ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW
SELF-STUDY REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
February 15, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Economics, which was crucial to the establishment of the College of Business
Administration at URI has, since 1966, been located in the College of Arts and Science. The department
continues to offer undergraduate programs and foster research consistent with liberal arts values and in the
spirit of theoretical and methodological pluralism.
The department currently has ten full-time faculty members, including eight tenure-stream faculty and two
full-time lecturers. The most recent official student/faculty ratio for the department was 24.8:1 for
Academic Year 2012-2013, third highest in the college. The actual faculty/students ratio for Fall Semester
2013 was 29:1.
The department offers three programs for majors: a Bachelor of Arts, a Bachelor of Science in Applied
Economics, and a Bachelor of Science in Economic Theory and Methods. The current (as of 10/15/13)
official headcount of majors is 183, which is a 56% increase since 2011.
While less than 20% of economics majors are female, nearly 36% are non-white, which is 20% greater than
the relative proportion of non-white undergraduates at URI.
The modal GPA category for economics majors is 2.0-2.4, which begs for more detailed analysis, but
suggests that students may be struggling with the rigor of the major.
During Academic Year 2012-2013, the faculty taught over 3000 seats of economics courses, including
approximately 2300 seats of principles of economics, 300 seats of core major courses, and 300 seats of
topical courses. Sixty-four percent of seats were taught by tenure-stream faculty, which is approximately
52% above the college average.
As for teaching quality, the IDEA scores for faculty in approximately 60% of courses was above the median
for the institution, and two current members of the faculty have won the URI Foundation’s Teaching
Excellence award.
Of the total undergraduate population at URI, 1.4% percent are economics majors, which is the median for
the nine peer institutions in the recent Delaware Study report for which data are available. The number of
full-time faculty at URI, however, is well below the peer median of twenty. The economics department at
the University of Vermont, which has approximately the same number of majors and also no graduate
program, currently has five more full-time faculty than does our department.
The cost of the department is approximately $145/credit hour or approximately 66% of the college average
of $220/credit hour.
The department’s research depends largely on the individual interests of faculty. Little external support has
been received during the past several years, but faculty have continued to publish in top-tier journals and
with leading publishers. Efforts are underway to improve prospects for external funding.
The faculty are engaged in a wide array of service and outreach activities at the university, for the
profession, and in the community.
Table of contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Chart 1.
Chart 2.
Chart 3.
Chart 4.
Chart 5.
Chart 6.
Chart 7.
The Department of Economics………………………………………………..
Prior program review and actions……………………………………………..
Summary of current state of degree programs………………………………...
Summary of current research programs……………………………………….
Summary of current service and public engagement programs……………….
Institutional effectiveness……………………………………………………..
Future plans……………………………………………………………………
Appendices
A. Academic program review reports
B. Assessment materials
C. Faculty publications, 2009-2013
D. Promotion and tenure standards and procedures
List of tables
Economics majors by credits earned and grade point average, Fall 2013…….
Regularly offered topical courses beyond core requirements…………………
Number of ECN-coded seats taught by department faculty, academic year
2012-2013……………………………………………………………………..
IDEA results, department means and standard deviations, academic year
2012-2013……………………………………………………………………..
Economics majors, total and as percent of undergraduates, and number of
faculty, URI and Delaware Study comparable institutions, Fall 2013………..
Current faculty research-in-progress and with likely JEL classifications, Fall
2013…………………………………………………………………………...
List of figures
Economics majors by program, Fall 2013…………………………………….
Number of economics majors by program, 2009-2013……………………….
Number of graduates by program, 2009-2013………………………………...
Student/faculty ratio and percent of credit hours taught by tenure track
faculty, department and college, academic year 2012-2013…………………..
Frequency of IDEA converted average scores compared to discipline,
academic year 2012-2013……………………………………………………..
Frequency of IDEA converted average scores compared to institution,
academic year 2012-2013……………………………………………………..
Cost per credit hour, department and college…………………………………
1
4
4
12
15
16
17
5
7
8
9
11
12
4
5
6
8
10
10
16
I.
The Department of Economics
A. Historical highlights
The first economist at the University of Rhode Island may have been Charles Lloyd
Sweeting. Sweeting was an assistant professor of economics at Syracuse University when, in
1923, he was hired by Howard Edwards, the third president of URI,1 to begin a program in
business administration. Although a man of great ambition, Sweeting’s plans for building a
curriculum to “resemble the program at the Wharton School” were hampered in 1925 by
“[u]nexpected expenditures for livestock, feed, laboratory supplies, minor repairs, and a $1,700
reduction in what the college had hoped to get from the Assembly.” Discouraged, he left the
following year.2
In 1946, another economist, George Ballentine, became the second dean of the recently
established School of Business Administration.3 It was during Ballentine’s tenure that the school
grew substantially and was elevated to college status. To mark his achievements the building
constructed to house the College of Business Administration (CBA), and opened in 1966, was
named Ballentine Hall.
Although critical to the development of CBA, the economics department elected to
migrate to the College of Arts and Sciences (A&S) the same year that Ballentine Hall opened. In
a letter to the president of the faculty senate, chair Richard Sabatino wrote: “The basic reason
for making this request is that members of the economics department have been trained in
economics as a social science whose scope includes the entire economy and not just the sector of
business…The department itself feels that it can do more to raise the level of economic literacy
among students by being part of the College of Arts and Sciences.” Since the move to A&S, the
department has maintained its liberal arts values through a commitment to methodological and
theoretical pluralism and teaching and research programs that recognize the full richness of the
discipline.
While, today, the instructional efforts of the department are focused mainly on
undergraduate education, the department has hosted graduate programs in the past. In 1969, the
department, along with the former Department of Resource Economics (now the Department of
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics (ENRE)) established a doctoral program in
economics with a focus on marine resources. Members of the economics department taught the
foundational economics courses, such as micro- and macroeconomics and econometrics, while
faculty from resource economics taught second and third year field courses. The program was
suspended in 1974. It reemerged in 1978 as a program solely within the resource economics
department and, today, is housed in ENRE. A connection is maintained, however, as one
member of the economics department has a joint appointment with ENRE and is an active
teacher and advisor in the graduate program. Recent discussions suggest that more joint work
involving the ENRE graduate program may occur in the future.
1
At the time it was the Rhode Island College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts.
Eschenbacher, Herman F. 1966. The University of Rhode Island: A History of Land-Grant Education in Rhode
Island. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. p. 205-206.
3
Prior to 1943, there was a business program within the School of Science and Business. See Eschenbacher, p. 322323.
2
1
A Master of Arts degree in economics was offered through 1993, at which point the
Board of Governors moved to suspend a number of low enrollment graduate programs. The
M.A. in economics, as well as a similar program in sociology, were discontinued.
Although the economics department does not currently host a graduate program, a
number of graduate level courses, included several cross-listed with ENRE, CBA, and the
Schmidt Labor Research Center, still exist and are occasionally or routinely taught by economics
department faculty.
The current constellation of undergraduate offerings (i.e. a BA and two BS programs
(discussed more fully below)) began to develop in the late 1980s. At that time, the department
established a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Quantitative Analysis, which, today, is
called a B.S. in Applied Economics and is designed to provide the quantitative rigor required for
students to go on to careers as professional economists. A second B.S. track, entitled Theory and
Methods, was added in the late 1990s and was designed for students hoping to attend graduate
school in economics. These two B.S. degrees took their place alongside the previously existing
Bachelor of Arts degree.
Teaching principles of economics to large numbers of URI students has always been a
key mission of the department. At one time this was accomplished by offering ECN 125, an
introductory macroeconomics course, ECN 126, an introductory microeconomics course, and
ECN 123, which drew on elements of both. In 1994, the sequence was changed to place
microeconomics first, representing the trend in the field at the time. In addition, the principles of
economics courses were raised to the 200 level to signal their rigor above that of typical 100
level courses. Further, ECN 123 was dropped in favor of ECN 100, which is a general education
course that provides an overview of the field economics with content defined by the instructor.
A capstone undergraduate research course, ECN 445, was introduced in 1994, but
subsequently dropped as a core requirement. Recently, the course was reintroduced and will
serve as the department’s main tool for academic assessment.
The research program of the department has, for the most part, been decentralized and
dependent on the individual interests of faculty members (which will be discussed below). That
said, members of the department have participated in several institutionally driven research
efforts. For example, the Research Center for Business and Economics was established under
the direction of department members in 1966. After the migration of the department to A&S, the
center remained housed at the CBA, although economists stayed active in the center for some
time. Through the 1990s, the center, under the direction of a member of the economics
department, produced an index of leading economic indicators for the state. In addition, a former
member of the department founded the Institute for the Study of International Aspects of
Competition (ISIAC) some years ago. The institute continues to publish an occasional working
paper. In the early 1990s, several members of the department were involved in a research effort
of the Schmidt Labor Research Center, entitled Workforce 2000, which resulted in fifteen reports
concerning labor market activity in the state at the time. Currently, department members are
working with several state agencies and non-profit organizations in bringing a statewide
longitudinal data set to URI. The hope is to create a rich resource for social science research on
issues of local concern.
2
B. Mission statement
The following mission statement was developed by the department in 2008, but will be
revised as this effort continues:
The mission of the Department of Economics is to create, propagate, and
apply economic knowledge and to contribute to related interdisciplinary
endeavors. Effective pursuit of this mission requires ongoing attention to changing
constraints and opportunities.
The constraints and opportunities that have faced us in recent years—
notably, budgetary stringency, personnel shortages, an aging faculty, numerous
students seeking to major in economics, and many more needing to satisfy
requirements for introductory courses in economics—have led is to focus on
undergraduate teaching. We have endeavored and will continue to endeavor to
make our department one of the factors motivating students to come to and remain
at URI.
Our constraints and opportunities continue to shift. The arrival of a new
Provost with an outstanding record of helping faculty obtain external research
funds and the replacement of retiring faculty with newly minted Ph.D.s may enable
us to raise our research productivity without neglecting our undergraduates or
placing impossible demands on the state budget.
C. Vital statistics
As of January 1, 2014, the department has five full professors, four assistant professors,
and two full-time lecturers. In Fall 2013, one part-time faculty member taught two courses,
which has been typical during the past several years. Four members of the department’s faculty
have limited joint appointments with other departments. In one case, this reduces the faculty
member’s teaching obligations to the department by one-half, in another by one-third, and in
another by one-sixth.4
In Fall 2013, accounting for part-time appointments and course releases, the department
had 11.5 FTEs,5 who delivered 5,010 credit hours (not including CCE courses). The
student/faculty ratio for the semester was 29:1. Seventy percent of credit hours were taught by
tenured/tenure track faculty, 25% by full-time lecturers, and 5% by the one part-time instructor.
