Category I – Abbreviated
September 26, 2006
Proposal Title: Restructuring of the graduate degree programs in Economics.
Purpose: The purpose of this proposal is to restructure the graduate programs in
Economics (M.A., M.S. and Ph.D.) at Oregon State University.
Name of Institution: Oregon State University
Name of College: Liberal Arts
Name of Department: Economics
Classification of Instruction Program (CIP) Number: 450601
Submission Date: May 15, 2006 (CLA Curriculum Committee)
Proposed Effective Date or Term: Fall 2007
Date of first draft: June 26, 2006
A. Title of the proposed instructional, research or public service unit. For name
changes, give both the current and proposed names. Describe the reason(s) for the
proposed change.
The Department of Economics proposes to restructure the Master of Arts (M.A.), Master
of Science (M.S.) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) programs in Economics. The
restructured program will be in effect starting Fall 2007. This proposal entails no name
change for these programs.
Reasons for the Proposed Change
Since the inception of the M.A., M.S. and Ph.D. programs in Economics at OSU in 1988,
the Departments of Economics, Agricultural and Resource Economics and Forest
Resources have coordinated via the University Graduate Faculty of Economics (UGFE)
in establishing curricula and teaching core courses in microeconomics, macroeconomics
and econometrics. These courses served not only students pursuing M.A., M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in Economics, but also those pursuing M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Agriculture and
Resource Economics, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Forest Resources. Evolving
professional standards in Economics and different learning and curriculum objectives for
these different degree programs have reduced the areas of instructional intersection in
core courses. As a consequence, students in different graduate degree programs will be
better served under separate core curricula which are best aligned with their respective
departmental degree objectives, long term goals and professional standards.
The UGFE was constituted on the premise of a shared core curriculum about which all
parties would agree and be well-served. From the standpoint of the Department of
Economics, coordination via the UGFE is no longer viable due to the differing visions of
the three departments, particularly in matters of required core curriculum and course
content. In addition, the original intent was that teaching of these courses would be
shared by all departments. In practice, the Department of Economics has provided the
staffing of almost all core courses taught in the UGFE.
Cognizant of the different core curricular needs of the aforementioned Departments, and
after a substantial effort to reconcile these different needs on the part of the Faculty in the
three departments, the Deans of the Graduate School, Colleges of Liberal Arts,
Agricultural Sciences, Forestry and the University Provost terminated the UGFE, and
instructed the Departments to restructure their degree programs in Economics.1
The advantage of having separate applied economics and economics programs for the
University as a whole are several. First, students in Agricultural and Resource
Economics, Economics and Forest Resources will be better served by customizing core
courses to focus on their interests, career prospects and faculty interests. In particular,
1
See Memorandum from Provost and Executive Vice President Sabah Randhawa and Dean Sally Francis
of the Graduate School dated 12 April 2006 in Appendix 1.
2
the Department of Economics will be able to deliver core curricula consistent with
evolving professional standards in Economics, for example, modern macroeconomic
theory. Second, a traditional mainstream Department of Economics is an integral part of
every university, including the modern Land Grant University, serving a key role in
general education, with an extensive service role to the School of Business, College of
Agricultural Sciences and College of Forestry.
B. Location within the institution's organizational structure. Include "before" and
"after" organizational charts (show reporting lines all the way up to the Provost).
Before: The UGFE consisted of economists in Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Economics, and Forest Resources who were members of the OSU graduate faculty. The
administrative reporting structure of the UGFE is depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: UGFE Organizational Structure
Provost and
Executive Vice-President
UGFE Deans Council
(Deans of the Graduate School, Agricultural Sciences, Forestry, and Liberal Arts)
UGFE Administrative Committee
Chairs of UGFE, Economics, and
Heads of AREC and Forest Resources
UGFE Faculty
UGFE Policy Committee
The Chair of the UGFE was selected by the Dean of the Graduate School, with the
advice/recommendation of the deans of the three participating colleges (Agricultural
Sciences, Forestry, and Liberal Arts). The Chair was administratively responsible to the
Dean of the Graduate School. The Chair of the UGFE worked with the Heads of the
Departments of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Forest Resources, and the
Chair of the Department of Economics to assure that core classes were regularly taught,
and that core preliminary examinations in quantitative methods (econometrics),
macroeconomics and microeconomics were administered in accordance to the UGFE
procedural guidelines.
It is important to observe that the organizational structure depicted in Figure 1 pertained
exclusively to the UGFE and did not override or take precedence over the Oregon State
University organizational chart.2
2
See Oregon State University Organizational Chart in Appendix 2.
3
After: Termination of the UGFE eliminates the organizational structure depicted in
Figure 1. The new organizational chart for the graduate programs follows that of Oregon
State University, is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Organizational Structure for Proposed Programs
|
Provost and Executive Vice-President
Graduate School
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts
Chair
Department of Economics
Faculty-Department of Economics
C. Objectives, functions (e.g., instruction, research, public service), and activities of
the proposed unit.
1. Explain how the program or unit's current objectives, functions, and/or activities will
be changed. Where applicable, address issues such as course offerings, program
requirements, admission requirements, student learning outcomes and experiences, and
advising structure and availability. How will the reorganized program be stronger than
the existing program?
Primary Objectives: The primary objective of the Department of Economics at Oregon
State University is to offer the people of Oregon, the nation and the world, academic
programs leading to B.S., M.A., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Economics that meet the
highest professional standards. The changes to the graduate program that are proposed
herein do not alter our primary objective but, as will be indicated below, facilitate its
attainment, especially with regards to the provision and delivery of graduate programs.
Our undergraduate program is unaffected by the changes proposed herein as no resources
are (or will be) diverted from the undergraduate programs to support the changes being
proposed (see section D).
Specific Objectives: For the last eighteen years, the Department of Economics has
participated in offering graduate programs leading to M.A./M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
Economics via the UGFE. The specific objectives for each of these programs are:
4
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Degree
The objectives of the Doctor of Philosophy program are to provide students with,
a) The ability to understand, apply and contribute to the development of fundamental
knowledge in economic theory and econometrics.
b) The ability to engage in original research in traditional fields in Economics which are
supported by faculty expertise. Currently the fields are Econometrics, Industrial
Organization and International Economics.
The Ph.D. program qualifies its graduates for teaching and conducting research in
institutions of higher education, as well as for employment in government agencies and
private enterprises that require economists with doctoral level of training, capable of
performing and directing advanced economic projects.
Master of Arts (M.A.) and Master of Science (M.S.) Degrees
The objectives of the Masters of Arts and Science programs are to provide students with,
a) The ability to understand and apply fundamental knowledge in economic theory and
econometrics.
b) The ability to engage in research in a field of interest.
The M.A. and M.S. programs qualify their graduates for employment in academic
institutions, government agencies and private enterprises that require economists with
rigorous level of training, capable of performing advanced economic projects. The M.A.
and M.S. programs also provide a solid foundation for continued study at the Doctoral
level.
Similar to the case of our primary objectives, the changes proposed herein to our graduate
programs do not impact the specific objectives listed above. However, they allow for
more efficient delivery of these programs.
We now provide the new program requirements and course offerings. We then contrast
the new program with the one in existence.
5
New Program Requirements and Course offerings
1. Courses: All courses listed below are already offered by the Department of Economics.
First Year
Irrespective of degree objective (M.A., M.S. or Ph.D.) first year graduate students in
Economics take a common set of courses in econometrics, macroeconomics,
microeconomics and mathematical methods for economists.
Mathematics for Economists: ECON 529 (4 credits) Mathematics for Economists I;
ECON 611 (4 credits) Mathematics for Economists II
Microeconomics: ECON 612 (4 credits) Microeconomic Theory I; ECON 613 (4 credits)
Microeconomic Theory II
Macroeconomics: ECON 570 (4 credits) Macroeconomic Theory I3; ECON 571 (4
credits) Macroeconomic Theory II.
Econometrics: ECON 523 (4 credits) Statistics for Econometrics; ECON 525 (4 credits)
Econometrics; ECON 526 (4 credits) Econometrics II
Table 1 provides the distribution of these classes throughout the three academic quarters.
Table 1: First Year Grid of Classes for M.A., M.S. and Ph.D.
Fall Term
ECON 611
ECON 523
ECON 529
Winter Term
ECON 612
ECON 525
ECON 570
Spring Term
ECON 613
ECON 526
ECON 571
Second Year
a) M.A., M.S. Programs: Students must complete at least two 500 (or above) - level
classes in a field in Economics (8 credits). The field classes are:
Econometrics
ECON 563 (4 credits) Productivity Analysis
ECON 626 (4 credits) Efficiency and Productivity Measurement
ECON 627 (4 credits) Applied Micro-Econometrics
3
For clarification purposes, we note that ECON 515 – Macroeconomic Theory I as referred to in the
Applied Economics abbreviated category I proposal will no longer be offered by the Department of
Economics as part of our core course offerings for students pursuing graduate degrees in Economics. That
course could be offered (under a different number) by our Department as a service course to the Applied
Economics program if a suitable arrangement is established.
