attention to these very successful Centres, and then -when Faculty

are evaluated -the Department places almost all the weight on the top-fifteen journals. While we

applaud the Department's high standards and its focus on improvement, we think that this focus on

rankings within just the top fifteen journals is a narrower ranking than what most other comparable, and

even better, departments use. As already noted, we recommend that publications in the leading field

journals, should

get more visibility in the evaluation process of a Department specializing in a PhD

program oriented to applied theory. Outsiders would not regard this as a lowering of standards.

3. Undergraduate Program

The Department has an extremely large and diverse set of undergraduate programs and, as a result, it is

stretched in its attempts to meet competing demands among undergraduates. On the one hand, there

are the Majors

and Honours students in economics, and on the other there is service teaching to

students in other programs and the demand on the department to increase economic literacy among

SFU students in general and to allow students to complete a Minor or an Extended Minor in economics.

We are most impressed with the high standards with which the Department is attempting to meet these

challenges. In particular, the commitment to offer tutorials in all courses and to reject the use of

multiple-choice tests (very common among other economics departments) demonstrates serious caring

about offering a

truly meaningful university experience for students. However, with the limited

resources available, there is now one important failing in how things have worked out, and it concerns

the Department's primary undergraduate

responsibility- its Majors. With one of the key courses (301)

not available until late in the program, with limited course offerings at the upper level with limited

enrolment,

many Majors cannot complete their degree on time. The University has a fiduciary

responsibility to ensure that the Major can be completed on time. With current resources the

Department

has to cut back somewhere, and its responsibility to its majors must take precedence over

the drive

to make economics available in elective courses to other undergraduates.

We now draw attention to several margins of adjustment that are relevant for addressing this challenge.

First, the central administration should appreciate the difficulty that is created for the Department by its

decision

to increase enrolment, in general, and its enrolment of international students in particular.

International

students have strong preferences for three programs- business, economics and computer

science-

so increased admission of visa students has meant particularly dramatic growth for economics.

We understand that the University is moving to better control the recent bulge in enrolment, but it

needs to recognize that the Department has been a very solid university citizen by accommodating all

these students in good faith, and that its operations are fraying at edges as a result of this sheer

numbers

problem. The granting of new net appointments discussed earlier in this Report will help

attenuate this challenge.

The Department too can meet some of this challenge by making it own adjustments. The over-arching

consideration that should underpin these changes is the need to focus on its core mission, the students

majoring

in economics, and to streamline the sequencing of its courses so that these students can

obtain the best possible economics education in a timely manner. The following comprehensive package

of changes should make this possible.

First, we recommend cutting a few of the pre-principles courses/sections and some 200-level courses.

Especially with the change that we suggest below regarding the core gateway course for Majors (301},

these 200 courses will become somewhat less necessary for Majors.

Second, we recommend ending tutorials for a few courses (such as some 200-level courses). The

number of the tutorial groups (in conjunction with the size of the graduate program) imposes limits on

the

ability of the department to expand offerings. The student representatives we met argued that

there

is a high variance across tutors and that some are quite unhelpful. For some courses, the

textbooks come with

excellent interactive tutorial software that represents a good substitute for

traditional tutorials. Also, economies of scale can be realized by having a "drop-in clinic" for certain

courses (run

by a reduced number of graduate students), where undergraduates from all sections of a

course

can come to have their questions answered. By freeing up the need for full tutorials in several

courses, the Department could offer increased numbers of sections of some of the more senior courses

-the ones that currently represent the bottlenecks for Majors to complete on time.

Third, we recommend

that the Department pursue its current strategy of increasing its undergraduate

entry standards more

vigorously. This is necessary to avoid (too many of) its students being seen as

business rejects, and to reduce the sheer numbers problem that is currently constraining the

Department.

Fourth, despite our emphasis

on timely completion of the major, we suggest that the Department

counselors ensure that students are aware of the co-op program. Although this would extend the time

to completion, it would provide students who choose that option with invaluable hands-on experience.

We also encourage Department counselors and the Department's webpage to have students declare

their major as early as possible. This would allow for better guidance through the program.

Finally, and most important, our central pedagogic concern is the placement of Intermediate Micro

(301) within the program as a third-year course. This has many negative consequences. First, many

current

level-three courses have no micro prerequisite. This is not only inconsistent with the practice in

other Canadian universities, it compromises the quality learning that the Faculty Dean rightfully argues

should be taking place in the upper two years of the program. The

Self Study Report

gives examples of

the jumbled outcome that emerges from having this micro gateway course in the third year. There is a

high

failure rate, partly because this course is now taken a long time after students have taken their

calculus prerequisite. Further, there is much duplication in course material. For example, since industrial

organization cannot be taught without intermediate micro, and since this course is currently being

offered without

such a prerequisite, a significant part of this course is devoted to teaching material that

is also in 301. More generally, we ourselves would not want to teach what are supposed to be upper-

level courses in applied micro areas such as international trade, labour and public finance without the

students having taken intermediate micro. There

are 200-level offerings already available to serve this

function

for instructors who are comfortable with such a course. The 300-level courses require a firmer

analytic base.

Apparently, the existing structure arises because of the sizeable number of transfer students who move

from one

of the community colleges to SFU to complete their degree and the Department's desire to

teach intermediate micro. If, as we recommend, 301 is moved to the second year and renumbered,

transferring students

would either have to take intermediate micro at a college, or delay taking it until

they come to SFU. In fact, there is no good reason why intermediate micro could not be taught well at

the

college level. In any case, as is evident from the previous paragraph, we do not think that the issue

of teaching intermediate courses at the college level should be driving the structure of the under-

graduate program.