The current chair of the department is a faculty member of the Schmidt Labor Research
Center and does not teach in the department. The department shares one administrative assistant,
equally, with the Department of Philosophy.
In Fall 2013, there were 183 students majoring in economics, including 107 pursuing
bachelor of arts degrees and 76 bachelor of science degrees. In addition, 1,391 students were
4
The fourth joint appointment does not necessarily reduce the faculty member’s teaching commitments to the
Department of Economics, but merely requires that the faculty member teach a course that can be cross-listed with
the Program in Gender and Women’s Studies once every three years.
5
This figure is at variance with the official FTE count of the University, which does not account for joint
appointments and course releases. According to the most recent data from the Academic Program Review
Committee, the department had 13.8 FTEs in Fall 2013.
3
enrolled in 22 sections of the department’s introductory general education courses: ECN 100,
201 and 202.
II.
Prior program review and actions
No current member of the department recalls any formal program review during the past
several decades.
III.
Summary of current state of degree programs
A. Overview
The Department of Economics offers both Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science
degrees. Currently, the department does not have a graduate program.6 The Bachelor of Science
degree is further divided into two tracks: Applied Economics and Economic Theory and
Methods.
In Fall 2013, there were 183 students majoring in economics, 107 of whom were in the
BA program and 76 in the BS programs, with 71 in the BS Applied Economics and five in the
BS Economic Theory and Methods program.
Chart 1. Economics majors by program, Fall 2013
Total=183
5
71
107
BA
BS Applied Economics
BS Theory and Methods
Fifty-six economics students have at least two majors, with 47 of those considering
economics their primary major. The most popular second major, chosen by 17 students, is
political science. In addition, 32 students have at least one minor, with business administration
being the most popular, chosen by 24 students.
6
Although faculty do teach graduate level courses and serve on thesis and dissertation committees in other
departments.
4
According to latest data from the URI Office if Institutional Research, in 2012 80.6 % of
economics majors were male and 64.2% white. At 35.8 %, the non-white proportion of
economics majors exceeds that of all undergraduate students at URI by 20.1%.
Chart 2 displays the number of economics majors, by program, for the past five years.
We see that following a decline from 2009 to 2011, there has been a sharp increase in majors,
particularly from 2011 to 2012.
Chart 2. Number of economics majors by program,
2009-2013
200
183
180
160
165
141
127
140
120
107
100
117
100
97
87
80
60
40
65
34
30
30
2009
2010
2011
107
76
20
0
BA
BS
2012
2013
Total
Table 1 displays economics majors by credit hours earned and grade point average as of
Fall 2013. As we can see, approximately fifty students may earn degrees in academic year 20132014, with remainder likely to return for one or two more years.
The frequency distribution of economics majors by GPA indicates that the modal
category is 2.0-2.4. Further analysis needs to be done to see how this compares to all URI
undergraduates and what the in-major GPA looks like for our students. On its face, however,
this result raises concerns that students enrolling in the major may not be prepared for its rigor.
Table 1. Economics majors by credits earned and grade point average, Fall 2013
Credits earned
Freq.
GPA
Freq.
0-60
48
0.0-1.9
8
61-90
80
2.0-2.4
69
9055
2.5-2.9
51
3.0-3.4
35
3.5-4.0
20
5
B. Graduation statistics.
As can be seen in Chart 3, after a dip in 2012, the number of graduates reached a recent
highpoint in 2013 with 48 degrees conferred. The data is Table 1 suggest that a similar number
will be awarded in 2014.
Chart 3. Number of graduates by program, 2009-2013
60
50
40
48
45
38
41
35
35
35
31
30
26
30
20
10
17
16
20
9
8
0
2009
2010
2011
BA
BS
2012
2103
Total
C. The nature of the programs.
Learning outcomes and assessment plans may be found in the appendix to this report.
While learning outcomes represent our overall learning goals, each program has a distinctive
focus. All students must complete courses in the principles of micro- and macroeconomics
(ECN 201 and 202), the history of economic thought (ECN 305), intermediate micro- and
macroeconomics (ECN 323 or 328 and ECN 324 or ECN 327), and, for those beginning in or
after Fall 2012, a capstone senior research seminar (ECN 445).
In addition, BA students must complete an introductory research methods course (ECN
306) and three additional major requirements (i.e. topical economics courses (See Table 2)). The
minimum number of economics credits for the BA degree is 30, or ten courses.
Beyond the courses mentioned in the first paragraph above, students in the BS Applied
Economics program must take an introductory statistics course (which is typically STA 308), a
quantitative methods course (ECN 375), a four-credit econometrics course (ECN 376), and two
additional major courses. The quantitative methods course has a prerequisite of introductory
6
calculus (either MTH 131 or 141). The minimum number of economics credits for the BS degree
is 31, or ten courses. 7
Students in the BS Theory and Methods program must do 31 credits in economics,
including all of those mentioned in the first paragraph above, econometrics, and three additional
economics courses. In addition, however, students in this program must complete six
mathematics courses (MTH 141, 142, 215, 243, 307, and 244 or 442 or 435). Therefore, a total
of 49 credits of coursework is required for the BS in Theory and Methods, or 16 courses.
The goal of the BA program is to provide students with a rigorous education in
economics in the liberal arts tradition, with emphases on reading, writing, and reasoning. All BA
students at URI must take a wide range of general education courses and engage in foreign
language study. Upon completion, BA students should have a thorough knowledge of the
world’s economy.
BS Applied Economics students are being prepared for entry-level jobs as economists in
industry, the non-profit sector, or government. The learning in courses such as statistics,
quantitative research methods, and econometrics should provide students with the tools to
conduct economic data analysis, initially under the supervision of more experienced and highly
trained economists.
The BS in Economic Theory and Methods is the best route for students serious about
advanced graduate work in economics. As well, students interested in careers that require a
combined knowledge of economics and advanced mathematical skills—e.g. as actuaries or in
finance—are encouraged to enroll in this program.
Table 2. Regularly offered topical courses beyond core requirements
ECN 333 Economics and the law
ECN 334 Money, financial markets, and mon.policy
ECN 335 Intermarket economic analysis
ECN 338 International economics
ECN 342 Public finance
ECN 344 Political economy of global finance
ECN 360 Health economics
ECN 363 Economic growth and development
ECN 368 Labor economics
ECN 381 Radical critiques of contemp. pol. economy
ECN 390 Topics in economics
D. Teaching
1.
Quantity
Faculty in the Department of Economics typically teach three courses per semester.
However, courses that enroll over 100 students are counted as two courses. As seen in Table 3,
the department’s faculty taught over 3000 students in ECN coded courses in academic year
2012-2013.
7
Since one of the core courses for the BS degree is four credits, the program is 31 credits rather than the 30 required
in BA program.
7
Table 3. ECN seats taught by economics department faculty, academic year
2012-2013.
Fall 2012 Spring 2013
Total
ECN 100/100H
86
0
86
ECN 201
944
652
1596
ECN 202
280
453
733
Core 300 level courses
172
161
333
Topical 300 level courses
123
163
286
Independent studies
6
8
14
Graduate courses
31
19
50
Total
1642
1456
3098
Chart 4 displays the student/faculty ratio and percent of credit hours taught by tenured
and tenure track faculty for academic year 2012-13. The chart shows that, in both cases, the
department exceeded the college averages.
Chart 4. Student/faculty ratio and percent of credit hours taught by
tenure track faculty, department and college, 2012-2013
70
64
60
50
42
40
30
24.8
19.8
20
10
0
Student/Faculty ratio
Percent of credit hours taught by tenure track faculty
Economics
2.
A&S
Quality
Teaching quality is difficult to measure and often depends on the best fit between an
instructor’s teaching style and a student’s learning style. One indicator of teaching quality may
be scores on the IDEA instrument. Table 4 displays the average scores of economic faculty on
8
this instrument across several categories.8 As the table indicates, in the majority of cases, the
average scores of economics faculty exceed the disciplinary and institutional median. The
standard deviation of scores are particularly large for core major requirements, a finding that
deserves further attention.
Table 4. IDEA results, department means and standard deviations, academic year
2012-2013 (N=46).
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
Adjusted
summary
evaluation
(1-5 scale)
Converted
average
compared to
discipline
Converted
average
compared to
institution
Introductory
courses
Core major
requirements
Topical
courses
Introductory
courses
Core major
requirements
Topical
courses
3.9
(.40)
3.7
(.91)
4.2
(.52)
4.0
(.29)
4.1
(.93)
3.8
(.39)
48.2
(7.8)
43.5
(17.8)
54.3
(8.8)
50.5
(5.3)
51.2
(18.6)
50.8
(8.1)
49.3
(7.2)
45
(16.3)
54.8
(8.3)
51.8
(4.9)
52.6
(17.0)
51.8
(7.5)
Charts 5 and 6 display the frequency of scores in courses taught during the 2012-2013
academic year. A score of fifty represents the median. The data show that the department’s
scores are equally distributed above and below the median for the discipline. For the institution,
however, nearly sixty percent of scores are above the median. The negative skewness in both
charts should be taken into account when interpreting the mean scores displayed in Table 4.
In addition, two current members and one recently retired member of the department
have received the URI Foundation’s Teaching Excellence Award. Two junior member of the
faculty have received college or departmental-level teaching excellence awards at their prior
institutions.
8
CCE courses, which include on-line courses, are not included.
9
Chart 5. Frequency of IDEA converted average scores compared to
discipline, academic year 2012-2013
20
18
18
18
16
14
12
10
8
5
6
3
4
2
1
1
0
Compared to discipline
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
Chart 6. Frequency of IDEA converted average scores compared to
institution, academic year 2012-2013
25
20
20
15
15
10
7
5
2
2
0
Compared to institution
20-29
30-39
10
40-49
50-59
60-69
3. Comparison with benchmarks
Table 5 displays the number of economic majors and the percent of economics major in
relation to the total undergraduate population for URI and universities identified as peer
institutions in the Delaware Study report of January 8, 2014 (and for which data are publicly
available). The two universities that have significantly greater proportions of students majoring
in economics, Connecticut and UMass-Amherst, are much bigger institutions with large doctoral
programs. Therefore, their ability to offer more seats in economics courses may result in more
students choosing to major in economics. The percentage of undergraduates majoring in
economics at URI is close to the percentages at James Madison, Missouri-KC, New Hampshire,
and Vermont. In fact, URI’s number of majors is the median for the institutions listed.