6
ECON 628 (4 credits) Advanced Econometrics
Industrial Organization
ECON 560 (4 credits) Industrial Organization Theory and Policy
ECON 565 (4 credits) Transportation Economics
ECON 660 (4 credits) Industrial Organization and Technological Change
ECON 607 (4 credits) Seminar in Industrial Organization
International Economics
ECON 540 (4 credits) International Trade Theory and Policy
ECON 541 (4 credits) International Finance Theory and Policy
ECON 555 (4 credits) Economic Development
ECON 640 (4 credits) International Trade and Economic Growth
ECON 607 (4 credits) Seminar in International Trade4
Table 2: Second Year Grid of Classes for M.A., M.S.
Fall Term
Winter Term
Field Elective
Field Elective
Thesis
Thesis
Thesis
Thesis
Spring Term
Thesis
Thesis
Thesis
b) Ph.D. Program: Students must complete the following coursework:
b.1) ECON 628 (4 credits) Advanced Econometrics and ECON 627 (4 credits) Applied
Micro-Econometrics
b.2) Requirements for at least two fields in Economics
b.2.1) The field in Econometrics requires successful completion of:
ECON 626 (4 credits) Efficiency and Productivity Measurement
ECON 627 (4 credits) Applied Micro-Econometrics
ECON 628 (4 credits) Advanced Econometrics
b.2.2) To fulfill the field requirements for Industrial Organization a student must take at
least one 500-level course and at least two 600-level courses from the list provided
below.
4
Currently, ECON 607 Seminar in International Trade can be substituted by AREC 643 International
Trade II.
7
Industrial Organization
ECON 560 (4 credits) Industrial Organization Theory and Policy
ECON 565 (4 credits) Transportation Economics
ECON 660 (4 credits) Industrial Organization and Technological Change
ECON 607 (4 credits) Seminar in Industrial Organization
b.2.3) To fulfill the field requirements for International Economics a student must take at
least one 500-level course and at least two 600-level courses from the list provided
below.
International Economics
ECON 540 (4 credits) International Trade Theory and Policy
ECON 541 (4 credits) International Finance Theory and Policy
ECON 555 (4 credits) Economic Development
ECON 640 (4 credits) International Trade I
ECON 607 (4 credits) Seminar in International Trade5
Table 3: Second Year Grid of Classes for Ph.D.
Fall Term
Winter Term
Field Elective
Field Elective
Field Elective/Thesis
Field Elective
Field Elective/Thesis
ECON 627
Spring Term
Field Elective
Field Elective
ECON 628
2. Requirements
M.A., M.S. Programs: In addition to the coursework described above students must
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain a 3.0 or better grade point average in all courses taken as a graduate
student.
Maintain a 3.0 grade point average or better in all courses included in the program
of study in Economics. The program cannot contain any courses with a grade
below "C".
Maintain a 3.0 grade point average or better in all core courses.
Enroll for a minimum of 8 credits of thesis hours.
Complete and successfully defend a thesis in the chosen field of study.
Minimum total credit hours for degree completion: 53 credits.
5
Currently, ECON 607 Seminar in International Trade can be substituted by AREC 643 International
Trade II.
8
Ph.D. Program: In addition to the coursework described above students must
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain a 3.0 or better grade point average in all courses taken as a graduate
student.
Maintain a 3.0 grade point average or better in all courses included in the program
of study in Economics. The program cannot contain any courses with a grade
below "C".
Maintain a 3.0 grade point average or better in all core courses.
Enroll for a minimum of 54 credits of thesis/dissertation hours.
Pass preliminary examinations in Microeconomics and Macroeconomics after
their first year of study.
Write an acceptable field paper in at least two Ph.D. fields offered by the
Department of Economics at Oregon State University. The field paper should
demonstrate the student's proficiency in the field of study beyond the coursework.
The field paper must be submitted after the completion of the Ph.D. field courses.
Complete and successfully defend a doctoral dissertation.
Minimum total credit hours for degree completion: 115 credits.
Changes from current required coursework and requirements
M.A. and M.S. Programs
The coursework and requirements for the programs described above differ from those
currently available by the following:
1. Courses
Mathematics for Economists: ECON 611 (4 credits) Mathematics for Economists II has
been added as a requirement for M.A. and M.S. students.
Microeconomics: ECON 512 (4 credits) Microeconomic Theory I and ECON 513 (4
credits) Microeconomic Theory II are being dropped as requirements for the M.A., M.S.
degree and are being replaced by ECON 612 (4 credits) Advanced Microeconomic
Theory I; ECON 613 (4 credits) Advanced Microeconomic Theory II.
Macroeconomics: ECON 515 Macroeconomic Theory I has been redesigned and given a
new number, i.e., ECON 570 and ECON 571 (4 credits) Macroeconomic Theory II is
being added as a requirement for M.A./M.S. students.
Econometrics: No change.
As a result, there is an addition of 8 required credits in the coursework needed to
complete the M.A. and M.S. degrees. Table 4 provides the current and proposed grid of
classes for first year students in the M.A./M.S.
9
Table 4: Current and Proposed Class Grid for First Year M.A./ M.S.
Current Grid of Classes
Fall Term
Elective
ECON 523
ECON 529
Winter Term
ECON 512
ECON 525
ECON 515
Spring Term
ECON 513
ECON 526
Elective
Fall Term
Winter Term
Spring Term
ECON 611
ECON 523
ECON 529
ECON 612
ECON 525
ECON 570
ECON 613
ECON 526
ECON 571
Proposed Grid of Classes
2. Requirements
This proposal includes no change in requirements for the M.A./M.S. programs other than
the coursework changes described above.
Ph.D. Program
The coursework and requirements for the program described above differ from those
currently available by the following:
1. Courses
Mathematics for Economists: No change.
Microeconomics: No change.
Macroeconomics: There is no change in credit requirements, i.e., the core is constituted
by two 4-credit courses - ECON 570 (4 credits) Macroeconomic Theory I and ECON 571
(4 credits) Macroeconomic Theory II. However, there will be syllabi and course
description changes through a separate category II proposal. The new syllabi are given in
Appendix 3.
Econometrics: No change.
2. Requirements
Currently students are required to pass preliminary examinations in Macroeconomics,
Microeconomics and quantitative methods (Econometrics). This proposal requires
10
students to pass preliminary examinations in Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.
Hence, the preliminary examination in Econometrics will be discontinued.
Advantages of the proposed programs over the current programs
M.A./M.S. Programs
a) The additional mathematics course (ECON 611) will provide students with the
necessary mathematical tools to successfully complete the microeconomic sequence
(ECON 612 and ECON 613). This course will not only increase the technical
competence of our M.A./M.S. students, but will also provide them with the tools
necessary to understand and use modern macroeconomic and microeconomic theories.
b) The redesign of the macroeconomic theory sequence and the addition of ECON 571
Macroeconomic Theory II to the set of required courses strengthen the academic
preparation of our students in macroeconomics, aligning our offerings with those in peer
institutions, such as the University of California – Davis, Ohio State University, and
Michigan State University. The current requirement, i.e., ECON 515 Macroeconomic
Theory I under its current syllabus, does not provide students with adequate graduate
level training that meets the standards of most graduate programs in Economics.
c) The new set of required microeconomic theory classes for M.A./M.S. students, i.e.,
ECON 612 Advanced Microeconomic Theory I and ECON 613 Advanced
Microeconomic Theory II replaces the current (lower level) microeconomic theory
sequence formed by ECON 512 and ECON 513. The change is beneficial because: (i)
the new sequence provides a more in depth and modern treatment of microeconomic
theory that is aligned with first graduate offerings in peer institutions; (ii) under the
current curriculum structure, ECON 512 and ECON 513 serve primarily students who
either have not met all admission prerequisites (intermediate microeconomic courses and
one year of calculus), and/or need remedial work in microeconomics. Most of our
graduate students in the past (pursuing either M.A./ M.S. or Ph.D. degrees) have had
sufficient training to proceed directly to ECON 612 Advanced Microeconomic Theory I
and ECON 613 Advanced Microeconomic Theory II. Hence, delivery of our graduate
program is made more efficient by eliminating ECON 512 and ECON 513 from our
course offerings, and ensuring that our current admission standards are met. Streamlining
the graduate program in this way benefits students, uses fewer resources, and is
consistent with professional norms in economics.
d) Completion of more advanced microeconomic and macroeconomic theory courses by
the end of their first year will allow students to benefit more from field classes.
Ph.D. Program
a) The proposed program allows Ph.D. students to complete their core courses and
preliminary exams by the end of their first year and all field courses and field paper
requirements by the end of their second year. This will give our students early feedback
11
on their academic progress and enable qualified students to begin work on their
dissertations one year earlier.
b) The elimination of the preliminary examination requirement in Econometrics aligns
the requirements for the Ph.D. program with those of most Economics departments,
which do not normally require examinations in Econometrics. In addition, because we
require four core classes in Econometrics, two more classes than required in
macroeconomics and microeconomics, we believe the quality of students’ training in
econometrics needs no additional monitoring instrument.
c) Completion of the redesigned macroeconomic theory sequence (ECON 570, ECON
571) aligns our offerings with those in peer institutions, such as the University of
California – Davis, Ohio State University, Michigan State University, and provides
students with adequate graduate level training that meets the standards of most graduate
programs in Economics.