We therefore recommend that 301 be switched to second year and renumbered to

(say) 201, and be made a prerequisite for many 300-level courses. It is true that some of the colleges

may start offering their version of the new 201, but the Department can regularly assess the texts that

they

use and the final examinations that they set (before substitute status is granted), to ensure quality

control.

After all, this is a course that is not a particularly difficult one to teach.

We close this section of the Report on the undergraduate program by noting several specific remaining

points. First, we support

small changes such as raising the unit count for the intermediate macro course

to 6 credits, and other similar changes, so that students are not confronted by the current "integer''

problem that has them often taking more courses to qualify for graduation. Second, we applaud the

Department's

400-level seminars as the capstone experience for their Majors, but we note that resource

constraints

currently limit students to having no choice (across the options that are on the books). It is

because we support keeping the enrolment cap on these seminars at 20, that we have recommended

the various resource-saving strategies noted above.

The Department needs to offer more sections of the

seminar courses in

each semester to ensure that students get a course and also that students get some

choice. Third, since our suggestions

will make it easier for Extended Minors to complete their

requirements,

and since resource constraints force the Department to concentrate on its own students

first, we recommend that the

contemplated new Minor (that would not involve intermediate micro) be

dropped from further consideration. For similar reasons, we recommend that the Department continue

to rely on the Business faculty for the teaching of its basic statistics course. Fourth, we suggest that the

department make

clear what is actually offered. The University

Calendar

appears to list all courses

ever

taught. Many are not actually offered, and the result must surely be disappointed expectations on

students' part after choosing

to study at SFU.

In addition to these suggestions for the Department, we make two remaining points that are relevant

for the Administration or university wide decision-making. First, we urge the University to reduce the

132 credit requirement

for Honours (to the 120 level that is the standard for honours economics

programs

in other universities). It is true that students are still getting into the SFU MA program without

an honours degree- by taking the key advanced theory courses within the Major. But other universities

do require

an honours degree (as opposed to honors level courses) for graduate admission, so SFU is

needlessly constraining the options of their graduates by being such an outlier with the 132 credit

requirement. Moreover, the 132 credit requirement may

keep some good students from entering

Honours since they face the

possibility of not completing their degree in four years. If the

Administration

feels that it cannot change the 132 credit requirement, it might want to consider making

a combined BA/MA option

available to students incorporating the final 12 credits into the first year of

the Masters program.

Second, we hope that the new budget model does not involve incentives that would draw the

Economics Department toward focusing its services

on non-Majors, since such incentives would run

counter

to our emphasis on the Department's fiduciary responsibility to its own Majors. We understand

that the new weighted-units model brings in more money for science and psychology students than it

does for economics students. We hope that the budget model can be implemented in such a way that

the FASS Dean does not have an incentive to urge the Department to service students majoring in these

subjects at

the expense of its own students.

4. Graduate Program

The graduate economics programs are evolving and many improvements have been made, following the

evolution of the Department itself. Our view is that the MA and PhD programs still have some way to go

to match the quality of the Faculty. It takes a long time to establish a reputation for attracting excellent

graduate students, given the stiff competition that comes from other long-established programs

elsewhere in Canada. Our suggestion is that some fundamental structural changes could be made to the

MA and PhD programs that will streamline them and make them more attractive for the students, and

especially make the time to completion more predictable.

We commend the fact that the University administration is no longer imposing such ambitiously high

undergraduate

enrolment targets. This practice had the ramification that the Economics Department

felt compelled to admit more MA students in order to cover the tutorials in their undergraduate classes.

This MA admission strategy has resulted in four or five MA students failing out after the first semester

each year- an outcome that has justifiably concerned the Dean of Graduate Studies. As just noted, we

understand

that the pressure that led to this problem has eased somewhat. Further progress on this

challenge can be achieved if our suggested changes in the undergraduate Major program are introduced

by the Department, since they

would reduce the need for TAs. Taken together, these developments at

the undergraduate

level would permit a slight raising of the entry requirements for MA admissions

(which we

would support).

We note that,

as all economics departments do, the Department at SFU uses the full grading scale from

C through A in evaluating its graduate students. Other departments submit grades that are much more

uniformly at the high end. Since graduate fellowships at SFU are proportional to the graduate-student

head-count

but restricted to heads with an academic average that exceeds 3.5, we recommend that the

Department adjust its marking practices

to better reflect the environment that it is in. This shift should

not be too difficult if- with somewhat stiffer entrance requirements- the average quality of students in

slightly smaller program is higher.

We commend

the Department for changing the MA program so that it

~an

be completed in 12 months.

This brings its arrangements into line with its competitors, and students are now finishing in such a way

that they do

not face awkward periods of inactivity between their MA study and their moving on either

to employment or to a PhD program. We regret, however, that this improvement has been achieved at

the expense of almost any student having the opportunity to do some independent research and writing

(hallmarks of the SFU Economics MA in years past). Thus, we recommend first a slight reduction in the

current focus on core

material in the program, and second an elimination of the MA comprehensive

examination,

to make room for a "summer essay" within the 12-month study period (which is

permissible under the current graduate school rules).

This summer essay would start and finish in that third and final semester; it would not be a "project"

with

the standard SFU formal defense process. We envision the course sequence as 3-3-1 for the other

courses

that comprise the MA, with the essay counting as a 6 credit "course" in the summer semester.

The seven courses would ideally include three core courses in microeconomic theory, macroeconomic

theory

and quantitative methods, with the rest being field or applied courses. Applied courses are

important

for the job market, whether students enter that market after the MA or after the PhD. (The

label "course" may need to be adjusted if there is a new funding model that charges graduate student

fees on a per-course basis.) Faculty would have to supervise the summer essays, but we presume that

the

Chair would make clear to faculty that, just as with PhD theses, graduate supervision is part of the

teaching mission

ofthe department and that is given serious weight when merit increases are decided.