Noticeably, however, with the exception of Missouri-KC, the number of full-time faculty
positions at URI lags those of peer institutions—in some cases, by close to fifty percent. While
we may not have as many graduate courses to staff as some of these peer institutions, we also do
not have graduate students to teach introductory courses. Therefore, the size of our faculty is a
serious hindrance to the growth of our major and delivery of our curriculum.
Table 5. Economics majors, total and as percent of undergraduates, and number faculty. URI
and Delaware Study comparable institutions (according to APRC report of 1/8/14), for which
data are available, Fall 2013.
Number of
undergraduate
economics majors
Total undergraduate
population
Economic majors
as a percentage of
total undergraduate
population
Number of fulltime faculty
James Madison U.
187
17995
1.0
19
Montana State U.
53
12772
0.4
22
U. Connecticut
693
17684
3.9
26
U. Idaho
33
8733
0.4
4
U. Mass-Amherst
595
22400
2.7
29
U. Missouri-KC
157
10247
1.5
10
U. New Hampshire
167
11933
1.4
20
U. Rhode Island
183
13181
1.4
11
U. Vermont
193
9970
1.9
15
Median
183
12353
1.5
20
Notes: All schools except URI and Vermont have graduate programs. Montana State University has a combined
economics and agricultural economics department; the number of majors is for economics only while the number
of faculty is for the entire department. The figures for Idaho include only the B.A. in economics; the university
also has a larger business economics program.
4. Mentoring and advising.
Mentoring in the department is informal. Students often develop relationships with
faculty who give advice on careers, graduate school, etc. Sometimes these relationship develop
during independent studies or while a student works with a professor as a classroom assistant.
Formal advising (e.g. reviewing program requirements, filing curriculum modifications,
completing applications for graduation, etc.) is handled differently.
11
Currently, all formal advising is handled by Assistant Professor Liam Malloy and Chair
Matthew Bodah. Professor Malloy handles University College advising—i.e. for students who
have yet to formally declare the major. Professor Malloy holds approximately ninety minutes of
advising hours per week. There are approximately thirty students who have indicated an intent
to major in economics, but have not formally declared the major. Professor Bodah handles all
formal advising for economics majors. Officially, he does advising for six hours per week in
twenty minute blocks of time and asks students to sign up for appointments through eCampus so
that contact logs may be maintained. That allows for 18 blocks of time per week. For most
weeks during the semester nearly all time blocks are reserved. In addition, students who show
up without appointments and outside of normal office hours are rarely turned away.
While there are benefits to centralizing formal advising, the increase in the number of
majors in the department is making this system more difficult to maintain and changes will likely
need to occur in the future.
IV.
Summary of current research programs
A. Research-in-progress
All faculty are expected to have an active program of research/scholarship. Most research
activities of the department are decentralized and depend on the individual interests of the
faculty. Members of the department have participated in the efforts of the Research Center in
Business and Economics, which is officially located in the CBA, but has not been active for
some years. Similarly, faculty members have been engaged in research projects with the
Schmidt Labor Research Center, although none are currently underway. In addition, the Institute
for the Study of International Aspects of Competition is located in the department and publishes
occasional working papers on topics central to its mission.9
Table 6 displays the current research-in-progress of the faculty, with likely JEL
classifications.
Table 6. Current faculty research-in-progress with likely JEL classifications, Fall 2013.
New Deal labor relations systems (B5, N3)
Depression-era programs in the US and France (N4,
P3, F3)
Value flows in economic commodity chains (F1, F4)
Marxian theories of the labor process and labor
relations (J5, B5)
The Rhode Island economy (R1)
Intergenerational mobility (I2; D1)
Marginal tax rates and wage bargaining (H2, J3)
Economic effects of campaign spending (H3)
Nursing labor markets (J2, I1)
Law and economics (K2, L4)
9
Loss aversion and education and labor market
outcomes (I2, I3)
Creative destruction and differentiated products (E3,
L1)
History of the Chicago School (B1, B2, B3)
Teaching economics (A2)
Economics of growth and decent work (O2, O5)
Gender and development (01, J7)
Forecasting of health changes (I1)
Aging and public budgets (I1, H3)
Temporary disability insurance (I1, H7, J3)
Bayesian methods (C4)
See http://web.uri.edu/isiac/
12
B. Journal articles and book chapters, 2013.
The list below includes refereed journal articles and book chapters published by members
of the department in 2013. For a complete list of scholarly publications for past five years, see
Appendix.
Anderson, Bret and Elissa Braunstein. 2013. Economic growth and employment from 19902010: explaining elasticities by gender. Review of Radical Political Economics 45(3):
269-277.
Malloy, Liam. 2013. Loss aversion, education, and intergenerational mobility. Education
Economics DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2013.823909.
McIntyre, Richard. 2013. Labor militancy and the New Deal: some lessons for today. In S.
Collins and G. Goldberg (eds.), When Government Helped: Learning from the Successes
and Failures of the New Deal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapter 5.
McIntyre, Richard and Michael Hillard. 2013. Capitalist class agency and the New Deal order:
against the notion of a limited capital-labor accord. Review of Radical Political
Economics 45(2): 129-148.
Van Horn, Robert. 2013. Hayek’s unacknowledged disciple: an exploration of the political and
intellectual relationship of F. A. Hayek and Aaron Director. Journal of History of
Economic Thought. 35(3): 271-290.
Van Horn, Robert and Monica Van Horn. 2013. What would Adam Smith have on his IPod?:
uses of music in teaching the history of economic thought. Journal of Economic
Education. 44(1): 64-73.
C. Research funding
During the past several years, faculty members have received external support from the
U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Interior, the Committee on Economic
Education of the American Economic Association, and the Truman Presidential Library.
However, these were either small foundation grants made directly to the faculty member or
grants obtained by other departments or colleges and which provided summer support to the
faculty member.
In addition, several faculty members have obtained internal support from URI. These
include a Center for the Humanities Grant, URI Council for Research Career Enhancement
Grant, and annual funding from the Office of Research and Economic Development to track the
economic impact of research activity at URI.
13
D. Efforts to improve research output and funding
Members of the department are currently involved in two efforts designed to increase
research output and the likelihood of attracting external funding.
First, junior members of the department’s faculty, with guidance and support from
several senior faculty, have created a research seminar with junior members of the faculty of the
Department of Political Science. The seminar began in academic year 2012-2013 and meets
approximately once each month. The broad theme of the seminar is political economy. At each
meeting, which lasts approximately ninety minutes, a previously circulated working paper is
discussed and faculty are given advice on how to improve their papers for publication. Response
to the seminar from participants has been positive. In the short time that the seminar has been
taking place, several new interdisciplinary research projects have begun.
Second, members of the department (and others) are currently in talks with the Office of
Higher Education, the RI Department of Education, the RI Department of Labor and Training,
and the Providence Plan to locate a longitudinal data set, incorporating and linking data from
multiple state agencies, at URI. The state has received approximately $4 million from the
federal government for this effort. Once here, the database should provide exciting and unique
opportunities for department members to conduct research on issues of local interest with a very
powerful and detailed database.
E. Evaluation of research
The department’s standards for annual review, promotion and tenure are appended to
this report. The language in that document concerning research and scholarly activity informs
the department’s appraisal of research effort and research quality and is as follows:
For promotion and tenure, the equivalent of five high quality publications,
including articles in refereed professional journals, refereed book chapters, and
refereed scholarly books and monographs is sufficient to meet the research
expectations for tenure and promotion. While “high quality” is difficult to define,
here it includes articles published in a refereed journal listed on the Journal of
Economic Literature’s “Contents of Current Periodicals”10 and all refereed
chapters in books published by university and scholarly presses. Because the
department and the university value teaching and interdisciplinary efforts, refereed
publications in journals/books focused on pedagogy and those in fields outside of
economics will be accorded equal weight to those on the JEL list, as long as their
quality can be established. For example, a publication listed in Q1 or Q2 under
any one “subject category” on the SJR journal ranking service11 shall be
considered high quality.
Other research and scholarly activity may help to indicate continuous
engagement in the field in cases where a candidate is close to having five refereed
10
11
Available at www.aeaweb.org/jel/indexes/contindex/conts1.php.
Available at www.scimagojr.com/index.php.
14
publications. Such activities include accepted peer or panel reviewed research
funding; invited non-refereed journal articles, chapters in monographs, textbooks,
and non-refereed books; refereed comments, notes, replies in professional journals,
and encyclopedia entries; invited encyclopedia entries, non-refereed comments,
notes, and replies, and book reviews in professional journals; grant and technical
reports; scholarly participation in professional meetings, including presenting
papers, organizing and/or chairing sessions, and serving as a discussant;
unpublished papers and unfunded grant proposals; research in progress; other
professional and scholarly activities such as participation in colloquia, on-campus
paper presentations, and development of software.
[For promotion to full professor] it is expected that a candidate will present
evidence of the impact of his/her work. Such evidence may include, but is not
limited to, the number of times a candidate’s work has been cited by others
(including the media), favorable mention of a candidate’s scholarship in the work
of others, established influence on public policy, and external research funding.
V.
Summary of current service and public engagement programs
All faculty are expected to engage in service and public engagement. The amount and
types of service and public engagement vary according to rank and area of expertise. While no
precise statistics are available, the following information characterizes, by way of examples,
faculty service to the department, college, university, profession, and community.
Faculty meetings are held approximately once each month during the academic year.
Occasionally, subcommittees are created for work on specials projects. Examples of such
special projects during the past several years have included learning assessment procedures and
promotion and tenure standards. In addition, the department has hired several faculty members
during the past five years. Since our department is small, the search committees have typically
comprised the entire department with all members vetting applications, ranking candidates, and
participating in the interview process.
Beyond the department, faculty are also actively engaged in college, university, and
faculty association service. Current examples of these activities include, among other things:
serving as a faculty senator, acting as the university’s pre-law adviser, serving on the dean’s
faculty advisory committee, taking part in the performance review of the provost, serving on the
President’s Commission on the Status of Women, serving on the college diversity committee,
serving on the faculty association’s grievance committee, serving on the global education
steering committee, and teaching URI 101.
Faculty also engage in service to the profession. Current examples of these activities
include, among other things: reviewing articles for professional journals; reviewing monographs
and textbooks for academic publishers; serving on committees of professional associations;
participating in professional meetings, including chairing panels; maintaining a website for a
professional association focused on on-line learning; and editing a book series for an academic
publisher.
15
The faculty of the economics department serve the Rhode Island community and some
are active at the national level. Examples of these activities include, among others things: the
maintenance of an index of economic indicators that tracks the Rhode Island economy and is
critical to local policy and business decision-making, giving frequent talks to community-based
organizations, working with the RI Center for Nursing Excellence on research concerning
nursing labor markets, working with the RI Department of Labor and Training on temporary
disability insurance, and acting as trade representative for the Green Party.