2. Explain how outcomes in the newly organized program or unit will be assessed.
A number of methods will be used to evaluate the restructured program. We will monitor
job placement and publication activity of students. Exit interviews and alumni surveys
will provide feedback from students and suggestions for improvement. External and
internal reviews will ensure that the research and teaching programs are in line with
professional standards for the M.S., M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics.
In the Department of Economics, we are already engaged in assessment activities for the
graduate degrees in Economics. A review of job placements reveals that our students
have fared well. For example, recent Ph.D. graduates have taken assistant professor
positions at SUNY-Binghamton, University of North Dakota, EERC-Ukraine, etc. 6
We have not conducted exit interviews or alumni surveys on a regular basis. We are a
relatively small program, and faculty and students often continue professional
relationships after graduation. We plan to institute alumni surveys and to conduct exit
interviews to assess the newly organized program.
We seek to enhance the curricula and the success of our graduate students by way of
internal assessment as well. The Department of Economics restructured our graduate
sequence in macroeconomics this year as a result of such an assessment. Economics
Department faculty committees reviewed the other core course sequences as well. The
recommended structure and curricula of the core course sequences were approved by the
faculty of the Department of Economics.
Internal assessment will continue under the newly organized program. We will continue
to observe graduate programs in Economics Departments at other universities for better
approaches to delivering graduate education. We welcome input from outside faculty
6
See Appendix 4.
12
members of Economics Departments on an informal basis as well as for formal external
reviews.
D. Resources needed, if any: personnel, FTE academic, FTE classified, facilities and
equipment.
1. Identify the staffing and resource needs for the proposed program or unit. Note any
impact on the budgets of affected programs or units. Provide an analysis of how the
resulting programs or units will be adequately staffed and funded.
The resources needed to provide the program described above are already in place. No
additional resources from the University, College or the Oregon University System are
needed as a result of this proposed change. We provide the following evidence of
adequate resources:
a) Since the inception of the graduate programs in Economics, the Department has
successfully hired and maintained faculty capable of delivering a high quality graduate
program. The faculty publishes in the leading academic journals in Econometrics,
Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Industrial Organization, and International Economics.
These include the Journal of Econometrics, Econometrica, American Economic Review,
International Economic Review, Journal of Monetary Economics, Journal of Economic
Dynamics and Control, Journal of Economic Theory and the RAND Journal of
Economics. In addition, faculty either serve or have served on editorial boards for a
number of peer reviewed journals. For the period that extends from 1993-2005, and
using quality adjusted weights (impact, age and self-citation adjusted per character) of
Kalaitzidakis et al. (2003) the faculty exhibits high research productivity, especially in
per capita terms.7
b) All core and field courses listed above in the program descriptions are currently and
have been regularly offered by the Department of Economics over the last ten years. The
only exceptions are ECON 525, ECON 512 and ECON 612, for which we have obtained
instructional support from the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics via
the UGFE. We plan to cover these needs as follows:
b.1) Since ECON 512 and ECON 513 are being dropped as a requirement for the
M.A./M.S. programs and the Department faculty teaches one of these courses (ECON
513), the one course faculty savings will be used to staff ECON 612.
b.2) Regarding the teaching of ECON 525 we make the following considerations. First,
the Department has at least four faculty members (including Kerkvliet, Martins-Filho,
Mishra and C. Tremblay) with expertise and teaching experience in graduate
econometrics. Two of these faculty members (Kerkvliet and Mishra) also teach
introductory undergraduate courses in Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, which are
routinely taught by our Teaching Assistants (TAs). Hence, through an internal
7
Kalaitzidakis, P., T. Mamuneas and T. Stengos, 2003, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in
Economics. European Economic Association.
13
reallocation of teaching responsibilities we will shift an introductory course in
Microeconomics or Macroeconomics to a TA, allowing therefore for staffing of ECON
525. Second, if the course labeled AREC 525 in the Applied Economics abbreviated
category I proposal meets the Department of Economics academic standards for core
Econometrics, we will be glad to use it as part of our core classes, and to help with its
staffing, if necessary.
c) The Department of Economics already has in place the administrative staff required to
run and operate the graduate programs. In particular, since the inception of the graduate
programs in 1988 we have had:
c.1) a Director of Graduate Studies (tenured faculty member) responsible for all aspects
of the day-to-day operations of the graduate programs,
c.2) a Graduate Program Assistant (Office Specialist) who handles all bureaucratic
aspects related to graduate student applications, admissions, assistantships contracts and
fellowship awards, student progress monitoring, job placement assistance, etc.
d) The Department has a dedicated budget for a regular seminar series. During the
academic year 2005-2006, the Department of Economics financed 17 talks/seminars from
external speakers. This seminar series benefits not only students and faculty in the
Department, but also students and faculty in the Departments of Agricultural and
Resource Economics and Forest Resources.8
e) The Department supports graduate students (approximately 25 every year) with:
Graduate Teaching/Research Assistantships: GT/RAs have a 9-month contract at 0.2 FTE
(8 hours of work per week) or 0.4 FTE (16 hours of work per week). The GTA
appointment includes a tuition waiver but students are required to pay student fees.
Typical salaries range from about $5,557 to $15,038 per academic year. Summer
teaching opportunities are also available. GT/RAs are available to master's students for a
maximum of two years and to Ph.D. students for four years. Teaching Assistants
enhance our undergraduate program with undergraduate tutoring.
f) Graduate students in the Department of Economics have access to two computer
laboratories. In addition, graduate teaching and research assistants are provided with
office space and wireless internet in their offices.
2. Explain the extent to which affected faculty and personnel support this change.
In the Fall of 2005, in an attempt to redesign the UGFE, the Deans of the Colleges of
Agricultural Sciences, Forestry, Liberal Arts and the Graduate School asked faculty in the
three UGFE constituent departments to provide a vision and structure for their graduate
programs. The econometrics, macroeconomics and microeconomics core classes
described in this proposal for the M.A., M.S. and Ph.D. programs are exactly those
8
The separate UGFE Seminar series consisted of only 3 seminars in the academic year 2005-2006.
14
included in the Department of Economics graduate program vision. This core structure
was approved by the Department of Economics faculty on December 15, 2005. Other
aspects of the programs, including field requirements and coursework, were already in
place and had been previously approved by the faculty.
E. Funding sources: state sources (institutional funds - state general fund, tuition
and fees, indirect cost recoveries), federal funds, other funds as specified.
1. Identify the revenue and funding sources for the proposed program or unit (i.e., federal,
state, other funding sources).
The main source of funding and revenues for the Department of Economics will remain
the same.
2. If new resources will be required (e.g., for new faculty positions, graduate
research/teaching assistants, facilities, equipment), explain where these resources will be
coming from. Specify whether internal reallocation, college, institution, federal, state,
private, or other funding sources. [Note: Deans/chairs/heads/directors of units
committed to providing additional resources will be required to sign the proposal.]
No new resources are needed for the delivery of the programs described above.
3. Provide an estimated annual budget for the proposed program or unit (see
Appendices).
Not applicable. No change in departmental budget is required by this proposal.
F. Relationship of the proposed unit to the institutional mission.
1. How will the proposed program or unit support OSU's mission and goals?
As it has for the last 18 years, the M.A., M.S. and PhD degree programs in the
Department of Economics “promote economic, social, cultural and environmental
progress for people across Oregon, the nation and the world through our graduates,
research, scholarship, outreach and engagement.”
Our graduates have been and will continue to be placed in private and public sector
positions in Oregon as well as other states and countries.9 Their research and scholarship,
as well as that of the faculty will continue to promote economic progress in particular, for
Oregon, the nation and the world. Our diverse student population will continue to serve
as ambassadors for Oregon State University, Oregon and the nation.
2. Describe potential positive and negative impact of the proposed change on the
program(s) or unit(s) involved. Identify other OSU programs or units which may be
9
See Appendix 4 for a sample of MA./M.S. and Ph.D. graduates and job placements.
15
affected, and describe the potential positive and negative impact on their mission and
activities.
In our view, the impact of UGFE termination and subsequent implementation of this
proposal are the following:
a) The UGFE structure was eliminated because a conclusion was reached that students
pursuing graduate degrees in Agricultural and Resource Economics, Economics and
Forest Resources could be better served under separate core curricula, which are best
aligned with their respective departmental degree objectives, long term goals and
professional standards. Hence, the overarching impact of the restructuring is positive,
providing departments with the flexibility to design programs that best fit their needs.