We argue that this seven-other-courses-plus-summer-essay arrangement combines the best of SFU's

long-standing MA program (that involved some applied experience) and the more recent drive for faster

completion rates. But since there will still be a small subset of students who want even more hands-on

training

that is particularly focused on eventual employment opportunities, and since SFU is already well

set up to support co-op students, we recommend that the co-op option still be available to MA students.

It would be tidy if this was the only other option for MA students - beyond the revised one-year

program that we recommend.

We have one other observation about the MA program that sets it apart from those in other Canadian

universities. MA students at SFU have extraordinarily high TA work requirements. The standard hours of

work requirement of 210 for three terms far exceeds that in MA programs elsewhere, which tend to be

closer to 120 hours per term. Moreover, in other universities, course TAs are typically for two

terms,

with often an RAin the summer. And, many students have some fellowship support of varying amounts.

We realize that the Department may have limited flexibility in terms of what it can offer MA students.

Nonetheless, these work requirements and the scarcity of fellowship funds makes it difficult to attract

good MA students

to SFU since the best of them get much more attractive support elsewhere. (Of

course, the co-op option increases the attractiveness for many.)

It is usual in growing PhD programs that the quality of the faculty is higher than the quality of the

students,

so the low rate of external funding of PhD students is understandable. Nevertheless, exploiting

the Departmental niche areas within the program might help shorten this lag between department

reputation and graduate student

quality. In any

event,

we regard the PhD program as a work-in-

progress. We note

that roughly half of the last 20 graduates have taken a first job as an academic at

second-tier universities,

and this is a respectable outcome for the current stage of the program's

development.

On the funding issue, there have been unfortunate slips (for example, when eight fellowships were

available by reversion from the Business faculty and- despite urging from the Graduate Dean- there

were no nominations

for these internal awards from Economics). Such incidents suggest that there may

be work to be done to ensure better communications among the department's grad director, the grad

secretary and the students and

should be easily remedied. We think that the changes that are most

important concern the ordering

of the program so that students have courses available to match

student interests

and that they make a smoother transition from taking courses to doing research

(writing their dissertations)

We recommend, therefore, that the Department consider streamlining the

PhD requirements so that there is a little less emphasis placed on core material and a little more

attention

Is devoted to both courses that apply to dissertation choice and to students' working on their

detailed dissertation outline. We recommend that the PhD-level math course be split up into a shorter

non-credit math

"camp" in late August (as the MA students have) and then the remaining topics can be

taught within the PhD-level theory and econometrics courses. Clearly, some material would be displaced

from these existing courses, but this cost would be countered by there being one less theory course in

total within the PhD (bringing the program more into line with its competitors). Some slight decrease in

the

level of difficulty in the theory courses may be desirable in any event (until entry requirements can

be raised in future years) given the existing failure rate on the theory comprehensives.

Our biggest concern about the PhD program has to do with the fields. Given the graduate student body,

most students

will be writing applied dissertations. Given faculty numbers, very few field courses can be

offered, and many are offered at best only in alternate years. It is often the case that students are taking

whatever

is available and professors are pretending that almost any pair of courses constitutes a field.

Although

some students do take graduate courses at UBC, and that is reasonable, these courses cannot

be used for the comprehensive exam, as it cannot be expected that UBC faculty would be involved in

such graduate examinations at another university. We recommend that the Department consider

following the lead of a number of other economics programs and drop field comprehensives altogether.

Indeed, the field courses that are deemed appropriate for each student could be a matter of design by

that individual's supervisor(s) and the Graduate

Chair.

Instead

of studying for a field comprehensive (in a field that did not have the appropriate courses

offered)

or instead of writing a paper that may be unrelated to future dissertation work, the PhD

students would be better served by moving straight into the 900-level seminar and beginning to make

once-per-term presentations.

Initially, these presentations would be outlines for the dissertation; later

on they would be reports on completed chapter essays. Such a faster move into the dissertation/writing

stage

would increase research collaboration between faculty and students, and raise the probability that

PhD students would have a forthcoming publication by the time they went on the market. Meeting this

standard

is fast becoming a prerequisite for placement success.

Field courses tend to be offered jointly for MA and PhD students, and that is sensible. More should be

expected of PhD students, so it is appropriate that course assignments be suitably higher for PhD than

for MA students. As we noted earlier, CERP, METROPOLIS and CRABBE are well positioned to provide

foci

for graduate education within the department and to provide research training in areas of concern

to both the Province and to the cQuntry more generally which should translate into future jobs. There is

also the possibility of graduate funding from these centres. These characteristics should also lead to

higher quality student applications.

5. Administration

The Department is very collegial. Departmental met;!tings are infrequent, but this is the norm for most

economics departments, and

issues are adequately addressed by informal contacts among the faculty or

delegated to committees. There is a dedicated support staff, who administer the operation and who

represent

the front line of the Department in terms of interaction with students and the public. The

members of the staff have demanding jobs, especially at times of peak service, but -compared to other

economics

departments- a case cannot be made for increased positions. The staff noted that they have

collegial work environment, but that there have been occasions when there could have been better

lines of communication (clearer guidance regarding their responsibilities and perhaps more attention

given

to their suggestions). There is some tension among the support staff with regard to the

administration of the evaluations. Other departments (elsewhere and within SFU) either have the

faculty distribute the evaluations themselves (before leaving the lecture room with a student entrusted

to return ttie materials to the departmental office) or have student representatives in each class who

administer them. It does seem an undue additional burden on the support staff in the Economics

Department to have them involved with evaluations (beyond collating the results once they have been

returned).