Work with local government and community-based organization will likely increase
when the longitudinal database discussed earlier is fully operational.
VI.
Institutional effectiveness
In fiscal year 2013, the total personnel expenses of the Department of Economics were
$1,291,084.14. According to data from the URI Office of Institutional Research, the economics
department taught 8961 credit hours during the corresponding academic year. Using the formula
employed by the University in its “unit performance matrix” (i.e. personnel costs/credit hours),
the cost per credit hour for the department was, therefore, $144.08. If one were to include all
operating and other expenses of the department, which then total $1,313,451.51 for fiscal year
2013, the total cost per credit hour was $146.57. According to the most recent data available
(AY 10-11), the cost per credit hour for A&S was $220.00. A visual representation is provided
in Chart 7.
Chart 7. Cost per credit hour, department and
college
$220.00
$144.08
Personnel costs/credit hours
$146.57
Total costs/credit hours
A&S Direct costs/credit hours
In short, the Department of Economics is a highly efficient unit with costs per credit hour
well below the college norm. To add a bit more detail to fiscal year 2013 expenses, the
department spent $12,000 on per course faculty and approximately $3,600 on student help. Less
16
than $2,200 was spent on out-of-state travel. Office expenses (e.g. copy machine lease, basic
office supplies) totaled $9,869.45.
VII.
Future plans (draft)
Specific future plans await the completion of this program review and will incorporate
the feedback received from the external reviewer as well as suggestions from the dean and
provost. In general, the department is committed to growth and improvement in alignment with
the strategic plan of the college and the academic plan of the university.
The department currently recognizes that work needs to be done in the following areas:
1. Academic programs: The current three program structure should be re-examined to
determine if it meets the needs of students and if all programs are of equal quality and
rigor. Courses within the curriculum need to be reassessed as to their timeliness and
usefulness. Questions such as: “Does the curriculum need more or fewer quantitative
offerings and should these be courses within or outside the department?” need to be
asked.
The way in which principles of economics is taught needs to be re-examined. Is the
current structure of several large lectures, several moderate-sized classes, and one or
two small on-line sections the best method for the delivery of these courses?
The department needs to address the role of experiential education in the curriculum.
Many economics students complete internships and other types of field work. These
activities are neither encouraged nor discouraged and there is no real integration of
off-campus experiential work within the curriculum. Should there be?
A discussion of the desirability of the reintroduction of a graduate program should
commence, perhaps as a multidisciplinary effort with one or more departments.
2. Students: The department should create a plan to recruit the top students at the
university into the major and should strive for greater gender balance. The
department should also work with University College and CBA to determine whether
the current practice of encouraging students not qualifying for matriculation in CBA
to major in economics is good for both those students and the department.
The department should also work to increase student engagement by supporting a
student-run economics club and reviving the university’s chapter of Omicron Delta
Epsilon.
3. Alumni: The department needs to improve tracking and communications with
alumni.
17
4. Faculty: Working with the dean and provost’s office, the department must increase
the number of tenure-track faculty so that the department is more in line with peer
institutions and may continue to grow its academic programs and improve research
output and funding.
18
APPENDIX A
CENTRAL DATA REPORT -­-­ DRAFT
University of Rhode Island
Economics
Fall
2008
Fall
2009
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
Fall
2012
Fall Notes
2013
Teaching Faculty FTE (Fall)
Delaware Study Benchmark
9.3
21.0
10.5
23.3
11.5
22.3
12.0
21.3
12.3
13.8
Teaching Assistantships (GTAs)
(Fall)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fall Filled Graduate student FTE assistantships funded on 100 and 101 accounts
4,040
7,616
4,470
8,430
4,392
7,542
4,239
6,776
4,799
5,127
Delivered by faculty in program (even if course coded in another program-­credits follow Total Undergraduate Majors (1st/2nd declared Fall)
147
146
134
122
170
192
Total Off-­Campus Enrollment
[0]
[1]
[1]
[2]
[2]
[1]
Undergraduate Students Graduating in (Academic Year)
Total Students Awarded a Minor
37
51
56
35
48
N/A
N/A
7
4
15
Delaware Study Benchmark (Fall Semester)
Credit Hours/FTE faculty Delaware Study Benchmark
436.8
362.4
425.7
361.8
381.9
338.2
353.3
318.1
391.8
Internal URI College Target (Academic Year)
Department Student-­Faculty Ratio
College of Arts & Sciences SFR
N/A
28.8
18.5
N/A
27.4
18.9
19.0
24.0
18.9
19.0
23.7
18.8
19.0
24.8
19.8
Total Graduate Majors
(1st/2nd declared Fall)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Graduate Students Graduating in Major
(Academic Year)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mean test score of accepted students
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Research Assistantships (GRAs)
(Fall)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
15.6
9.0
15.2
10.0
15.4
10.0
11.0
N/A
$0
$5,255
N/A
$0
N/A
N/A
Resources
Teaching*
Graduate Quality
Graduate Quantity
Quality
Efficiency
Quantity
Total Credit Hours (Fall)
Delaware Study Benchmark
Delaware definition includes Ten/Tenure Track, Clinical, Lecturers, Supplemental faculty (paid & unpaid) and GTAs who are the instructor of Sum of First & Second majors in degrees affiliated with program;; multiple departments may receive information on interdisciplinary degrees
Number of study abroad students reflected in enrollment totals (1st & 2nd majors).
Sum of undergraduate students graduating in major -­-­ August, December and May.
372.9
Total FALL semester credit hours divided by total FALL teaching faculty, including TAs and supplemental faculty. Total Academic Year credit hours divided by total non-­TA teaching faculty FTEs divided by 30 credits. Unpaid supplemental faculty excluded from teaching counts, but credits delivered accrue SCH-­weighted adjusted Summary Evaluation from IDEA forms for courses taught by instructors affiliated with program. Under development/AAUP negotiation.
IDEA Summary Percentile
N/A
Sum of First & Second majors in degrees affiliated with program;; multiple departments may receive information on interdisciplinary degrees
Sum of graduate students graduating in major -­-­ August, December and May.
Mean score of accepted/matriculating students on standardized test department designates as most relevant, GRE, GMAT, etc.
Fall Filled Graduate student FTE assistantships funded on 110, 401 and 500 accounts
Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity
URI & Delaware Calculated TT faculty
Delaware Study Benchmark
URI Grant Awards ($)/URI TT faculty
URI Expenditure/TT Faculty
Delaware Expenditure/TT Faculty
URI Grants Submitted/URI TT faculty
7.0
15.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0
$0
$0
$24,703 $17,708 $24,062
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total tenure track lines in program. Count of FTE researchers supported with general funds (appropriate counting of clinical faculty may vary)
URI Total grant dollars awarded to program, weighted by overhead distribution on transmittal sheet. Delaware expenditures are fiscal year, include state match, and credits all expenditures to PI's program. See Manual.
Number of grants submitted by program, weighted by overhead distribution on transmittal sheet, from research office.
* Credit hour and staffing levels reflect figures as of October 15. June 30 is the closing date for fiscal information.
Economics
Courseload: Fall Semester, 2013
Tenured/ Tenure Track Faculty
11.00
80%
Full-­Time Equivalent Positions
Student Credit Hours
Undergraduate
Lower Division Cr Hours
2,535
62%
Upper Division Cr hours
876
87%
Individual Instruction
24 100%
Subtotal Undergraduate
3,435
67%
Graduate
Graduate Credit Hours
33 100%
Individual Instruction
3 100%
Subtotal Graduate
36 100%
Total Student Credit Hours
3,471
68%
Organized Class Sections (regularly scheduled)
Labs/Discus/Recitations
0.0
-­-­
Lower Division
12.0
60%
Upper Division
9.0
90%
Graduate
1.0 100%
Total Organized Class Sections
22.0
71%
Courseload: Fall Semester, 2012
Tenured/ Tenure Track Faculty
10.00
82%
Full-­Time Equivalent Positions
Student Credit Hours
Undergraduate
Lower Division Cr Hours
2,490
66%
Upper Division Cr hours
838
88%
Individual Instruction
27 100%
Subtotal Undergraduate
3,355
71%
Graduate
Graduate Credit Hours
60 100%
Individual Instruction
7 100%
Subtotal Graduate
67 100%
Total Student Credit Hours
3,422
71%
Organized Class Sections (regularly scheduled)
Labs/Discus/Recitations
0.0
-­-­
Lower Division
11.0
65%
Upper Division
8.0
89%
Graduate
2.0 100%
Total Organized Class Sections
21.0
75%
Clinical Faculty/ Lecturers
2.00
15%
Adjunct Total Faculty Grad Teaching Instructional (PTF, Staff)
Assistants
Faculty
0.75
5%
0.00
0% 13.75 100%
1,299
0
0
1,299
32%
0%
0%
26%
225
132
0
357
6%
13%
0%
7%
0
0
0
0
0% 4,059
0% 1,008
0%
24
0% 5,091
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
0
0
1,299
0%
0%
0%
25%
0
0
0
357
0%
0%
0%
7%
0
0
0
0
0%
33
0%
3
0%
36
0% 5,127
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
-­-­
30%
0%
0%
19%
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
-­-­
10%
10%
0%
10%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
-­-­
100%
100%
100%
100%
Clinical Faculty/ Lecturers
2.00
16%
0.0
20.0
10.0
1.0
31.0
Adjunct Total Faculty Grad Teaching Instructional (PTF, Staff)
Assistants
Faculty
0.25
2%
0.00
0% 12.25 100%
1,260
0
0
1,260
34%
0%
0%
27%
0
117
0
117
0%
12%
0%
2%
0
0
0
0
0% 3,750
0% 955
0%
27
0% 4,732
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
0
0
1,260
0%
0%
0%
26%
0
0
0
117
0%
0%
0%
2%
0
0
0
0
0%
60
0%
7
0%
67
0% 4,799
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
-­-­
35%
0%
0%
21%
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
-­-­
0%
11%
0%
4%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
-­-­
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
17.0
9.0
2.0
28.0
R
F
R
F
Economics
Courseload: Fall Semester, 2011
Tenured/ Tenure Track Faculty
10.00
83%
Full-­Time Equivalent Positions
Student Credit Hours
Undergraduate
Lower Division Cr Hours
2,355
68%
Upper Division Cr hours
654 100%
Individual Instruction
21 100%
Subtotal Undergraduate
3,030
73%
Graduate
Graduate Credit Hours
96 100%
Individual Instruction
6 100%
Subtotal Graduate
102 100%
Total Student Credit Hours
3,132
74%
Organized Class Sections (regularly scheduled)
Labs/Discus/Recitations
0.0
-­-­
Lower Division
15.0
65%
Upper Division