For example, in this proposal, by combining the first year program of study for the
M.A./M.S. and PhD students in the Department of Economics, we will be able to
streamline our program, leaving more time for students to focus on their theses and
dissertations. This aligns us with common practice in graduate programs in Economics.
b) The core classes in Econometrics (ECON 523, ECON 525, ECON 526),
Microeconomics (ECON 612, ECON 613) and ECON 611 Mathematics for Economists
II will continue to be offered under their current syllabi. However, currently these
courses are cross-listed with Agricultural and Resource Economics. The Department of
Economics will submit a Category II proposal to eliminate the cross-listing. We note that
our current ECON 515 – Macroeconomic Theory I and ECON 615 – Advanced
Macroeconomic Theory are not (and never have been) cross-listed with any other OSU
department.
c) The Department of Economics will continue to staff and offer core sequences in
Econometrics, Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, as well as field classes in
Econometrics, Industrial Organization and International Economics. Hence, economic
related programs, disciplines and departments on campus - including the departments of
Agriculture and Resource Economics, Forest Resources, Statistics, Political Science,
Sociology, Finance - will find some of the core and field courses offered useful in
constructing suitable curricula for their graduate programs. As has been the case in the
past, we welcome their students into our graduate classes.
d) Elimination of the UGFE structure and subsequent implementation of this proposal
does not in any way eliminate or preclude collaboration in the delivery of any of the
courses listed above, nor does it impact collaborative research between the Department of
Economics and the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Forest
Resources. For example, the Departments of Economics and Agricultural and Resource
Economics have collaborated and can continue to collaborate in the delivery of the
International Economics field classes.
e) This proposal eliminates ECON 512 and ECON 513 from our list of required courses
for students in the M.A./M.S. program. As a result the Department of Economics will not
staff ECON 513 (ECON 512 was normally staffed by the Department of Agricultural and
16
Resource Economics or Forest Resources). If this course remains a part of the graduate
programs in the Departments of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Forest
Resources, its staffing becomes the responsibility of those departments and is addressed
in their Abbreviated Category I.
G. Long-range goals and plans for the unit (including a statement as to anticipated
funding sources for any projected growth in funding needs).
The long range objectives and plans for the Department of Economics are not changed by
this proposal. Also, as indicated above, continued delivery of the graduate program
described in this proposal does not depend on additional resources. However, we list
below some of our long range goals and plans.
a) The Department of Economics recognizes that it is an important part of OSU’s
strategic goal of becoming a top ten land grant institution. All top ten land grant
institutions in the nation have outstanding graduate and undergraduate programs in
Economics.10 Hence, the Department of Economics is committed to providing high
quality undergraduate and graduate courses to students in economics and other
disciplines. The Department is also committed to recruit and retain internationally
respected faculty who excel in high quality scholarship.
b) Building on a solid foundation of Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, our graduate
programs will continue to focus on areas/fields of specialization in which we have
comparative advantages, e.g., Econometrics, Industrial Organization and International
Economics.
c) The Department will continue to pursue alternative sources of revenues from private
fundraising, partnerships, and research grants.
d) The Department is committed to increasing financial support for graduate students via
a plan to attract outside research funding.
H. Relationship of the proposed unit to programs at other institutions in the state.
1. What is the current relationship of the proposed program or unit to OUS and other
higher education institutions in the state? Describe how this relationship might be altered
based on the proposed change.
Since the inception of the graduate programs in Economics at OSU in 1988, and among
all OUS institutions of higher education, the Department of Economics at Oregon State
University has interacted most closely with the Department of Economics at the
University of Oregon. This interaction comes naturally due not only to our geographic
10
The New York Times reports (“A New Breed of College All-Star,” April 8, 1998, C1) a growing
perception in academic circles that “If you don’t have a good economics department, you can’t have a great
university.”
17
proximity, but also to the fact that the Department of Economics at the University of
Oregon is the only other OUS - institution that offers a Ph.D. degree in Economics.11
This interaction has been particularly active in our seminar series, where faculty and
students in both Departments have access to the seminar series sponsored by each of the
two Departments. Also, faculties from each department are frequently invited to present
seminars in each others’ seminar series. We are currently in conversations with the
Department of Economics at the University of Oregon to institute a joint UO-OSU
visiting scholar program.
Professor Van Kolpin, Head of the Department of Economics at the University of Oregon
and Professor Joe Stone, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of
Oregon are both aware and informed of the changes taking place in the graduate program
in Economics at Oregon State University.
They have expressed their institutional support to our proposal via the letter/email that
are attached to Appendix 5. Professor Kolpin writes
“…the UO Department of Economics has no objection to “traditional” graduate
Economics degrees at OSU being administered solely by the OSU Economics department
and if such an arrangement arose from your current situation, we would most certainly
be fully supportive of that decision.”
Professor Stone states in his email to Dean Schaffer,
“I understand that your CLA Economics Department is developing a proposal for an
independent graduate Ph.D. program. I know that you have made some very fine
appointments to that department. While I do not know the specifics and relative merits
for your college and the department, I can say that we have no objections to this
direction, and certainly trust your judgment of the economics initiative. If you do decide
to move forward, we and our department will want to offer our assistance as appropriate
and will look forward to even stronger links and ties.”
We have also provided this abbreviated category I proposal to the Department of
Economics at Portland State University. The Chair of the Department of Economics,
Professor Mary King, writes (see Appendix 5):
“Thank you for sharing with me the proposal to re-organize graduate economics
education at Oregon State University so the the Economics Department will undertake
sole responsibility for delivering the PhD, MS and MA in Economics at OSU.
I know that I can speak on behalf of the Economics Faculty at Portland State University
when I say that we have full confidence in the ability of the OSU Economics Faculty to
11
The Department of Economics at Portland State University offers M.A./M.S. degrees in Economics and
participates in the Ph.D. programs in Urban Studies and System Science. However, no Ph.D. program in
Economics is offered.
18
mount an excellent graduate program in Economics. We have no objection to this
proposal.”
2. Describe how the proposed change will affect other constituencies outside of OUS.
Our main constituencies outside the OUS are a) future employers (academic institutions,
government agencies and private institutions) of our graduates, and b) other government
and private institutions that benefit from the research and expertise of our faculty. Of
these, this proposal will affect most directly future employers of our graduate students.
As described herein, this proposal in essence aligns our core course offerings with
graduate programs in Economics offered by peer institutions. Therefore, we expect to
produce students that will compete more effectively in the job market, and ultimately
provide employers with better trained employees.
I. If the program is professionally accredited, identify the accrediting body and
discuss how the proposed change may affect accreditation.
Not applicable. There is no accreditation body for degree programs in Economics.
19
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Memorandum from the Provost and Executive
Vice President and Dean of the Graduate School
12 April 2006
Appendix 2
Oregon State University Organizational Chart
OSU Alumni
Association
OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
September 2005
Chancellor
Finance and
Administration
Affirmative Action
and Equal
Opportunity
Director
Budget and Fiscal
Planning
Associate Vice President/
Director, Budget and Fiscal
Planning
Alumni
Relations
Director
Community
and Diversity
Director
Director
Business
Services
Administrative
Services
Director
Agricultural
Experiment
Station
Forest
Research
Laboratory
Director
Director
Director
Research
Sponsored
Programs and
Research
Compliance
Associate Vice
President
Director
Director
Research
Centers and Institutes
Academic Programs
Dean
Director
Colleges/Departments
Agricultural Sciences
Dean/
Agricultural Experiment Station
Media and Outreach Services
• Environmental
and Molecular
Toxicology
• Agricultural
Education and
General
Agriculture
• Fisheries and
Wildlife
• Botany and **
Plant Pathology
• Food Science
and
Technology
• Horticulture
• Microbiology**
• Chemistry **
• Rangeland
Ecology and
Management
• Crop and Soil
Science
• Statistics **
Graduate
School
Director
Director
OSU Extended
Campus
Technology
Support Services
• Hatfield Marine Science Center
• Institute of Natural Resources
• Laboratory Animal Resources
Center
• Radiation Center
• Sea Grant
• Space Grant
OSU Extension
Service
Director
Directors
• Academic Programs and
Academic Assessment
• Academic Success Center
• Center for Teaching and
Learning
• Center for Writing and
Learning
• Difference, Power , and
Discrimination
• Writing Intensive Curriculum
CAMP Program
Director
Engineering
Dean
Dean
Dean/
Forest Research
Laboratory
Director
• Accounting,
Finance, and
Information
Management
• Adult Education
and Higher
Education
Leadership
• Management,
Marketing, and
International
Business
• 4-H Youth
Development
Education
• Teacher and
Counselor
Education
• Bioengineering*
• Chemical
Engineering
• Civil,
Construction,
and
Environmental
Engineering
• Forest
Engineering
Institutional
Research
• Forest
Resources
• Forest
Science
University Librarian
Director
Health and
Human
Sciences
Liberal Arts
Dean
• Student Involvement
• Women's Center
•
•
•
•
•
Anthropology
Art
Economics
English
Ethnic Studies
• Nuclear
Engineering and
Radiation Health
Physics
• Speech
Communication
• Women Studies***
• Public Health
Director
Educational
Opportunities
Program
Director
Memorial Union
Minority
Education
• Asian/Pacific American
Education
• Casa Educacional
• Indian Education
• Ujima Education
Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Sciences
University
Events
Director
University
Marketing
Associate Director
Director
Recreational Sports
Director
Director
• Community Service/Service
Learning
• Diversity Development
• Greek Life
• Student Conduct
Dean
Dean
• Nutrition and
Exercise
Sciences
Career Services
University
Publications
Director
Services for Students
With Disabilities
Directors
• Air Force
• Army
• Navy/Marines
• Mechanical
Engineering
• Industrial and
Manufacturing
Engineering
• Wood Science
and Engineering
Dean
ROTC
• Human
Development
and Family
Sciences
Admissions
Financial Aid and Scholarships
Partnership Programs
Precollege Programs
Registrar
SOAR
SMILE
Student Life
Commanders
OSU Press
• Foreign
Languages and
Literatures
• History
• Liberal Studies***
• Music
• New Media ***
Communications
• Philosophy
• Political Science
• Psychology
• Sociology
• School of
Electrical
Engineering and
Computer
Science
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Director
• Design and
Human
Environment
Research
Communications
Director/Editor
Coordinators
University
Libraries
Dean
Forestry
Education
Dean
Directors
Directors
University
Honors College
Faculty Senate
Enrollment
Management
Assistant Provost
Academic
Programs
Dean
Business
News and
Communication
Vice Provost
• English Language Institute
• International Education
and Outreach
• International Student and
Faculty Services
• OUS International
Programs
Dean
Network Services
Director
• Agricultural
and Resource
Economics
Administration
Campus Administrator
Director
International
Programs
Dean
Directors
Public Safety
Campus Advancement
Director
Computing
Services
Director
Centers and
Programs
Technology
Transfer
Director
• Bioengineering*
Director
Academic Affairs
and International
Programs
Vice Provost
Campus Executive
Officer/Vice Provost
Director
• Animal
Sciences
Intercollegiate
Athletics
Assistant Vice
President/Director
OSU-Cascades
Campus
Vice Provost/Chief
Information Officer
Senior Associate
Vice President
Director
Government
Relations
Student Affairs
Information
Services
Research
OSU Conference
Services
Vice President
General
Counsel
Provost and
Executive Vice President
Research
Vice President
Business
Affairs
Human
Resources
University
Advancement
President
Vice President
Facilities
Services
OSU
Foundation, Inc.