There are some problems concerning the physical premises occupied by the Department. Apparently,

several offices are uninhabitable due to

mold problems. We did not examine these offices ourselves, but

we became aware

of at least one faculty member who has experienced serious health problems as a

result,

so we must recommend that this situation be attended to. At this time, the offices are simply

unused. They

will, no doubt, be needed as the Department faculty expands. In the meantime, two/three

offices

could be equipped with (say) six computers each to facilitate laboratory experiments so that

experimenters do not

have to work around the heavily booked FASS general-purpose computer labs. It

is difficult to run research experiments in a teaching lab, especially when SFU students tend not to be on

campus on weekends and in the evenings, when the existing labs are available for experiments. Even the

minimal

space that we have suggested be dedicated to experimental facilities would allow the

Department

to duplicate the modest lab facilities that have been adequate for McMaster

experimentalists

to make extensive research contributions over the years. As things stand, the SFU

department is one of the four places in Canada that have successfully produced PhD students who have

faculty positions in experimental economics, and this accomplishment should be nourished. In any

event, the remediation of the unusable offices cannot come from the Department's budget.

University

policy concerning administrative committee membership involves both rank and gender

constraints.

This is laudable, but in departments with a very small complement of junior faculty and of

women, those junior women can have a very high service obligation and this can be detrimental for

their research output. The administration needs to understand the impact of this on junior women, and

to ensure that individuals within economics are not adversely affected. It is important to note that, in

North America, only 30% of the graduates from economics PhD programs are women, and that this

proportion

has remained unchanged over the past thirty years of data. While hiring more women faculty

would be welcome on several grounds, the feasibility of expanding the proportion of women is limited.

The SFU Library provides excellent support for the Economics Department. There has been quite

dramatic

change in access to library resources over the past decade. Often faculty and students are

unaware

of what is available to them. We found the library staff impressive, and our only

recommendation is that the Department make greater use of the economics librarian in providing

awareness

of research specific web sites and library classes for term paper and projects at the

undergraduate

level and at the graduate level. The librarian can create class-specific websites which are

extremely useful

for students and faculty.

Contact with students

on campus seems good. The Undergraduate Economics Club is active with

enthusiastic student members.

And, as usual, the PhD students have an insatiable desire for more

interaction with faculty

(especially in social settings). But in terms of outreach with Alumni, the

Department should work toward more ongoing contact.

It seemed that little is known about placement

of students even at the graduate level. Maintaining links with former students is important. The role of

the Departmental newsletter could be expanded to include activities of former students (both graduate

and undergraduate) as well as a vehicle for disseminating information about faculty and departmental

activities. Alumni experience

could also be tapped through a departmental advisory board that meets

once a year.

This communication would also serve as a vehicle for maintaining contact and possible

support

for the Department financially and also in terms of external bodies within the province.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The external ranking of the Department's research has been rising, and the level of dedication devoted

to its teaching mission is impressive. We will not add unnecessarily to this Report's length by reiterating

all the things that the Department is doing well. Nor do we repeat the less central recommendations

noted above.

Instead, we list our "top ten" recommendations -the ones that we view as most central

and that most directly address the specific terms of reference that we were given.

!. We recommend that six net new appointments at the assistant professor level be made over the next

three years.

£.

We recommend that the evaluation of the faculty's research give attention to the top field journals,

not just to the top-S or top-15 journals overall.

We recommend that Economics 301 be shifted to a 200-level course, and that this course be made a

prerequisite

for many 300-level courses.

!. We recommend that several steps be taken to permit more resources to be made available to offering

the fourth-year seminar courses. This

reallocation, along with Recommendation 3, is required to

facilitate the Department's Majors being able to complete their degrees on time. These initiatives

include eliminating some pre-principles courses and tutorials for some courses, and increasing the

grade-point requirement

for students entering the economics programs.

~·

Given the Department's need to focus first on serving its own Majors, we recommend that the

contemplated Minor involving no intermediate micro be given no further consideration .

.§..Given the slight decrease in the number ofT

needed for the undergraduate program that is implied

by Recommendation 4, we recommend that entry requirements for the MA program be raised slightly.

z. We recommend that it be possible for students to graduate with an Honours degree by completing

120

units (a reduction from the current 132 unit requirement).

We recommend that the MA degree be more oriented to applied analyses, by dropping the MA

comprehensive examination, by adding a two-course-weight summer

essay to the program, and by

having

the remaining seven courses be divided into two groups with three courses covering core

material (micro, macro and econometrics), and four applied field courses.

We recommend that the core math and theory requirements in the PhD program be reduced by one

course in

total, and that the field comprehensives and essays (currently written after these courses are

completed) be replaced by an earlier involvement in the 900-level seminar.

10. We recommend that faculty members very much increase the extent to which they circulate their

research in progress through

the Departmental Working paper series. This practice would increase the

Department's standing in the rankings compared to its competitors, and it could become a vehicle for

increasing the number of joint papers (faculty members with their PhD students). More such papers lead

to faster completion times and better outcomes on the job market for PhDs.

Detailed Response to External Review - Department of Economics

June 25, 2011

Introduction

The external review of April2011 is a thoughtful document which accurately depicts the

strengths

of the Department and the challenges it faces. We are gratified to read that

" ... since the

last review, the Department has increased its rankings among

Canadian economics departments.

The widely cited ranking compiled by Research

Papers in Economics (RePEc) has them standing

fifth in the country, where they now dominate all others except the traditional 'big

four' (UBC,

University of Toronto, Queen's, UWO). We concur with this ranking. "(p.l)

This achievement reflects a good deal of very hard work over many years by faculty, staff and

support from the university administration.

At the same time, we face challenges on a number of fronts: our programs, faculty turnover, a

large and growing number

of international students, and more generally with a rapidly changing

environment. The reviewers made a wide variety

of suggestions and we agree with most of them.