7.0 100%
Graduate
2.0 100%
Total Organized Class Sections
24.0
75%
Courseload: Fall Semester, 2010
Tenured/ Tenure Track Faculty
9.00
78%
Full-­Time Equivalent Positions
Student Credit Hours
Undergraduate
Lower Division Cr Hours
2,040
59%
Upper Division Cr hours
637
87%
Individual Instruction
85 100%
Subtotal Undergraduate
2,762
65%
Graduate
Graduate Credit Hours
112 100%
Individual Instruction
0
-­-­
Subtotal Graduate
112 100%
Total Student Credit Hours
2,874
65%
Organized Class Sections (regularly scheduled)
Labs/Discus/Recitations
0.0
-­-­
Lower Division
11.0
58%
Upper Division
6.0
86%
Graduate
2.0 100%
Total Organized Class Sections
19.0
68%
Clinical Faculty/ Lecturers
2.00
17%
Adjunct Total Faculty Grad Teaching Instructional (PTF, Staff)
Assistants
Faculty
0.00
0%
0.00
0% 12.00 100%
1,107
0
0
1,107
32%
0%
0%
27%
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0% 3,462
0% 654
0%
21
0% 4,137
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
0
0
1,107
0%
0%
0%
26%
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
96
0%
6
0% 102
0% 4,239
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
-­-­
35%
0%
0%
25%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
-­-­
100%
100%
100%
100%
Clinical Faculty/ Lecturers
2.00
17%
0.0
23.0
7.0
2.0
32.0
Adjunct Total Faculty Grad Teaching Instructional (PTF, Staff)
Assistants
Faculty
0.50
4%
0.00
0% 11.50 100%
1,272
0
0
1,272
37%
0%
0%
30%
147
99
0
246
4%
13%
0%
6%
0
0
0
0
0% 3,459
0% 736
0%
85
0% 4,280
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
0
0
1,272
0%
-­-­
0%
29%
0
0
0
246
0%
-­-­
0%
6%
0
0
0
0
0% 112
-­-­
0
0% 112
0% 4,392
100%
-­-­
100%
100%
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
-­-­
37%
0%
0%
25%
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
-­-­
5%
14%
0%
7%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
-­-­
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
19.0
7.0
2.0
28.0
R
F
R
F
Economics
Courseload: Fall Semester, 2009
Tenured/ Tenure Track Faculty
8.00
76%
Full-­Time Equivalent Positions
Student Credit Hours
Undergraduate
Lower Division Cr Hours
2,331
67%
Upper Division Cr hours
753
88%
Individual Instruction
26 100%
Subtotal Undergraduate
3,110
71%
Graduate
Graduate Credit Hours
114 100%
Individual Instruction
4 100%
Subtotal Graduate
118 100%
Total Student Credit Hours
3,228
72%
Organized Class Sections (regularly scheduled)
Labs/Discus/Recitations
0.0
-­-­
Lower Division
10.0
56%
Upper Division
7.0
88%
Graduate
2.0 100%
Total Organized Class Sections
19.0
68%
Courseload: Fall Semester, 2008
Tenured/ Tenure Track Faculty
7.00
76%
Full-­Time Equivalent Positions
Student Credit Hours
Undergraduate
Lower Division Cr Hours
2,103
65%
Upper Division Cr hours
590
87%
Individual Instruction
60 100%
Subtotal Undergraduate
2,753
70%
Graduate
Graduate Credit Hours
81 100%
Individual Instruction
0
-­-­
Subtotal Graduate
81 100%
Total Student Credit Hours
2,834
70%
Organized Class Sections (regularly scheduled)
Labs/Discus/Recitations
0.0
-­-­
Lower Division
7.0
50%
Upper Division
6.0
86%
Graduate
2.0 100%
Total Organized Class Sections
15.0
65%
Clinical Faculty/ Lecturers
2.00
19%
Adjunct Total Faculty Grad Teaching Instructional (PTF, Staff)
Assistants
Faculty
0.50
5%
0.00
0% 10.50 100%
1,041
0
0
1,041
30%
0%
0%
24%
102
99
0
201
3%
12%
0%
5%
0
0
0
0
0% 3,474
0% 852
0%
26
0% 4,352
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
0
0
1,041
0%
0%
0%
23%
0
0
0
201
0%
0%
0%
4%
0
0
0
0
0% 114
0%
4
0% 118
0% 4,470
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
-­-­
39%
0%
0%
25%
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.0
-­-­
6%
13%
0%
7%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
-­-­
100%
100%
100%
100%
Clinical Faculty/ Lecturers
1.00
11%
0.0
18.0
8.0
2.0
28.0
Adjunct Total Faculty Grad Teaching Instructional (PTF, Staff)
Assistants
Faculty
1.25
14%
0.00
0%
9.25 100%
609
0
0
609
19%
0%
0%
15%
510
87
0
597
16%
13%
0%
15%
0
0
0
0
0% 3,222
0% 677
0%
60
0% 3,959
100%
100%
100%
100%
0
0
0
609
0%
-­-­
0%
15%
0
0
0
597
0%
-­-­
0%
15%
0
0
0
0
0%
81
-­-­
0
0%
81
0% 4,040
100%
-­-­
100%
100%
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
-­-­
21%
0%
0%
13%
0.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
5.0
-­-­
29%
14%
0%
22%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-­-­
0%
0%
0%
0%
-­-­
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0
14.0
7.0
2.0
23.0
R
F
R
F
Eco n o m i cs
Li st o f M a j o r s
A ca d e m i c Pl a n 2 0 1 3 - 1 4
Gr a n d
To t a l
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 1 st )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Gr a d u a t e
M a st e r s
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
3
1
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
6
1
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
12
4
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
1
0
8
2
W hit e
M
W
103
21
Tw
M
1
183
M
151
W
32
183
107
76
151
89
62
32
18
14
3
1
2
1
1
0
6
3
3
1
0
1
12
6
6
4
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
8
5
3
2
1
1
103
60
43
21
11
10
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
5
4
7
7
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
3
2
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 2 n d )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
A ca d e m i c Pl a n 2 0 1 2 - 1 3
Gr a n d
To t a l
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 1 st )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Gr a d u a t e
M a st e r s
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
3
0
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
9
2
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
11
4
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
2
0
6
2
M
85
W
21
Tw
M
1
2
1
1
85
52
33
21
9
12
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
165
M
133
W
32
165
100
65
133
85
48
32
15
17
3
2
1
0
0
0
9
7
2
2
2
0
11
5
6
4
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
1
4
3
3
1
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W hit e
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 2 n d )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
A ca d e m i c Pl a n 2 0 1 1 - 1 2
Gr a n d
To t a l
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 1 st )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Gr a d u a t e
M a st e r s
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
0
0
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
7
4
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
11
2
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
0
0
5
1
M
67
W
10
Tw
M
0
1
0
1
67
50
17
10
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
117
M
99
W
18
117
87
30
99
77
22
18
10
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
4
3
1
11
8
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
4
1
4
4
4
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W hit e
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 2 n d )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Eco n o m i cs
A ca d e m i c Pl a n 2 0 1 0 - 1 1
Gr a n d
To t a l
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
1
0
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
5
1
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
7
2
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
1
0
6
2
M
85
W
6
Tw
M
0
2
1
1
85
62
23
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 1 st )
To t a l
127
M
114
W
13
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
127
97
30
114
87
27
13
10
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
4
1
1
1
0
7
7
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
5
2
5
5
4
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gr a d u a t e
M a st e r s
W hit e
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 2 n d )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
A ca d e m i c Pl a n 2 0 0 9 - 1 0
Gr a n d
To t a l
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 1 st )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Gr a d u a t e
M a st e r s
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
1
0
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
11
2
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
7
3
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
0
0
5
3
M
85
W
12
Tw
M
0
3
1
2
85
65
20
12
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
141
M
120
W
21
141
107
34
120
92
28
21
15
6
1
1
0
0
0
0
11
9
2
2
2
0
7
7
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
4
1
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W hit e
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 2 n d )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
A ca d e m i c Pl a n 2 0 0 8 - 0 9
Gr a n d
To t a l
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 1 st )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Gr a d u a t e
M a st e r s
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
2
0
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
8
3
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
5
2
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
1
0
2
1
M
88
W
14
Tw
M
0
1
0
1
88
65
23
14
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
140
M
119
W
21
140
102
38
119
88
31
21
14
7
2
2
0
0
0
0
8
6
2
3
2
1
5
5
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
4
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W hit e
D e cl a r e d M a j o r s ( 2 n d )
To t a l
Un d e r g r a d u a t e
Econom ics - BA
Econom ics BS
Eco n o m i cs
N u m b e r o f St u d e n t s Gr a d u a t i n g i n M a j o r *
B l a ck / A f r i ca n
A m e r i ca n
M
W
H i sp a n i c/
La t i n o
M
W
A m e r i ca n
A si a n / N a t i v e
I n d i a n / A l a sk a
Haw aiian /
Nat iv e
Pa ci f i c I sl a n d e r
M
W
M
W
Gr a n d
To t a l
M
W
Maj or s 2 0 1 2 - 1 3
To t a l
Bachelor's
Mast er's
Doct orat e
Professional
48
48
0
0
0
36
36
0
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aw ar d ed a Min o r
15
12
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maj or s 2 0 1 1 - 1 2
To t a l
Bachelor's
Mast er's
Doct orat e
Professional
35
35
0
0
0
30
30
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
56
0
0
0
52
52
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
7
4
3
0
0
0
0
Maj or s 2 0 0 9 - 1 0
To t a l
Bachelor's
Mast er's
Doct orat e
Professional
51
51
0
0
0
39
39
0
0
0
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
Maj or s 2 0 0 8 - 0 9
To t a l
Bachelor's
Mast er's
Doct orat e
Professional
37
37
0
0
0
29
29
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
Aw ar d ed a Min o r
Maj or s 2 0 1 0 - 1 1
To t a l
Bachelor's
Mast er's
Doct orat e
Professional
Aw ar d ed a Min o r
To t a l
N o n - Re si d e n t
Alien
M
W
M
W
Tw
M
0
0
0
0
0
28
28
0
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
25
25
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
41
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
27
0
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
21
0
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Students can graduate with one degree but have multiple majors of the same level from the same college. These data reflect those students.