Student Affairs
Research and
Evaluation
Director
Student Health
Services
Director
Student Media
Director
Pharmacy
Science
Dean
Dean
• Pharmaceutical
Sciences
• Pharmacy
Practice
Student Support
Services
Director
University
Counseling and
Psychological
Services
Director
University Housing
and Dining Services
Director
Veterinary
Medicine
Dean
• Biochemistry
and Biophysics
• Biomedical
Sciences
• Biology ***
• Clinical Sciences
• Botany and **
Plant Pathology
• Chemistry **
• Geosciences
• Mathematics
• Microbiology **
• Veterinary
Diagnostic
Laboratory
• Large Animal
Services
• Small Animal
Services
• Physics
* Joint: Colleges of Agricultural
Sciences and Engineering
** Joint: Colleges of Agricultural
Sciences and Science
*** Program
Senior Administrators
OSU Statewides
• Science and
Mathematics
Education
• Statistics **
• Zoology
glb/2005-06
v.2
Appendix 3
Catalog Entries and Syllabi for
ECON 570 and ECON 571
Catalog Entries.
ECON 570 MACROECONOMIC THEORY I (4)
Introduction to dynamic macroeconomic theory, including a review of Keynesian models,
continuous and discrete time programming, Solow, Ramsey, and endogenous growth
models, and real business cycle theory. OTHER PREREQS: ECON 315 or equivalent.
ECON 571 MACROECONOMIC THEORY II (4)
Advanced topics in macroeconomics, including complete and incomplete markets for
risk, monetary theory and policy, New-Keynesian models of the business cycle, fiscal
policy analysis, and labor markets and unemployment. OTHER PREREQS: ECON 515.
Economics 570 Syllabus
Course Name:
Course Number:
Course Credits:
Prerequisites:
Macroeconomic Theory I
Econ 570
4
Econ 315 or equivalent
Course Content
1. Background on Macroeconomic Issues and Problems
• History: Keynesian economics, AS – AD, rational expectations
• The relative importance of business cycles and growth
• Business cycle facts
2. Tools for Analyzing Macroeconomic Models
• Hamiltonians and continuous time optimal control
• Recursive dynamic programming (Bellman’s equations)
• Linearizing DSGE models
• Solving Linear rational expectations models
3. Growth (with some fiscal policy)
• Exogenous growth: The Solow model
• Exogenous growth: The Ramsey model
• Exogenous growth: The OG-model
• Empirical failure of exogenous growth
• Endogenous growth: Romer’s contributions
4. Real Business Cycles
• History and basic model
• Empirical failing of RBC theory
• The RBC response and revival
5. Endogenous Fluctuations
• Sunspots, bubbles and self-fulfilling prophesies
• Chaotic business cycles
• Non-believers’ admonitions
Student Learning Outcomes
Per university policy, we now specify student learning outcomes for all courses. According to the
Office of Academic Programs, student learning outcomes are specific statements indicating an understanding, knowledge, or skill-set that a successful student will have obtained upon the completion
of a course.
1. Explain the development and necessity of micro-based macroeconomic theory.
2. Demonstrate the ability to use the tools of dynamic programming to analyze DSGE models.
3. Use models to predict the impact of policy changes on endogenous variables.
4. Characterize and critique modeling assumptions, especially in the context of policy analysis.
Evaluation of Student Performance
There will be a midterm exam and a final exam, each worth 45% of your grade. The final exam will
be comprehensive. Homework will be assigned and worth as 10% of your grade. Make up exams are
offered only in case of verifiable emergency.
Learning Resources
• Required Texts
– “Recursive Macroeconomic Theory,” Ljungqvist and Sargent.
– “Advanced Macroeconomics,” Romer.
• Reference Texts
– “Lectures on Macroeconomics,” Blanchard and Fisher.
– “Recursive Methods in Macroeconomic Dynamics,” Stokey and Lucas.
– “Interest and Prices,” Woodford.
– “Monetary Theory and Policy,” Walsh.
Statement Regarding Students with Disabilities
“Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Services for Students with
Disabilities (SSD). Students with accommodations approved through SSD are responsible for contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of the term to
discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are eligible for accommodations but who have
not yet obtained approval through SSD should contact SSD immediately at 737-4098.”
Student Conduct
Students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with University guidelines: see
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/stucon/achon.htm.
Economics 571 Syllabus
Course Name:
Course Number:
Course Credits:
Prerequisites:
Macroeconomic Theory II
Econ 571
4
Econ 570
Course Content
1. Asset Prices and Consumption
• Complete markets and risk
• Asset pricing and risk premia
• Consumptions/savings and permanent income
• Incomplete markets and precautionary savings
• The equity premium puzzle
2. Monetary Economics
• Money in utility
• Cash in advance
• Lucas Islands
3. New Keynesian Models of Business Cycle Fluctuations
• Menu costs
• State dependant pricing
• Over-lapping contracts and Calvo pricing
• Woodford’s new Phillips Curve
4. Monetary Policy and Inflation
• Welfare and inflation (why do we care?)
• Friedman’s rule
• Taylor rules
• Inflation targeting and the central bank
5. Fiscal Policy and Public Debt
• Ricardian equivalence
• Optimal taxation
• A fiscal theory of the price level
6. Unemployment
• Basics of search theory
• Search frictions and unemployment
• Efficiency wages
• Implicit contracts
Student Learning Outcomes
Per university policy, we now specify student learning outcomes for all courses. According to the
Office of Academic Programs, student learning outcomes are specific statements indicating an understanding, knowledge, or skill-set that a successful student will have obtained upon the completion
of a course.
1. Compute asset prices in a complete markets model.
2. Demonstrate the equivalence of the competitive markets outcome and the planner’s solution
in a model with idiosyncratic risk and complete markets.
3. Explain the model dependent mechanisms through which fiat money has real impacts.
4. Compute optimal monetary policy in a new Keynesian framework.
5. Characterize and critique instrument and targeting policy rules.
6. Explain search friction and efficiency wage theories of unemployment.
Evaluation of Student Performance
There will be a midterm exam and a final exam, each worth 45% of your grade. The final exam will
be comprehensive. Homework will be assigned and worth as 10% of your grade. Make up exams are
offered only in case of verifiable emergency.
Learning Resources
• Required Texts
– “Recursive Macroeconomic Theory,” Ljungqvist and Sargent.
– “Monetary Theory and Policy,” Walsh.
• Reference Texts
– “Lectures on Macroeconomics,” Blanchard and Fisher.
– “Recursive Methods in Macroeconomic Dynamics,” Stokey and Lucas.
– “Interest and Prices,” Woodford.
– “Advanced Macroeconomics,” Romer.
Statement Regarding Students with Disabilities
“Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Services for Students with
Disabilities (SSD). Students with accommodations approved through SSD are responsible for contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of the term to
discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are eligible for accommodations but who have
not yet obtained approval through SSD should contact SSD immediately at 737-4098.”