Indeed several recommendations, especially regarding the undergraduate programs, have been

adopted

in the last few weeks. Others need further study by departmental committees or require

consultation between the Department chair, the Dean

ofF ASS, the Dean of Graduate Studies and

the University.

This response is based

on inputs received from individual department members and discussions

among the chair, associate chair, graduate chair, undergraduate chair, and

departmental manager.

Although it has not been possible to incorporate all

of the opinions expressed, we believe this

response is a reasonable summary

of departmental. thinking.

We start this report by discussing three key and interrelated issues confronting the Department.

We then respond separately to each external review recommendation.

1. Severe

undergradu~te

enrollment pressures: As with our last review in 2002/03, a key

issue is a lack of departmental resources to meet the overwhelming demand for economics

courses. Between

2002/03 and 2009110, we have experienced no growth in faculty

complement and a 41% student enrollment growth. This led to an overall AFTE count well

above

1400 and to

a. an average undergraduate class size of 107 in 2009/10, almost twice the F ASS

class size;

b. an AFTE per

CFL ratio which is twice the F ASS ratio;

c. an expenditure

per AFTE which is 37% below the FASS expenditure per student

of$5,900 which is itselflow by university standards;

d. A cost per AFTE significantly

lower and a AFTE/CFL ratio significantly higher

now than they were at the time of our last review. The same is not true both for

the university and for F

ASS.

The external reviewers are uncertain about how this situation of dramatically increased

enrollments has arisen.

The answer is simple: we behaved cooperatively with F ASS and hit

the enrollment.targets we had been assigned. In 2006-07, the University and Faculties were

not hitting enrollment targets and this had serious consequences for the SFU budget. In

2007-08 for the first time FASS issued departments an enrollment target. The undergraduate

target for economics in

08/09 was over 1400, corresponding to an enrollment 40% larger

than the next largest undergraduate AFTE

of any school or department in the university.

Although

we are told that the new university budget model should rectify this underfu.nding,

it is not known today how departments within F ASS will be affected by the new budget

model. Although the reviewers ask the Department to take measures to decrease the number

of undergraduate students in Economics by increasing standards, they also write that

'the

size

of the faculty is so limited relative to the student numbers that program quality at both

the undergraduate

and graduate level is in danger of being eroded seriously'(p.2).

They

also understand that with growing numbers

of international students, the already huge

demand for economics is likely to grow further. As a result, they unambiguously

recommend that significant new net

:m,ring be made by the Department.

International student pressures: The Department had 380 international AFTEs in

2009/10 representing 41.7% of the international students in FASS and nearly 16% of those

attending

SFU. This is more than any unit in the university including five of the eight

Faculties. International students have special needs and this places tremendous and unusual

pressure on the Department. Although more research needs be done, recent numbers suggest

that the impact

on economics is compounded by the fact that among the many international

students wanting to do business or economics but nothing else, business is capturing a

disproportionate share

of the best international students.

other words, despite a large

number of international students in business, they may not impact the Beedie School as much

as they impact us. The reviewers understood this issue when they wrote that

'the central

administration should appreciate the difficulty that is created

for the Department by its

decision to increase enrolment in general,

and its enrolment of international students in

particular.{.] [I]ts operations are fraying at edges as the result of this sheer numbers

problem.

' (p.4)

Faculty turnover, net hiring and ability to hire at all level: The Department has been

losing

on average two colleagues per year over the last decade (including five resignations).

This is not unusual for good economics departments.

We are gratified that the reviewers

write that

'{t]

he fact that some are attracted to other institutions should be seen as a strength

rather than as a weakness, since

it is a reflection that good persons are being hired in the

first place

' (p.l ). We expect this level of attrition to continue; the implication is that the

Department

needs to be able to hire two people per year just to maintain its CFL

complement!

We agree with the reviewers when they recommend that net growth be achieved by hiring

assistant professors (p.3). Although they doubt our ability to hire at more senior levels due to

the salary constraints at

SFU, we should pursue this strategy (indeed an excellent Associate

Professor was hired shortly after the reviewers' visit).

that regard, we should be able to

hire at the same level (but not necessarily at the same scale) as those leaving the Department.

This is important in order to keep a balance in the Department but also because

'it is the case

that some high-profile faculty members have retired or will retire soon. Their loss will

reduce the public visibility of the Department. One hope is that there will be others who will

take their place'

(p.2). Although

we have little doubt that it will be the case, a go<:>d

department cannot count only on the strategy of hiring at the junior level to maintain or to

increase its reputation.

We therefore need to be able to take advantage of senior hiring

opportunities as they present themselves.

We turn next to the numbered recommendations from the external review report. For brevity we

do not discuss all of the detailed suggestions throughout the text, but they will receive attention

from the Department chair, associate chair and departmental committees.

We also omit

references to some minor factual errors that do not affect the central conclusion.

2. Faculty and Research

The reviewers note that the Department is collegial, mutually supportive and whose members are

publishing regularly in very good journals. It has also good balance

of faculty members by field,

and age and it has hired very well in recent years. Although two recommendations (2 and 1

address some specific issues, the reviewers' main concern 'in terms of Faculty issues involves

their number' (p.2) summarized

in their first recommendation.

Recommendation 1: We recommend that six net new appointments at the assistant

professor level be made over the next three years.

We strongly agree with this recommendation and we are happy that the reviewers have accepted

our own conclusions when they write

'[t]

he Self Study Report makes a compelling case that as

compared to virtually all other units in FASS and the university, the Department is very much

understaffed'

(p. 2). This recommendation has two critical implications:

1) The optimal size

of the Department is about 40 CFL since the Department is scheduled to

have a size

of34 CFL on September 1, 2011 (up from 31 in 2010, thanks to great support

from our new Dean). Thus it is consistent with the target

of 41 CFL set in writing in 2006

by Dean John Pierce and re-affirmed in 2009 by Dean Lesley Cormack.