W hit e
N a t i o n a l St u d y o f I n st r u ct i o n a l Co st s & Pr o d u ct i v i t y ( D e l a w a r e Su r v e y )
Pe e r Co m p a r i so n
- Fa l l 2 0 0 8 -
- Fa l l 2 0 0 9 -
Delaw ar e
Sa m p l e
Mean
URI
Eco n o m i cs
- Fa l l 2 0 1 0 -
Delaw ar e
Sa m p l e
Mean
URI
- Fa
Delaw ar e
Sa m p l e
Mean
URI
URI
Fa l l M e a su r e s
Cr e d i t s & I n st r u ct i o n a l Co m p l e m e n t
Tot al Credit Hours:
Undergraduat e
Graduat e
Tot al I nst ruct ional Facult y:
Tenured/ Tenure Track Facult y
Clinical Facult y/ Lect urers
Adj unct Facult y
Graduat e Teaching Assist ant s - Credit Bearing
St u d e n t Fa cu l t y Ra t i o 1
4 ,0 4 0
7 ,6 1 6
4 ,4 7 0
8 ,4 3 0
4 ,3 9 2
7 ,5 4 2
4 ,2 3
3,959
81
6,905
711
4,352
118
7,616
814
4,280
112
6,711
831
4,1
1
9 .3
7.0
1.0
1.3
0.0
2 1 .0
15.1
1.4
2.1
2.5
1 0 .5
8.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
2 3 .3
15.6
1.7
2.4
3.6
1 1 .5
9.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
2 2 .3
15.2
2.5
1.9
2.7
12
10
2
0
0
2 9 .1
24.2
2 8 .4
24.1
2 5 .5
22.5
23
Te n u r e d / Te n u r e Tr a ck Fa cu l t y
Tenure Track Organized Class Sect ions per Tenure Track FT
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.2
2
2 ,7 5 3
2,103
590
60
3 ,3 6 3
2,080
1,266
18
3 ,1 1 0
2,331
753
26
3 ,6 2 4
2,530
1,076
18
2 ,7 6 2
2,040
637
85
3 ,1 5 6
2,021
1,112
23
3 ,0 3
2,3
6
81
558
118
673
112
699
10
Direct I nst ruct ional Expendit ures 2 per credit hour
130
226
145
218
153
233
1
Direct I nst ruct ional Expendit ures per FTE St udent
3,887
6,443
4,310
6,318
4,509
6,562
4,4
98%
95%
99%
95%
99%
94%
99
Research Expendit ures
0
639,698
0
404,250
0
488,972
Public Service Expendit ures
0
136,130
0
13,631
0
141,620
Research Expendit ures per Tenured/ Tenure Track FTE
0
24,703
0
17,708
0
24,062
Public Service Expendit ures per Ten/ Tenure Track FTE
0
5,351
0
675
0
7,729
Tenure Track Undergraduat e St udent Credit Hours
Lower division sect ion
Upper division sect ion
I ndependent St udy
Tenure Track Graduat e Credit Hours
A ca d e m i c Ye a r M e a su r e s
% Direct I nst ruct ional Expendit ures Support ing Personnel
1
Tot al ( Fall Tot al credit hours/ 15/ Fall I nst ruct ional Facult y FTE. This differs from int ernal calculat ions since it includes Teaching Assist ant s and unpaid suppl
2
The St udy does not provide figures for Direct I nst ruct ional Expendit ures.
2 0 1 2 N SI CP - Li st o f I n st i t u t i o n s t h a t Re p o r t e d D a t a f o r t h e D i sci p l i n e
I n st i t u t i o n
Ca r n e g i e H i g h e st
Cl a ss
of f er ed
45.06 Econom ics
1 Ja m e s M a d i so n Un i v e r si t y
ML
2 SUN Y - Un i v e r si t y a t Bu f f a l o
RVH
3 Un i v e r si t y o f Co n n e ct i cu t
RVH
4 Un i v e r si t y o f D e l a w a r e
RVH
5 Un i v e r si t y o f M a ssa ch u se t t s - A m h e r st RVH
6 Un i v e r si t y o f M i sso u r i - K a n sa s Ci t y
RH
7 Un i v e r si t y o f N e w H a m p sh i r e
RH
8 Un i v e r si t y o f Rh o d e I sl a n d
RH
9 Un i v e r si t y o f Ve r m o n t
RH
* Ball St at e Universit y
RH
* Bowling Green St at e Universit y
RH
* SUNY - Bingham t on Universit y
RH
* Universit y of Akron
RH
* Wright St at e Universit y
RH
Albion College
BAS
Am erican Universit y of Beirut
ML
Appalachian St at e Universit y
ML
Aquinas College
MM
Arm st rong At lant ic St at e Universit y
ML
Auburn Universit y - Main Cam pus
RH
Bloom sburg Universit y of Pennsylvania
ML
California St at e Universit y - San Marcos
MM
Cart hage College
BAS
Cent ral Connect icut St at e Universit y
ML
Cent ral Michigan Universit y
DR
Clem son Universit y
RH
College of New Jersey
ML
East Carolina Universit y
DR
East St roudsburg Universit y of PA
ML
East ern Connect icut St at e Universit y
MS
Florida I nt ernat ional Universit y
RH
Florida St at e Universit y
RVH
George Mason Universit y
RH
Grand Valley St at e Universit y
ML
Hart wick College
BAS
I daho St at e Universit y
RH
I ndiana Universit y - Purdue Univ Fort Wayne MM
I ndiana Universit y of Pennsylvania
DR
I t haca College
ML
Lynchburg College
MS
Mansfield Universit y
MM
Marshall Universit y
ML
Millersville Universit y of PA
ML
Missouri St at e Universit y
ML
Missouri Universit y of Science and TechnologyRH
New Mexico St at e Universit y
RH
Nort h Carolina A&T St at e Universit y
DR
Nort h Carolina St at e Universit y
RVH
Oakland Universit y
DR
Ram apo College of New Jersey
MM
Rochest er I nst it ut e of Technology
ML
Seat t le Universit y
ML
Shepherd Universit y
MS
Shippensburg Universit y of PA
ML
Sout heast Missouri St at e Universit y
ML
St . John Fisher College
DR
St et son Universit y
ML
SUNY - Universit y at Albany
RVH
Ba ch e l o r s
D o ct o r a t e
D o ct o r a t e
D o ct o r a t e
D o ct o r a t e
M a st e r s
D o ct o r a t e
Ba ch e l o r s
Ba ch e l o r s
Bachelors
Mast ers
Doct orat e
Mast ers
Mast ers
Bachelors
Mast ers
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Mast ers
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Mast ers
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Mast ers
Bachelors
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Missing
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Bachelors
Doct orat e
UG d e g r e e a s
% of t ot al d eg r ee
75-100%
25-< 50%
75-100%
75-100%
75-100%
50-< 75%
50-< 75%
75-100%
75-100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
m issing
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
2 0 1 2 N SI CP - Li st o f I n st i t u t i o n s t h a t Re p o r t e d D a t a f o r t h e D i sci p l i n e
I n st i t u t i o n
45.06 Econom ics
Tarlet on St at e Universit y
Universit y of Arkansas - Fayet t eville
Universit y of Cincinnat i
Universit y of Colorado at Boulder
Universit y of Colorado at Colorado Springs
Universit y of Houst on
Universit y of I llinois at Chicago
Universit y of Kansas
Universit y of Mary Washingt on
Universit y of Massachuset t s - Dart m out h
Universit y of Minnesot a - Twin Cit ies
Universit y of Mississippi
Universit y of Missouri - Colum bia
Universit y of Missouri - St . Louis
Universit y of Mont ana, The
Universit y of Nebraska at Kearney
Universit y of New Mexico
Universit y of Nort h Carolina - Asheville
Universit y of Nort h Carolina - Chapel Hill
Universit y of Nort hern I owa
Universit y of Oregon
Universit y of Tennessee - Knoxville
Universit y of Texas at Aust in
Universit y of Ut ah
Universit y of Wisconsin - Parkside
Virginia Polyt echnic I nst . & St at e Univ.
West ern Washingt on Universit y
West field St at e Universit y
Wichit a St at e Universit y
Wilfrid Laurier Universit y - Canada
Wilkes Universit y
Ca r n e g i e H i g h e st
Cl a ss
of f er ed
UG d e g r e e a s
% of t ot al d eg r ee
ML
RVH
RVH
RVH
ML
RVH
RVH
RVH
ML
ML
RVH
RH
RVH
RH
RH
ML
RVH
BAS
RVH
ML
RH
RVH
RVH
RVH
BAS
RVH
ML
MM
RH
RVH
ML
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
50- < 75%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
75- 100%
50- < 75%
75- 100%
No deg
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Mast ers
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Mast ers
Mast ers
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Doct orat e
Bachelors
Bachelors
Mast ers
Mast ers
No deg
APPENDIX B
Learning Outcomes
and Assessment
Department of Economics
Assessment
• The program is the entity being assessed. The
students are data.
• It is a circular process designed to identify our
strengths and weaknesses and then correct our
weaknesses.
Learning Outcomes
• Eight learning outcomes that we expect all
Economics majors to achieve:
– Each outcome is specifically assigned to a specific cou
• Basic skills: One of the four core 300-level classes, or
• Advanced skills: A required 400-level senior topics seminar
– Each outcome will be supported by a detailed rubric
developed by the primary instructor(s) with support fr
the faculty.
– Each outcome will be assessed through a specific
assignment in the appropriate class which will be eval
by department faculty against the rubric.
Learning Outcomes
ECN 305
Recognize and appreciate the
diversity of views that may
reasonably exist about economic
problems and alternative
economic systems and present
those views in a coherently
written essay.
ECN 4xx
• Identify, assimilate, and
•
ECN 327
Describe the institutions in the
United States that shape
monetary and fiscal policy and
the processes these institutions
use to achieve their goals in
addressing issues of
unemployment, inflation,
exchange rates, balance of
payments, and economic
growth.
•
•
integrate information from
various sources in order to
evaluate its reliability, validity,
accuracy, timeliness, and point
of view or bias;
Frame an economic question of
some public significance and
evaluate, integrate, and apply
information from various
sources to create a cohesive,
persuasive answer;
Employ broad economic theory
to provide an original analysis of
current or historical events, to
analyze social problems, and
evaluate alternative public policy
choices;
Present the results of their
research using appropriate
economic theories, concepts,
terminology, and methods in a
professional setting.
ECN 306/3
Identify, compile, interp
analyze quantitative eco
data by expressing relati
between concepts throug
graphs, statistical or eco
analysis, and discursive
ECN 328
Analyze problems of ut
profit maximization use
microeconomic tools to
public policy issues suc
competition, environme
protection, financial reg
innovation and intellect
property, labor law, and
taxation.