Student Conduct
Students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with University guidelines: see
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/stucon/achon.htm.
Appendix 4
Sample of Graduates and Job Placements
Sample of M.A./M.S. Recent Graduates1
Student
Placement Information
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Student 8
Student 9
Student 10
Student 11
Student 12
Student 13
Student 14
Student 15
Student 16
Student 17
Student 18
Student 19
Student 20
Student 21
Student 22
Student 23
Consulting Firm – Portland, OR
Vice President, Central Bank, Republic of Georgia
Hewlett Packard
U.S. Treasury
Ph.D. student in Public Health
Economist – State of Oregon
USDOT – Boston, MA
Kaiser Pemanente
Transportation Marketing Services - Southfield, MI
FEDEX
Center for Coastal Studies, Mexico
Economist, State of Idaho
Kittelson & Associates, Portland, OR
Economist - State of Oregon
Ph.D. student at Washington University
M.S. in Statistics
Ph.D. student at OSU in Economics
Economist – Oregon Department of Transportation
Roguewave Software
Ph.D. student at the University of Amsterdam
Boeing Corporation
Regional Economist, State of Oregon
KP Center for Health Research, Portland, OR
Sample of Ph.D. Graduates
Student
Field
Placement Information
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Student 8
Student 9
Student 10
Student 11
Student 12
Student 13
Student 14
Student 15
Student 16
Student 17
Student 18
Student 19
Econometrics/ Env. Economics
International Economics
Econometrics/Env. Economics
Econometrics/Industrial Organization
Industrial Organization
Industrial Organization
Industrial Organization
International Economics
International Economics
Industrial Organization
Industrial Organization
International Trade
Econometrics/Industrial Organization
Industrial Organization
Econometrics
Macro/Applied Econometrics
Econometrics
Industrial Organization
Econometrics/Industrial Organization
Assistant Prof. / East Carolina University
Senior Researcher/Housing Research Inst., Korea
Private Consulting, Minneapolis, MN
Forecast Division/ FEDEX Corporation
Economist, State of Alaska
Korea Energy Institute
Research Department/FEDEX
Korean Foreign Trade Association, Korea
Prof. of Economics, Kasetsart University, Thailand
Research Fellow/Melbourne Institute
Economist/State of New York
Tbilisi State University, Republic of Georgia
Assistant Prof./SUNY-Binghamton
Citibank, Dallas, TX
Assistant Prof./ Alfred University
Ministry of Finance and Economy - Korea
Assistant Prof./ University of North Dakota
Seoul Economic Research Center - Korea
Assistant Prof./ EERC – Kiev, Ukraine
1
Student names are suppressed for legal reasons.
Appendix 5
Liaison Letters
March 25, 2006
Carlos Martins-Filho, Chair
Department of Economics
303 Ballard Extension Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 96331-3612
Dear Carlos,
I understand that for quite some time now, all OSU graduate economics degrees
(irrespective of specialty) have been jointly administered by your departments of
Economics, Forest Resources, and Agricultural Resource Economics but that this
arrangement may be in the process of being discontinued. Having not been involved with
the deliberations that have led to the current situation, I cannot pass judgment on what
would be the optimal framework for administering graduate economics degrees at your
institution. I can, however, say that the UO Department of Economics has no objection
to “traditional” graduate economics degrees at OSU being administered solely by the
OSU Economics department and if such an arrangement arose from your current
situation, we would most certainly be fully supportive of that decision.
Best wishes in finding an arrangement that best serves OSU student and faculty interests!
Sincerely,
Van Kolpin
Professor of Economics
Department Head
University of Oregon
[email protected]
(541) 346-3011
Page 1 of 1
Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
From:
Schaffer, Kay
Sent:
Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:26 AM
To:
Randhawa, Sabah; Francis, Sally K.; Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
Cc:
Oriard, Michael
Subject: FW: OSU/UO Economics Programs
Sabah, Sally and Carlos – FYI - Kay
From: Joe Stone [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:28 PM
To: Schaffer, Kay
Cc: Van Kolpin; Priscilla Southwell
Subject: RE: OSU/UO Economics Programs
Kay,
I understand that your CLA Economics Department is developing a proposal for an independent graduate Ph.D.
program. I know that you have made some very fine appointments to that department. While I do not know the
specifics and relative merits for your college and the department, I can say that we have no objections to this
direction, and certainly trust your judgment of the economics initiative. If you do decide to move forward, we and
our department will want to offer our assistance as appropriate and will look forward to even stronger links and
ties.
Best wishes,
Joe Stone, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
University of Oregon
5/11/2006
Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary C. King [[email protected]]
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:24 PM
Martins-Filho, Carlos - ECONOMICS
OSU Phd Proposal
Dear Professor Martins-Filho,
Thank you for sharing with me the proposal to re-organize graduate
economics education at Oregon State University so the the Economics
Department will undertake sole responsibility for delivering the PhD,
MS and MA in Economics at OSU.
I know that I can speak on behalf of the Economics Faculty at
Portland State University when I say that we have full confidence in
the ability of the OSU Economics Faculty to mount an excellent
graduate program in Economics. We have no objection to this proposal.
Yours,
Mary C. King,
Professor and Chair
PSU Econ Dept.
************************************************
Mary C. King
Professor and Chair
Economics Department
Portland State University
P.O. Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
[email protected]
503-725-3940
fax: 503-725-3945
************************************************
1
Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rossi, Marion
Wednesday, May 31, 2006 6:45 PM
Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
Melton, Barbara
ECON---Abbreviated Category I Proposal
Good Day--Hope all goes well. The CLA Curriculum Committee today approved the Abbreviated Category I Proposal from
Economics for changes to its graduate programs.
Please be sure that the updated syllabi meeting current university requirements, as provided to me yesterday, are
included with the proposal as it goes forward in the system to the university (rather than the older syllabi sent with the
original hard copy). Two minor typographical errors were noted by the committee and should also be corrected before it
goes forward:
---p. 16---subpoint 'c' under point 'G'---"grnts" should grants
---p. 17---large paragraph under question '1'---2nd to last sentence---"other" should be others' (plural possessive)
Congratulations on what the committee found to be a very well-written, cogent, thorough proposal. Thank you and take
care.
Marion
Chair, CLA Curriculum Committee
1
Page 1 of 1
Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
From:
Walstad, John D.
Sent:
Monday, July 03, 2006 2:11 PM
To:
Beach, Gary L; Shellhammer, Gina
Cc:
Perry, Greg - AREC; Martins-Filho, Carlos - ECONOMICS; Francis, Sally K.; Dutson, Thayne;
Schaffer, Kay; Salwasser, Hal; Adams, Darius; Albers, Heidi; Johnson, K. Norman;
Montgomery, Claire; Rosenberger, Randall; Sessions, John; Boggess, Bill
Subject:
Comparisons between AREc/FR and Econ Proposals
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Confidential
Gary and Gina:
Thanks for your prompt action in beginning to process the two proposals dealing with graduate economics
programs here at OSU. We are working on an AREc/FR response to the initial questions and suggestions that
were raised in Gina's June 19 email message. We' ve also carefully reviewed the proposal put forth by the
Economics Department, as well as revisited the one prepared by us . Our assessment is that both proposals
are well conceived and presented, realizing that several details (e.g., funding, apparent duplication,
undergraduate impacts , etc. ) may warrant more elaboration or discussion. We will comment on such details
soon. Meanwhile, the attached document lists some positive features that we believe will help maximize
success for both proposals. Feel free to share these with members of the Curriculum Council, Graduate Council,
and others as appropriate. Perhaps some of them are worth including in the "executive summary" that will
accompany the proposals as they move forward through the process.
Jack Walstad
Head, Forest Resources Department
Greg Perry
Head, Agricultural and Resource Economics Department
9/26/2006
Greg Perry & Jack Walstad
June 21, 2006
Proposed Programs in Graduate Economics at OSU: Some Commonalities
1. The proposals were prompted by the divergence in educational objectives of graduate programs in
“Economics” and “Applied Economics.” This, in part, was driven by the need for more
specialization and more flexibility in the degree programs preparing students in these respective
areas. For a variety of reasons, the former UGFE program no longer adequately serves the students
across all the departments involved.
2. The emphasis of the proposal from the Economics Department (Econ) is on theoretical aspects.
The emphasis of the proposal from Agricultural and Resource Economics (AREc) and Forest
Resources (FR) is on applied aspects. However, there are elements of both theoretical and applied
aspects in both programs.
3. Both programs have been developed by professorial faculty in relevant departments and are
designed to maintain the integrity of their respective disciplines and curricula.
4. Both proposals advocate rigorous, high quality programs of graduate education in
economics/applied economics for their respective constituencies.
5. Both proposals are designed to prepare students for career paths in the profession of
economics/applied economics at both masters and PhD levels.
6. Both proposals state that they encourage inter-departmental collaboration among faculty and
students.