Since the recommendation is about 'net new appointments', the Department should be

able to replace whoever is leaving the Department because of retirement, resignation,

tenure denial, etc. As argued repeatedly including in the self study, the Department has an

annual turnover

of about two colleagues per year. Recommendation 1 therefore implies

that the Department will need to make on average four appointments per year over the

next three years.

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the evaluation of the faculty's research give

attention to the top field journals,

not just to the top-5 or top-15 journals overall.

This is a misunderstanding. Simply put, considering just the top-5 or top-15 journals overall is

not how the Department carries out (or has carried out) its evaluation of faculty research

contributions. No doubt this misunderstanding is coming from Chapter 2

of the self study. Tables

2.6 and 2. 7 were not meant to be a reflection of the way the Department evaluates faculty but

only to provide one measure

on the progress of the Department since its last review.

We plan to continue to evaluate faculty research contributions in the same way we have

in the

past, which is to give due consideration to rankings of journals within fields and to overall

journal rankings. Although there is no perfect ways of doing this, we believe that the tenure and

promotion committee has repeatedly demonstrated that its members do a very good

job with such

an evaluation.

The reviewers also recommend that hiring

be done in fields 'particularly appealing for the PhD

students' (p.3). We agree in so far as "it means that we should hire people in applied fields while

keeping a balance with core fields.

3. Undergraduate Program

The reviewers are

'impressed with the high standards with which.the Department is attempting

to meet all [its] challenges'

(p.4) and consider that the Department should concentrate on our

Major program as it is

by far the largest among our updergraduate programs.

addition to the

need for more resources, they suggest several margins of adjustments, whether it is to cut pre-

principles courses,

200 level courses, ending tutorials in some courses, increasing entry

standards, etc.

We agree with the main thrust of the reviewers' report which is that meeting the

challenges faced

by the Department will require both more resources and adjustments in our

programs.

Recommendation 3: We recommend that Economics 301 be shifted to a 200-level course,

and that this course be made a prerequisite for many 300-level courses.

We agree. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has adopted this change last month along

with several other modifications aimed at improving our undergraduate programs.

Pending the

usual ratification procedure, the shift from Econ

301 to Econ 201 will take effect in September

2012. Econ 201 will also have two characteristics, the first one suggested by the reviewers: (i) be

a pre-requisite to most Econ 300 level courses, and (ii) become one of the courses that students

will have to take before being able to declare Economics as a major. These modifications will

undoubtedly restrict access to our undergraduate programs (majors,

joint majors, extended

minors). Hence they will reinforce the impact of the higher CGP A requirement (effective

September 2011) in declaring a major in Economics.

Recommendation 4: We recommend that several steps be taken to permit more resources .

be made available to offering the fourth-year seminar courses. This reallocation, along

with Recommendation 3,

required to facilitate the Department's Majors being able to

complete

their degrees on time. These initiatives include eliminating some pre-principles

courses

and tutorials for some courses, and increasing the grade-point requirement for

students entering the economics programs.

Last month, the UCC has adopted several modifications (effective September 2012) of our

undergraduate program that are going in the suggested direction. First, those wishing to pursue

our programs (except for the minor in Economics) will have to take one 200-level course (in

addition to Econ

201) instead of two 200-level courses. Second, they will have to take one more

300-level elective courses to complete their major in Economics. Effective September 2011, we

are also adding more flexibility in our 300-level required core courses by adding more sections.

These additional sections will also allow us to add more seats and tutorials in these required

courses

if there is a need for them. This should avoid the bottlenecks that we have experienced in

2010/11 when core courses filled up much too quickly during the registration period making it

impossible for some of our students to register unless they had accumulated a very high number

of credits. These bottlenecks can increase student's time to completion and they often lead

students to take core courses only at the end

of their studies.

Concerning

400-level courses, we agree it would be desirable to offer more of them but we do

not

think

we should implement this now. We first need to monitor the situation and determine

whether more of them are needed. This will depend in a large part on how the changes in our

undergraduate program (higher

CGPA, Econ 201 to become a major) will impact the number of

students pursuing a major in Economics. It would be premature to add 400-level courses before

first considering the impact

of the above changes.

Recommendation 5: Given the Department's need to focus first on serving its own Majors,

we recommend

that the contemplated Minor involving no intermediate micro be given no

further consideration.

Although we have no intention of introducing a new minor degree in economics (for instance

one that would involved specific courses such as a non-technical intermediate course in

microeconomics), nor

of adding more resources in our minor program, we have decided to keep

the existing minor in economics and to modify its requirements so as to make it feasible to

complete this degree efficiently. This is important for at least two reasons. First,

we are very

much convinced that the Department should have a portfolio of undergraduate degrees in

economics which includes a minor in economics. Second, F

ASS is eliminating the Bachelor of

General Studies and having a minor in economics will allow some of our weaker students to

switch to a minor

if they have little hope of successfully completing their major. Unfortunately

very few students have completed a minor degree in Economics in recent years mainly because

these students could not find enough courses in economics that did not have pre-requisites such

as intermediate microeconomics. To avoid this problem, we have decided to do the following: (i)

keep a few 300-level courses which do not have Econ

201 as a pre-requisite. (ii) To allow those

doing a minor in economics to take a few courses outside the Department that would count

toward their minor in economics provided that these courses are approved

by the Department and

do not count for another degree.

We include here recommendation 7 since it deals with the undergraduate program;

recommendation 6 can

be found in the next Section.

Recommendation 7: We recommend that it be possible for students to graduate

wi~

an.