Assessment Process: Core Classe
1. Instructor teaches
class
2. Assigns project to be
used for assessment
and distributes
ungraded, anonymous
copies to chair of
assessment committee
3. Faculty use rubr
assess projects a
learning outcom
4. Shortcomings ar
addressed by
department
Rubric Example
Unacceptable
Meets
Standard
Did they recognize the
diversity of viewpoints in
the assigned readings?
ECN 305
Recognize and appreciate the
diversity of views that may
reasonably exist about economic
problems and alternative
economic systems and present
those views in a coherently
written essay.
Are they aware of the
[social, political]
implications of the diversity
of viewpoints in the
assigned readings?
Do they recognize and
appreciate the differences
between economic systems?
Did they write a coherent
essay?
Rubric developed by the primary instructor(s) of each core class.
Excee
Stand
Assessment Process: Topics Semin
1. Instructor develops
seminar around a
specific topic
2. Seminar will be
designed to improve
research skills and
meet learning
objectives
3. Students will present their
research to instructor and
faculty
4. Instructor will grade project
for purposes of assigning
course grades
5. Faculty will assess learning
objectives with rubric
6. Areas of strength and
weakness will be identified
department
The Senior Topics Seminar (ECN 4
• 2-3 seminars offered each year:
– Perhaps 1 in the Fall, 2 in the Spring
– Instructor rotated among the faculty
– Four core classes are prerequisites (305, 306 or 376, 327, 328)
• Focus on a specific topic
– For example: China, Great Recession, Financial Economics, etc.
• Used to assess “ advanced” learning outcomes
• Students produce their own research and present it to (a s
of) the faculty
• Faculty use presentations to assess learning objectives ag
an agreed upon rubric
• Results shared in the department so that weaknesses can b
addressed
This class would fill one of the required
economics classes for BA/BS majors.
APPENDIX C
Faculty Publication, 2009-2013
(Book reviews not included)
Anderson, Bret and Elissa Braunstein. 2013. Economic growth and employment from 19902010: explaining elasticities by gender. Review of Radical Political Economics 45(3):
269-277.
Malloy, Liam. 2013. Loss aversion, education, and intergenerational mobility. Education
Economics DOI: 10.1080/09645292.2013.823909.
McIntyre, Richard. 2013. Labor militancy and the New Deal: some lessons for today. In S.
Collins and G. Goldberg (eds.), When Government Helped: Learning from the Successes
and Failures of the New Deal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, chapter 5.
McIntyre, Richard and Michael Hillard. 2013. Capitalist class agency and the New Deal order:
against the notion of a limited capital-labor accord. Review of Radical Political
Economics 45(2): 129-148.
Van Horn, Robert. 2013. Hayekʼ s unacknowledged disciple: an exploration of the political and
intellectual relationship of F. A. Hayek and Aaron Director. Journal of History of
Economic Thought. 35(3): 271-290.
Van Horn, Robert and Monica Van Horn. 2013. What would Adam Smith have on his IPod?:
uses of music in teaching the history of economic thought. Journal of Economic
Education. 44(1): 64-73.
Anderson, Bret. 2012. Converting asset holdings into livelihood: an empirical study on the role
of household agency in South Africa. World Development 40(7).
Malloy, Liam. 2012. What would Pigou do? American Prospect Nov-Dec.
McIntyre, Richard. 2012. Radical labor economics, labor history, and employment relations: the
state of the conversation. Labor 9(4): 75-82.
Van Horn, Robert and Edward Nik Khah. 2012. Inland empire. Journal of Economic
Methodology 19(3): 251-274.
Welters, Linda and Arthur C. Mead. 2012. The future of Chinese fashion. Fashion Practice
4(1): 13-40.
McIntyre, Richard. 2011. From workersʼ rights to workersʼ appropriation: response to
Joseph McCartin. International Labor and Working Class History, 80 (Fall): 197-202.
McIntyre, Richard and Robert Van Horn. 2011. Contending perspectives in one department.
International Journal of Pluralism in Economics Education. 2(1): 69-81.
McIntyre, Richard. 2011. Worker appropriation as responsibility and right. Employee
Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 23(3): 221-227.
McIntyre, Richard and Yngve Ramstad. 2011. Not only Nike's doing it: sweating and the
contemporary labor market. In L. Welters and A. Lillethun (eds.), The Fashion
Reader, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Berg.
Mead, Arthur C. 2011. Made in China. In L. Welters and A. Lillethun (eds.) The Fashion
Reader, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Berg.
Mead, Arthur C. 2011. Trade policy. In L. Welters and A. Lillethun (eds.) The Fashion Reader,
2nd Edition. Oxford: Berg.
Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; and Thomas Stapleford (eds.). 2011. Building Chicago
Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Horn, Robert and Matthias Klaes. 2011. Chicago neoliberalism versus Cowles
planning: perspectives on patents and public goods in Cold War economic thought.
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 47(3): 302-321.
Van Horn, Robert. 2011. Chicagoʼs shifting position on concentrations of business power.
Seattle University Law Review 34(4): 1527-1544.
Van Horn, Robert. 2011. The overlook harmony of Chicago and ordoliberalism in the
immediate post WWII period. Ordoliberalism Handbook.
Van Horn, Robert and Matthias Klaes. 2011. Intervening in laissez-faire liberalism:
Chicagoʼs shift on patents. In R. Van Horn, P. Mirowski and T. Stapleford. Building
Chicago Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Horn, Robert. 2011. Jacob Vinerʼs critique of Chicago neoliberalism. In R. Van Horn, P.
Mirowski and T. Stapleford. Building Chicago Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Van Horn, Robert. 2011. Blueprints: an introduction. In R. Van Horn, P. Mirowski and T.
Stapleford. Building Chicago Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burkett, John; Tyrrell, Tim; Virden, Randy and Meng-jieu Chen). 2010. Modeling of NPS
Visitation Trends Phase II: Quantitative Modeling. Final report to the National Park
Service.
Lardaro, Leonard. 2010. Rhode Island unemployment. Communities & Banking 21(4).
McIntyre, Richard. 2010. Response to Burczak, DeMartino, and Ercel. Rethinking Marxism,
October.
McIntyre, Richard. 2010. Shopping with Octave. Rethinking Marxism, October: 605-617
Van Horn, Robert. 2010. Harry Aaron Director: the coming of age of a reformer skeptic.
History of Political Economy. 42(4): 601-630.
Van Horn, Robert. 2010. Neoliberalism and Chicago. The Elgar Companion to the Chicago
School of Economics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
McIntyre, Richard and Michael Hillard. 2009. The class-gender nexus in the American
economy and in attempts to ʻrebuild the labor movement.ʼ In Graham Cassano (ed.)
HOME/ FRONT: Overdetermination, Class Struggle, and New Departures in the
Marxian Analysis of the Household, London: Routledge.
McIntyre, Richard and Michael Hillard. 2009. Historically contingent, institutionally
specific: class struggles, and American employer exceptionalism in the age of
neoliberal globalization.” In Jon Goldstein and Michael Hillard (eds.) Rebellious
Economics: Marx, Keynes, & Crotty, London: Routledge, 2009, pp.189-199.
McIntyre, Richard and Michael Hillard. 2009. IR Experts and the New Deal State: the diary
of a defeated subsumed class. Critical Sociology 35(3): 417-429.
McIntyre, Richard and Michael Hillard. 2009. A radical critique and alternative to U.S.
industrial relations theory and practice. In Fred Lee and Jon Bekkan (eds.) Radical
Economics and the Labor Movement, London: Routledge Press.
Van Horn, Robert. 2009. Reinventing monopoly and corporations: the roots of Chicago law
and economics. In P. Mirowski and D. Plehwe (eds.) The Road from Mont Pelerin.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Van Horn, Robert and Philip Mirowski. 2009. The rise of the Chicago school of economics.
In P. Mirowski and D. Plehwe (eds.) The Road from Mont Pelerin. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
APPENDIX D
Procedures and Standards for
Performance Review, Tenure, and Promotion
I. Introduction.
All tenure-track and tenured faculty members of the Department of Economics are subject to
periodic performance review in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the Rhode
Island Board of Governors for Higher Education and the University of Rhode Island Chapter of the
American Association of University Professors (hereinafter, “The AAUP contract”). The review process
continues throughout a faculty member’s career and, in normal circumstances, involves the annual review
of non-tenured professors, the biennial review of tenured professors below the rank of Full Professor, and
the quadrennial review of Full Professors. At certain points in a faculty member’s career, the review
process may also include a recommendation for or against tenure, promotion, or performance-based
increase to Full Professor III.
Under the AAUP contract, all tenure-track and tenured faculty members have the right to
participate as reviewers in the process and to vote on the promotion and tenure of colleagues. The
contract also gives faculty members the right to abstain from such participation.
II. Procedures
A. Procedures for performance reviews not involving promotion and tenure:
1. In order to give faculty ample time to assemble their dossiers, the chair shall notify
those to be reviewed by the end of the academic year preceding the academic year during
which the reviews will take place.
2. By the first day of the academic year during which the reviews will take place, the
chair shall notify those being reviewed of the specific date by which their dossiers must
be completed and available for review.
3. By the first day of the academic year, the chair shall notify the department’s faculty of
the dates during which the dossiers will be available for review and the date by which
faculty (i.e. those choosing to participate) must provide the chair with their written
assessments of the dossiers. Per the AAUP contract, anonymous comments will not be
accepted.
4. By November 26, the chair shall provide those being reviewed with a copy of the
chair’s review letter that will be sent to the dean.
5. For those seeking a performance-based increase to Full Professor III, the chair’s letter
shall include a recommendation for or against such increase.
6. Since the written reviews of peers comprise a portion of the packet that is sent to the
dean, those being reviewed shall be given the opportunity to examine peer review letters.
1
7. Those being reviewed shall provide written comments, if any, in response to the
chair’s letter and/or peer review letters by November 30. These comments shall become
part of the packet that is sent to the dean.
8. While no faculty member shall be expected to examine material beyond that included
in the official dossier, at their discretion those being reviewed may invite colleagues to
attend classes, public talks, seminars, etc., and such events may comprise part of the
review process for those choosing to participate.
B. Additional procedures for performance reviews involving tenure and/or promotion.
1. If possible, a faculty member should inform the chair of his/her desire to seek tenure
and/or promotion by April 15 preceding the academic year during which tenure and/or
promotion will be sought. Non-tenured faculty should be especially mindful of their year
of mandatory tenure review.