7. Administration of both programs is reasonably straightforward. In the case of Econ’s proposal,
the model used is similar to that used at other universities, especially those larger than ours. In the
case of the AREc/FR proposal, a multi-college consortium approach is used that is somewhat similar
to the former UGFE model that worked well until just recently.
8. There is apparent duplication of some coursework between the two proposals, including courses
with similar names, numbers, and subject matter. However, the content and focus of such courses
are quite different in order to support the respective emphases of the two programs.
9. The financial resources and faculty expertise needed to support both programs are mostly
available from existing, internal resources. Nonetheless, separate graduate education in economics
and applied economics will cost more to deliver than it has in the past. Also, there may be potential
impacts on undergraduate programs in some cases.
10. Both proposals support OSU’s mission and strategic plan.
1
Review Comments from the Departments of Agricultural and Resource Economics and
Forest Resources on the Revised
Category I – Abbreviated
Proposal for Graduate Degree Programs in Economics
July 18, 2006
Page 1, paragraph 2 – “Evolving professional standards in Economics and different learning and
curriculum objectives for these different degree programs have reduced the areas of
instructional intersection in core courses.” Can the Economics Department provide any
documentation regarding how professional standards have evolved or is this simply the opinion
of those who wrote the proposal? Providing references would help reviewers in weighing the
merits of the case presented. We suggest that those who drafted this proposal review the critique
of economics programs outlined in the 2005 Journal of Economic Perspectives article by David
Colander. His article suggests the economics profession is moving towards an educational
model like that used by the UGFE and away from the type of program described in this proposal.
The article is well worth reading for those who want to understand the debate regarding
mathematics and abstraction in economic graduate training versus empirical based training.
Page 5, middle “…the changes…allow for more efficient delivery of these programs.” It is not
clear how creating a second economics program at OSU that attempts to provide much the same
approach to graduate education as is used at the University of Oregon results in any efficiencies
in graduate education. The proposal needs to clarify this statement.
Page 5, bottom “All courses listed below are already offered by the Department of Economics.”
This statement no doubt speaks to the fact that all the core courses were listed as coursework in
Economics. An important point omitted here is that, in reality, most were cross-listed with
AREc. Further, several of these classes have been or are taught by AREc or FR faculty. In other
words, because Economics intends to take over instruction of these courses, they are proposing
to increase the amount of their Department’s resources used in graduate education.
Page 5, bottom of page – “Irrespective of degree objective (M.A., M.S. or Ph.D), first year
graduate students in Economics take a common set of courses in econometrics, macroeconomics,
microeconomics, and mathematical methods for economists.”
This decision represents a significant departure from the Economics Department’s recent
program, in which MS and MA students completed coursework in microeconomics and
macroeconomics designed to serve their educational needs. Our assessment is that the PhD
coursework in microeconomics and macroeconomics is inappropriate for MA and MS students
because it is too mathematical and abstract. In fact, even the PhD students benefit from the MS
level coursework. Evidence of this can be obtained from historical student performance.
A review of records for students who entered the PhD program in the Economics Department
from 2000-2004 reveals that 21 of the 24 PhD students (88%) completed MS level
microeconomics course AREc/Econ 512 before they took PhD-level microeconomic theory.
Two others left the program without taking these courses, one skipped 512 and took only 513. It
is apparent that the Economics Department felt at that time that these students needed this
material, otherwise they could simply have audited the classes before taking the 600-level
microeconomic sequence. The grades earned by these students provides further evidence that
they did indeed need 512 and 513. Eight students received an A in 512, 4 received an A-, 3
received a B+, 3 received a B, 2 received a B- and one received a C. In other words, more than
40% of these students did not have an A or A- grasp of this master’s level material in
microeconomic theory, even after taking the classes. Note also that the PhD students were
competing for grades in these classes with terminal MS students. Similar results occurred for
513. Top 20 PhD programs in Economics can operate “first year” programs like that proposed
by Economics because they attract top drawer students. It is clear from the present assessment
that most of the students entering the PhD program in Economics are not at this level of quality.
This assessment prompts us to raise several questions:
1. If the Economics department cannot attract PhD students who can skip over the MS level
coursework, how can they conclude that it will work for terminal MS students to go directly to
PhD coursework?
2. What measures are planned by the Department of Economics to attract top drawer students
who can handle jumping directly into the PhD coursework in microeconomics?
3. The textbook used in the UGFE microeconomics sequence at the PhD level is Mas-Colell,
Whinston and Green. Can the Economics Department provide examples of other graduate
programs that require terminal MS students to complete microeconomic theory at the Mas-Collel
level? To be clear, we are not asking about programs that give the MS degree as a “consolation
prize” to PhD students who couldn’t pass prelims, but programs that have the MS degree as the
final goal.
4. Over half of the PhD students admitted into the Economics Department from 1994-2004 left
without receiving their PhD degree from that department. Given the small size of the proposed
program (25 MS and PhD students), how many PhD students will need to graduate each year to
justify keeping the program operating as a stand alone program?
Page 7, PhD Program coursework
Students in Economics must take two fields from among the three offered. Yet two of the three
econometrics field classes (Econ 627 and 628) are also required as part of the core econometric
training. Econometrics is the only field that contains courses that all students must take. The
third course in the field (Econ 626) contains little econometrics. In other words, the
Econometrics field is set up and implemented quite differently than fields in Industrial
Organization and International Economics. A field by definition is an area of emphasis chosen
by students. Given that all students are required to complete the only two advanced
econometrics classes in the department, why call it a field?
This raises a related question. In our review of other Economics programs across the U.S., we
don’t know of any that require all students to complete more than a year of econometric
coursework. Given the unusual nature of the Economics Department’s own requirement, the
Department’s proposal should (a) provide examples of other departments that require this much
econometric training and (b) indicate why OSU’s Department of Economics wants to require this
much training. Does the Department expect to attract nationally known econometricians to join
the faculty? Is there a employment niche the Department seeks to fill nationally?
2
Page 8-9, MA, MS Program Requirements
Again, it is not clear why the higher level of mathematical abstraction and number of credit
hours is needed at the MS level. Have previous graduates or their employers provided feedback
that the previous training was not preparing students adequately for positions after graduation?
Page 10, Macroeconomics courses
The Econ 515 class in this proposal needs to be given a 600-level number. The Applied
Economics proposal refers to the Econ 515 class as an MS-level class taught at much the same
level and content as in previous years. The course syllabi provided by Economics for their
version of 515 and 615 refers to it as a “two term sequence” of classes. Clearly, these are two
classes taught at the same level, the second picking up where the first left off. If both are
designed as PhD courses (as we judge they are) they should both be numbered as 600-level
classes. This also solves a practical problem for reviewers, who currently are confused by
references in the two proposals to 515 classes that are in fact quite different.
Page 10, rationales for the MA/MS program
Improving technical competence and academic preparation are not the only criteria that should
be used to determine which courses are required. The proposal fails to address two other equally
important criteria. First, is PhD level coursework appropriate to prepare students seeking only
the MS degree? Second, will the students be able to survive courses with this level of
mathematical rigour? According to the data summarized in Appendix A of the vision statement
published by the Economics Department (January 2006), only about half of all students admitted
into the UGFE MS program in Economics from 1994-2004 completed the program. How can
making the program more mathematically rigorous and abstract do anything but further reduce
this percentage graduation rate?
Page 10, peer institutions
The choice of these three peer institutions (UC-Davis, Ohio State and Michigan State) is very
puzzling. In the January 2006 vision document, the comparators used were Washington State,
Iowa State, North Carolina State, UC-Berkeley, UC-Davis, and Wisconsin. In point of fact,
OSU’s program in Economics little resembles any of these programs with the possible exception
of the program at Washington State. Consider this summary table of key comparators between
the four Departments of Economics
Number of Faculty
Number of Graduate Students
Ratio Grad Students to Faculty
Number Undergraduate Majors
Ratio Undergrads to Faculty
Ranking in World (from study
by Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas &
Stengos)
Number of fields offered
Ohio State
UC-Davis
37
80
2.2
203
5.5
38
29
89
3.1
975
33.6
44
Michigan State Oregon
State
41
12.5
81
25
2.0
2.0
600
57
14.6
4.6
28
190
8
12
11
3
3
The Economics Department at WSU is actually the only reasonable comparator among the
programs listed. Until their recent merger with the Department of Agricultural Economics at
WSU, they had about 11 faculty, 30-35 graduate students, and about 75 undergraduate majors.
Kentucky and Kansas State are also Land Grant Universities who have Economics programs
with size and ranking similar to OSU.
Page 12, second paragraph
“We are a relatively small program…”
This is a true statement. In fact, of the 100+ Ph.D. granting programs across the U.S., we don’t
know of any program that is smaller than the proposed program in Economics. There is good
reason for this. Graduate programs in economics typically require more formal coursework than
is the case for graduate programs in other physical, biological, or social sciences. This
coursework consumes a great deal of faculty time. For a department to make this work
financially, they must have a large pool of undergraduate majors generating enough net revenue
from student credit hours to offset the financial losses from the graduate program. Alternatively,
a small graduate program can be financially viable if faculty are bringing in large amounts of
grant dollars to offset graduate student support and faculty salaries (as is the case in
Oceanography) or have hard funding from an agricultural experiment station (or its equivalent).