Honours degree by completing 120 units (a reduction from the current 132 unit

requirement).

We very much agree with this recommendation and we are eager to expand enrolment in our

honors degree once it has 120 units instead of the current 132 units. This would bring our

program in line with other departments of economics across the country. As with these other

departments, the additional requirements over a major degree would come in the form

requiring the very demanding core courses we offer at the fourth year level. They are the right

courses in preparation for graduate work. This is very much consistent with our plan to maintain

a portfolio

of undergraduate degrees. We have been urging the university to allow 120 credit

hour honors degrees for years. We hope the university will adopt this soon. This would have a

significant impact on the number and on the quality

of the undergraduate students pursuing their

studies at the graduate level at

SFU and elsewhere.

that regard, it would enhance the visibility

and the reputation of the Department.

4. Graduate Program

Recommendation 6: Given the slight decrease in the number

of TAs needed for the

undergraduate program that is implied by Recommendation 4, we recommend that entry

requirements for the MA program be raised slightly.

We agree in principle that higher standards at the graduate level would be a plus but this

implicitly says that

we are accepting too many MA students because we have too many tutorials.

other words that the marginal MA student does not have the quality required to pursue a MA

at SFU. We disagree with this assessment. Although we do have a few students who are not able

to maintain a

CGP A of 3.0 at the graduate level, it is rather difficult to argue that these students

would not have received an offer from us

if we admitted fewer students. There is considerable

noise in the selection

of graduate students and we should expect this to continue whether or not

we raise our entry standard at the

MA level. Our admission of MA students is driven by the

desire for an excellent MA program and the desire to allow students to prove themselves. We

have had hundreds of graduate applications every year for a decade or more, and the applicant

pool is improving. We also strongly believe in the-SFU tutorial system. With our large class

sizes,

we strongly feel that the small group contact afforded by tutorials is critical in providing a

quality education to

our students.

Recommendation 8: We recommend that the MA degree be more oriented to applied

analyses, by dropping the MA comprehensive examination, by adding a two-course-weight

summer essay to the program,

and by having the remaining seven courses be divided into

two groups with three courses covering core material (micro, macro

and econometrics),

and four applied field courses.

Although this recommendation has yet to be fully discussed by the Graduate Program

Committee, it has two key components. First, a summer essay as a replacement for the MA

comprehensive examination. We agree with this idea and we would have adopted it a decade ago

if it was feasible given university rules. The MA comprehensive exam was introduced precisely

to fulfill university regulations requiring a capstone in the absence

of a thesis or a project.

Having summer papers, provided that they did not require heavy, cumbersome, and often

delayed oral defenses, would

be a plus for our students, especially for those not wishing to

pursue their studies at the

PhD level. We would therefore be happy to pursue this idea but, as far

we know, we believe it involves a violation of university rules. Second, the recommendation

to decrease the number

of required courses in econometrics. This needs further discussion within

the Department.

Recommendation 9: We recommend that the core math and theory requirements in the

PhD

program be reduced by one coune in total, and that the field comprehensives and

essays (currently written after these courses are completed) be replaced by an earlier

involvement

in the 900-level seminar.

The core math course at the PhD level was only introduced a few years ago to help prepare our

students for the heavy-duty math and statistics requirements in the subsequent core courses in

macro, micro and econometrics. But

we will revisit this carefully to make sure_ that this course is

a help rather than a hindrance to our PhD students. We agree that we should seriously consider

dropping field comprehensives (as several other competing departments have already done) and

make sure that the transition to research

be as early and as effective as possible. We are

considering several options to help our students make this critical transition.

Recommendation 10: We recommend that faculty members very much increase the extent

to which they circulate their research in progress through the Departmental Working

paper series. This practice would increase the Department's standing in the rankings

compared to its competitors,

and it could become a vehicle for increasing the number of

joint papers (faculty members with their PhD students). More such papers lead to faster

completion times and

better outcomes on the job market for PhDs.

We agree but this essentially depends on the faculty's willingness to use the existing

Departmental working paper series. Despite the fact that the Departmental Working Paper series

is linked to RePEc, a relatively small number

of our faculty put their work in this series. This is

in large part due to the fact that it is now easy to publish preliminary work through personal web

pages and through affiliations to other, often more well-known outlets, such as the CEPR,

CESifo or NBER. But we will consider this issue again and its implications for our graduate

students at

our next Department meeting.

Regarding joint papers between faculty and students, we do agree that such joint papers are very

helpful

in improving job market outcomes for a PhD student (provided however that their job

market paper is sole authored). We do think that we have more work to do regarding the

supervision of our PhDs. Work on this critical matter is ongoing and strongly related to the

transition from courses to research in recommendation 9.

5. Administration

We note that the reviewers do not have any specific recommendation about Administration.

not that improvement cannot be made (better communication, greater use of the library facilities,

working

more with Alumni and students) but we found their comments on the solidarity and

community in the Department gratifying. Three points raised

by the reviewers are worth

mentioning. First the administrative pressure on women: For all faculty members we take

service contributions into account

in the biannual review but we do not think that the

administrative pressure is such that a particular group's research and/or teaching productivity is

being adversely affected. Having said this,

we would welcome hiring more women in the

Department

but as noted by the reviewers,

'the feasibility of expanding the proportion of women

[in Economics] is limited'

(plO). The bottom line is that we'll monitor this issue. Second, the

administration

of the evaluations: we recognize it is a burden on the support staff and we have

already taken steps to

lower this burden (i.e., evaluations are the 400- and 800-level no longer

administered

by the support staff). We will take additional small steps to lower a bit further this

burden but, given

our average class size, it should be expected that the support staff will continue

to administer most

of these evaluations and this until F ASS and/or the university adopts a web-

based evaluation system. Third, the water and mould problems affecting

the West Mall

Complex: These are serious, disruptive, and deserve close attention from

the administration.