2. Prior to the end of the academic year preceding the year during which tenure and/or
promotion will be sought, the chair and each candidate shall meet to discuss possible
external reviewers of the candidate’s work. Per the AAUP contract, the chair and
candidate shall attempt to identify at least four (4) “arms-length” reviewers 1 who will be
invited to submit letters. As a practical matter, and understanding that not all invitees
will be willing or able to write letters, several potential alternates should also be
identified. The candidate needs to deem all the letter writers acceptable.
3. At least one week prior to the deadline identified in §II.A.4 above, the faculty of the
department shall meet for the purpose of voting on tenure and/or promotion decisions.
Candidates shall be invited to address the faculty and answer questions about their
dossiers (etc.). Candidates shall then be asked to leave the room so that the faculty may
debate, deliberate, and vote upon motions for tenure and/or promotion.
4. Per the AAUP contract, faculty must vote for, against, or in abstention from motions
for tenure and promotion.
5. The chair’s letter to the dean shall relay the results of the vote(s) by the faculty.
III. Standards
A. Standards for performance reviews not involving tenure and/or promotion.
1. For those who have not yet received tenure, the overriding standard of review shall be:
Is sufficient progress being made toward the granting of tenure? Standards for the
granting of tenure included below (see § III. B.) shall guide the process. Reviewers
should ask: Based on the department’s standards for tenure, is the faculty member on a
proper trajectory to earn tenure? Has the faculty member accomplished enough after one
1
Faculty may not designate individuals who served on their dissertation committees, coauthors, or other close
collaborators. Individuals solicited will be asked to disclose their relationship (if any) with the candidate.
2
(two, three, etc.) year(s) to put him/her on the road to tenure (understanding that the level
of output may vary from year to year)?
2. For those below the rank of Full Professor, the overriding standard of review shall be:
Is sufficient progress being made toward promotion to the next rank or to Full Professor?
Standards for the granting of promotion included below shall guide the process.
Reviewers should ask: Based on the department’s standards for the granting of
promotion, is the faculty member on a proper trajectory to earn promotion?
3. For those at the rank of Full Professor, the overriding standard of review shall be: Is
the faculty member maintaining a level of performance commensurate with rank?
Reviewers should consider whether the faculty member is showing a continuing
commitment to research/scholarly effort, teaching, and service, understanding that the
faculty member should be accorded a broad degree of professional judgment concerning
the nature of and relative focus on research/scholarly effort, teaching, and service.
4. Per the AAUP contract, tenured faculty not meeting minimal standards for their rank
as determined by the review process must develop a professional development plan for
the purpose of remedying any deficiencies. Such faculty shall be reviewed two (2) years
after an unsatisfactory review to see if progress has been made toward remedying any
deficiencies.
B. Standards for performance reviews involving tenure and/or promotion.
1. Standards for review involving tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.
A. Under normal circumstances, the granting of tenure and promotion to the
rank of associate professor shall be considered at the same time and shall involve
the same standards. 2 These standards comprise excellence in research/scholarly
effort, teaching, and service. Per the AAUP contract, early tenure shall be
granted only in exceptional cases. Decisions concerning the award of tenure and
promotion shall cover the faculty member’s entire career, but with special
attention on the period since appointment.
i. Research/scholarly effort. The evaluation of research/scholarly
effort by the department is an imprecise task. There are, however,
some objective criteria that are important to the review process.
First, work that has been subjected to peer review will be weighted
more heavily than work that has not. Similarly, work that has been
published usually represents a more substantial contribution than
work that has received more limited circulation. The department
also recognizes the special significance of invited contributions. In
2
In special cases (such as appointment at the Associate or Full Professor level with credit toward tenure) a
customized plan will be worked out with the candidate. This will typically be handled by the dean’s office and
faculty will be apprised of the standards to be applied in each case.
3
the case of jointly conducted research and scholarly activities and
co-authored publications, namely when the candidate is not one of
the primary authors, the department will assess relative
contribution.
For promotion and tenure, the equivalent of five high quality
publications, including articles in refereed professional journals,
refereed book chapters, and refereed scholarly books and
monographs is sufficient to meet the research expectations for tenure
and promotion. While “high quality” is difficult to define, here it
includes articles published in a refereed journal listed on the
Journal of Economic Literature’s “Contents of Current
Periodicals” 3 and all refereed chapters in books published by
university and scholarly presses. Because the department and the
university value teaching and interdisciplinary efforts, refereed
publications in journals/books focused on pedagogy and those in
fields outside of economics will be accorded equal weight to those
on the JEL list, as long as their quality can be established. For
example, a publication listed in Q1 or Q2 under any one “subject
category” on the SJR journal ranking service 4 shall be considered
high quality.
Other research and scholarly activity may help to indicate
continuous engagement in the field in cases where a candidate is
close to having five refereed publications. Such activities include
accepted peer or panel reviewed research funding; invited nonrefereed journal articles, chapters in monographs, textbooks, and
non-refereed books; refereed comments, notes, replies in
professional journals, and encyclopedia entries; invited
encyclopedia entries, non-refereed comments, notes, and replies,
and book reviews in professional journals; grant and technical
reports; scholarly participation in professional meetings, including
presenting papers, organizing and/or chairing sessions, and serving
as a discussant; unpublished papers and unfunded grant proposals;
research in progress; other professional and scholarly activities
such as participation in colloquia, on-campus paper presentations,
and development of software.
3
4
Available at www.aeaweb.org/jel/indexes/contindex/conts1.php.
Available at www.scimagojr.com/index.php.
4
ii. Teaching. Evaluation criteria for teaching performance shall
include teaching effectiveness, the nature of one's teaching
assignments, and, if applicable, efforts to improve teaching
effectiveness.
The primary consideration in the evaluation of teaching
performance will be the instructor's ability to communicate
material effectively to students and the instructor's ability to inspire
students. Effective teaching requires the use of a variety of skills
which cannot be precisely enumerated, but which may include:
evidence of student-centered learning that challenges students to
learn and yet is tailored to the needs and capabilities of the
students; an effective syllabus, which includes clear
communication of course objectives; a fair and understandable
grading policy; assessments that relate to course objectives; and a
sense of responsibility to students, such as office hours and
availability to students.
The effort required to teach effectively is not simply a function of
the total number of courses taught or number of students enrolled in
those courses. The department recognizes both the importance and
difficulty of teaching certain types of classes, such as those with
large enrollments, graduate classes, honors classes, interdisciplinary
classes, and senior-level seminars. Providing instruction in such
courses places special demands on the instructor and also meets
special needs of the department. The level of effort necessary for
the preparation of new courses and development of innovative
approaches should also be recognized.
If applicable, a candidate should show evidence of improving the
quality of his/ her teaching, such as attending and presenting work
at conferences on teaching or participating in Instructional
Development Program events. That said, even if a candidate does
not need to improve the quality of his/her teaching, attending and
presenting at conferences on teaching or participating in
Instructional Development Program events will be looked upon
favorably.
The IDEA instrument (or any subsequent method of student
evaluation of teaching) shall be considered in evaluating a faculty
member’s teaching performance, but shall not be the sole method of
evaluation. Special note may be taken of trends in IDEA outcomes.
5
Teaching awards presented by the University, the URI Foundation,
the College of Arts and Sciences, and/or generally recognized
external organizations shall be looked upon favorably.
Faculty members are discouraged from relying too heavily on online or other such reports of student satisfaction when evaluating
teaching effectiveness.
iia. Advising. While it is understood that advising assignments are
not always within the candidate’s control, the amount of effort put
into advising shall be considered in deliberations concerning tenure
and promotion. Any time spent outside of class in assisting
students with coursework, research, programs of study, career
plans, selecting graduate programs, etc. shall be considered
advising.
iii. Service. All tenure-track faculty are expected to provide service
by working constructively and cooperatively in matters related to
the department, college, and/or university. The service activities of
faculty will vary widely, but may include departmental committees,
college and university committees, participating in recruiting
functions, helping the Instructional Development Program (or
similar programs), and serving on AAUP committees.
Depending on one’s subfield, outreach beyond the University may
not be required for tenure and promotion, but is highly valued by
the department. It may include such activities as membership on
State and Federal committees and task forces, publication of
analyses of public policy issues, consulting with State or Federal
agencies or officials or with non-profit organizations, and
interviews with the news media.
Evidence of service to the profession is highly valued. It includes
activities such as involvement in professional associations, peer
review work for journals or publishers, and acting as a discussant
on panels at conferences.
2. Standards for review involving promotion to Full Professor.
A. Per the AAUP contract, faculty at the rank of Associate Professor may apply
for promotion to Full Professor at any time. But while decisions for promotion
must include consideration of the entire professional career, candidates should be
aware that “special attention” must be paid to accomplishments since the date of
6
promotion to Associate Professor. Therefore, even extraordinary
accomplishments prior to promotion to Associate Professor will not be sufficient
to justify promotion to Full Professor if not followed by excellence in
research/scholarly effort, teaching, and service during the time of Associate
Professorship. Faculty, therefore, are encouraged to spend sufficient time in
building a record at the rank of Associate Professor before seeking promotion to
Full Professor
i. Research/scholarly effort. In order to be promoted to Full Professor,
faculty should continue a program of research/scholarly effort similar to
that described in §2.B.1.i above. That is, a candidate should have no
fewer than the equivalent of five high quality peer reviewed journal
publications (as defined above) after promotion to Associate Professor,
along with other evidence of research/scholarly effort, such as reports,
reviews, public talks, papers, etc.
In addition, however, it is expected that a candidate will present evidence
of the impact of his/her work. Such evidence may include, but is not
limited to, the number of times a candidate’s work has been cited by
others (including the media), favorable mention of a candidate’s
scholarship in the work of others, established influence on public policy,
and external research funding.
Candidates for promotion to Full Professor will also be given credit for
evidence of scholarly mentorship, including, but not limited to, coauthorship with junior scholars and/or students.
ii. Teaching. Candidates for promotion to Full Professor shall maintain
levels of teaching effectiveness as defined in §2.B.1.ii above, but shall be
given further credit for the mentorship of junior scholars through one-onone counseling, work with the Instructional Development Program, etc.
Further credit will also be given for work fostering innovation in the
department’s teaching program through, for example, the development of
new courses, new teaching resources, or new methods of learning
assessment.
iia. Advising. See §III.B.iia above.
iii. Service. Section III. B. iii. above provides a general description of
the types of service activities that are expected of the department’s
faculty. It is further expected, however, that under normal
circumstances, the amount of service rendered by a tenured Associate
Professor within and/or outside of the University should be greater than
that of the typical Assistant Professor.
7