Although some

of the offices are scheduled to be remediated during the Summer, this issue will

require a much more comprehensive solution

than

is currently envisioned

bJ:{~

~cr~()

EXTERNAL REVIEW- ACTION PLAN

Section 1- To be com(:!leted

the Res(:!onsible Unit Person e.g. Chair or Director

Unit

under

review

Date

Review

Site visit

Responsible Unit person,

Faculty Dean

.........

...

......

Economics

...

.....

...............

.........

March

18-21 ............

...........

Nicolas

Schmitt...

..........

......... John

Craig

................

Note: The Action Plan is only a summary of the most important points.

See the Appendix for a detailed response on

all the issues raised by the reviewers.

FACULTY

1.1 Actionls

(descri~tion

what is

going

to be done}:

•

6 net new junior positions made available to Economics over the next three years (recommendation

1);

•

Economics can

replace

at the same level (but not necessarily at the same scale) any loss of existing faculty in Economics;

•

The implication of

the

above is that the size of

the

department should reach

CFLs .

1.2

Resource

im~lications

((if an)£}:

The resource

implications are substantial since each new

junior

position involves market

differential that is

at least equal to the one

offered over

the last two years, starting research

funds,

five course buyouts (two paid by the Department) and benefits

1.3

Ex~ected

com~letion

date[s:

September 2014

2_3

2.1 Action/s (description what is going to be done):

2.1.1 Undergraduate:

• Econ 301 shifted to Econ 201 with Econ 201 becoming a prerequisite for many 300-level courses (recommendation 3) and a course

necessary

to pass before being able to declare Economics as Major.

• Increase CGPA necessary to declare a Major in Economics;

• Facilitate Majors being able to complete their degrees on time (recommendations 4 and 5) by having enough choice and enough

capacity

at the 300 and at the 400 levels;

•

The department and FASS agree that Economics will adjust its Honour degree credit hour requirement from 132 to 120 as soon as

the university has made this feasible (recommendation 7);

• Adjust the Minor in economics to as to become a meaningful option in Economics.

2.1.2 Graduate:

• Investigate whether and how the MA comprehensive exam should be replaced by a Summer paper (recommendation 8);

• Revisit the role of recently added math requirement (ECON 831) at the PhD level (recommendation 9);

• Determine whether PhD field comprehensive exams should be maintained (recommendation 9);

• Revisit the role of Econ 900, the timing of PhD student's involvement with it and the Graduate Chair's role.

2.2 Resource

implications Uif any):

Most of the above items have resource implications: (i) moving Econ 301 to Econ 201 means that many more students may take Econ 201;

it will be imperative to offer enough capacity; (ii) making sure that Majors can complete their degrees me_ans that enough 300 and 400

elective courses must be offered; (iii) having a larger Honours cohort means that core courses that are currently offered once a year may

need

to be offered more than once per year; (iv) Having a more accessible Minor in economics means that some elective courses at the

300 level may have an even higher demand than they currently do. Against these forces, we are making access to our Major more selective

thereby reducing

the demand for many of our courses. The net effect is uncertain. It will need to be monitored carefully. However, we

expect

to be able to face these challenges with the actions listed in 1.1.

2.3 Expected completion

date/s:

Regarding the undergraduate programs, everything should be implemented by September 2012. The only uncertainty is about the

Honours degree at 120 credits. We are awaiting university decisions to implement this particular item.

Regarding

the graduate programs, the items should be investigated during the 2011/12 academic year and implementation be effective by

2013 at the latest.

3.1 Action/s(what is going to be done) :

There is no specific recommendation regarding research. We note however that the reviewers acknowledge that the Department

of Economics made considerable progress since its last review and are placing us among the five best Economics departments in

Canada. Our goal is to progress further by increasing our research output and making it more visible. These goals can be achieved

careful hiring and tenure/promotion decisions.

3.2

Resource implications(if any):

Those associated with 1.1.

3.3

Expected completion date/s:

Continuous effort.

4 ADMINISTRATION AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Action/s(what is going to be done) :

There is no specific recommendation regarding the governance or the working environment of the Department. Improvements

can always be made and will continue to be made but the reviewers note that the Department is very collegial and issues are

adequately addressed.

4.2

Resource implications(if any):

None

4.3

Expected completion date/s:

<!".

The above action plan has been considered by the Unit under review and has been discussed and agreed to by the Dean.

Date

ritleb~~

....

O!txt'k

.....

f~ccc

lli

....

3.L.L.t.f.

....................................

t!A<I£~~

-4-

2&.

Section 2- Dean's comments and endorsement of the Action P

an:

I met with colleagues Nicolas Schmitt and Gord Myers from the Department of Economics on 22 June 2011 together with Glynn

Nicholls to discuss the external review prepared by Professors Boadway (Queen's University), Carlos (University of Colorado)

and Scarth (McMaster University).

I have given close consideration to both the external review and to the detailed response from the Department of Economics

dated 25 June 2011.

I agree that the external reviewers produced a thoughtful document that has captured the strengths found

in the Department of Economics and the challenges it faces. The response from the Department of Economics is both

substantive

and persuasive. It has my full support. I agree that the Department is seriously understaffed and that unless this is

addressed, the

quality of the program in Economics will be imperiled. Specifically, the reviewers have recommended the

appointment of six net new

faculty members by 2014. The Dean's office, working closely with the Vice President Academic and

with the Department of Economics, is determined to make this recommendation the priority for the Faculty of Arts and Social

Sciences.

Faculty

Dea

~.~.~:.~.~~~~

......

....

............

.............

...

................

Date

October 2011