The Economics Department has a relatively small undergraduate student base and generates little
or no grant monies, so it seems likely that the program is not financially viable at present.
Washington State and Utah State are examples of two Land Grant universities where the
Economics programs became so small that they needed to merge with their Agricultural
Economics counterparts to remain viable. In the case of the Economics Department’s present
proposal, the move is away from cooperating and sharing of resources and toward a stand-alone
program. The question is whether the resulting program really is viable. In attempt to make this
case, we suggest answering the following questions:
1. Identify other programs that have 12 faculty or fewer and currently offer the PhD program in
Economics. How many graduate and undergraduate students are in these programs?
2. How much grant money do they generate?
3. How many fields do they offer?
4. Are these stand-alone programs or do they share coursework with (for example) agricultural
economics programs?
5. Are there enough similarities between the Economics Department’s proposal and actually
successful small programs to suggest that the proposed program is viable?
Page 12, D. Resources needed
The case made is that the Department of Economics will cover its additional graduate
coursework by reallocating resources within the Department. They note that they will drop the
Econ/AREc 513 course, which simply means shifting coverage of this class to AREc and FR.
More important, as was noted previously, the Economics Department is proposing to offer a
large number of graduate-level courses to a relatively small number of graduate students.
Combined with low numbers of undergraduate majors and little or no grant support, we believe
that the Economics Department cannot balance its books at present, let alone under their
4
proposal. We believe the Economics Department needs to explain their financial situation in
greater detail and justify their proposed move toward increased cost. Specifially,
1. Outline what the Department is currently spending per year compared to what the College of
Liberal Arts receives for student credit hours and undergraduate majors in the Department.
These data were calculated in 2004 for all colleges and departments, so should be readily
available.
2. Break these financial data down into lower division, upper division, and graduate-level
coursework.
3. If costs are significantly more than College revenues, explain what will be done to close this
gap.
Page 15, second paragraph
“Our graduates have been and will continue to be placed in private and public sector positions
in Oregon as well as other states and countries.”
A closer comparison of the Economics Department’s student placements is revealing. Virtually
all its MS-level graduates have been placed in the private sector or in government positions,
where they apply theory and econometric skills to real-world problems. At the PhD level, almost
two-thirds of all its graduates enter the private sector or work in government, where the emphasis
is on applied economics. Another 3 (16%) are employed at foreign universities and 4 (21%) are
employed at U.S. colleges. Of the latter four, one is employed in a small business department to
teach undergraduates and two others are employed in departments that offer only master’s-level
graduate education, with degrees in Applied Economics. In other words, the move toward more
theory and abstraction seems inappropriate for the kinds of students the Department attracts and
where they are placed.
If the Economics Department intends to raise its sights and aim to place its students into PhDgranting degree programs, the earlier question becomes relevent. How do they intend to attact
more top drawer students who will be able to compete for academic positions in these higher
ranked programs?
5
Page 1 of 1
Martins, Carlos - ECONOMICS
From:
Martins-Filho, Carlos - ECONOMICS
Sent:
Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:46 PM
To:
Shellhammer, Gina
Cc:
Beach, Gary L; Grosskopf, Shawna - ECONOMICS
Subject: Response to Comments
Gina – In an email dated July 18, 2006 the Applied Economics group (AREc and Forest Resources)
provided comments on the Abbreviated Category I proposal from the Department of Economics. The
document was entitled “Review Comments from the Departments of Agricultural and Resource
Economics and Forest Resources on the Revised Category I – Abbreviated Proposal for Graduate Degree
Programs in Economics.” We have responded to these comments. During today’s meeting with Gary
Beach, Bruce Rettig, and Hal Koenig I asked whether the group was interested in these responses. Gary
suggested (and all agreed) that I send them to you via email. The responses are attached as a PDF file.
Thanks, and I hope to see you soon.
Best,
Carlos
9/26/2006
Responses to Comments provided by AREc and Forest Resources on the
Abbreviated Category I proposal from the Department of Economics
Dated July 18, 2006
1. For evidence on evolving professional standards in graduate curricula in
microeconomics, macroeconomics and econometrics please refer to syllabi, textbook
contents and presentation in the mid and late 1980’s and compare to those of today. A
number of examples that illustrate these evolving standards can be given in each of these
core areas if needed.
We are aware of David Colander’s article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Professor Colander has not taught in a Ph.D. granting economics department for 25 years
and has argued for many years that economics graduate programs put too much emphasis
on mathematics and theory. Evidently, his impact on the profession has been at best
limited.
A comparison of course syllabi and the curriculum structure in our proposal to other
Ph.D. programs in Economics (see the documents provided by the Department of
Economics as part of phase I of UGFE redesign) provides ample evidence of the
adequacy of our proposed program.
2. We clarify that we are not “creating a second economics program at OSU” as claimed
by the commentators. The program has been in existence for 18 years, and of the 22
courses listed in our proposal only 2 involve any change or redesign. The new program
being created is the Ph.D. in Applied Economics. Regarding the issue of efficiency in the
delivery of these programs, please read the subsection Advantages of the proposed
programs over the current programs on pp. 10-11 of our proposal.
Regarding similarities between our graduate programs and those at the University of
Orgeon, we point out the following: (i) graduate core education in Economics throughout
the world is, and ought to be, quite similar. This results from a growing consensus in the
profession regarding what are the fundamental tools needed for professional economists;
(ii) regarding the fields of study, we offer training in Econometrics and Industrial
Organization that is quite different from what is offered at the University of Oregon.
Some overlap exists in International Trade, an area where we collaborate with AREc in
delivering field courses and student supervision.
3. The role and contribution of the Department of Economics in offering UGFE core
classes is amply documented. It is also clear in our proposal that the Department of
Economics will have no difficulty delivering the program we propose. See item b) on
p.13 of our proposal.
4. Students with adequate training in Mathematics, and who have taken intermediate
microeconomics theory at the undergraduate level are qualified to move into ECON 612
and ECON 613. Several of the students who came into our program during the 20052006 academic year have taken this path successfully. We have also successfully
1
implemented our new 515-615 macroeconomics theory sequence during the 2005-2006
academic year.
The commentators call our proposed structure of common first year courses for
M.S./M.A. and Ph.D. students “first year programs” and suggest that this is viable only in
Top 20 Ph.D. programs in Economics. We point out that such graduate structure is
widespread in Economics and not at all restricted to top 20 programs. It suffices to
examine the programs (none of which ranked in the top 20 in Economics) at UC-Davis,
Ohio State, Michigan State, and Washington State, to name a few.
5. We are unsure how to assess whether or not the number of graduating students in a
particular program is adequate to justify the existence of a particular graduate degree.
The numbers at OSU vary substantially for existing graduate programs. Here are a few
examples for number of Ph.D.s granted during the last 10 years (AY: 1994-1995 to
AY:2004-2005):
Agricultural and Resource Economics: 22
Economics (through the Department of Economics): 18
Economics (through the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics):0
Economics (through the Department of Forest Resources):1
Forest Engineering: 19
History of Science: 4
Rangeland Resources: 11
Soil Science: 15
Wood Science: 9
Source: Office of Institutional Research.
In addition, throughout the years the Department of Economics has emphasized quality
over quantity with regards to graduate student training. Higher attrition rates are a
natural consequence of a demanding program with high standards. We point out that
some of the students that have not been successful in completing our Ph.D. program have
gone on to complete Ph.D.s in Agricultural and Resource Economics.
6. The requirements to obtain a field in Econometrics go well beyond ECON 627 and
ECON 628 – the classes required of all students pursuing a Ph.D. in Economics. We
point out that we require additional classes in Econometrics because most of our Ph.D.
students have at least part of their dissertation dedicated to empirical work. A solid
education in Econometrics is therefore crucial for their research. We remind the
commentators that prior to 1998, when the Econometrics requirements in the UGFE were
changed, Ph.D. students in AREc, Economics and Forest Resources were required to take
these additional two classes in Econometrics, beyond the first year sequence. At that
time, AREc and Forest Resources opted out of second-year classes and the Department of
Economics opted to continue requiring additional training in Econometrics.
2
Although ECON 626 is not a traditional Econometrics course, the material covered in
that course is tightly connected to the nonparametric econometrics curricula in ECON
627. Together, they provide our students with cutting edge training in the econometrics
of efficiency and productivity measurement.
Lastly, we do not believe that additional coursework in Econometrics at the Ph.D. level is
sufficient to attract top notch econometricians to OSU, although we already have a good
group in house. However, if it helps in any way, we will certainly continue to have this
requirement in place.
7. We believe the training our M.S./M.A. students will be receiving in our proposed
program will serve them very well. We do not believe that our students will be
overqualified for the job market, but if they are, we believe it is to their advantage in a
rather demanding market.
8. The Macroeconomics sequence we are proposing is compatible with first year
graduate macroeconomics training that follows undergraduate exposure to
macroeconomic theory. Hence, if anything, we believe that ECON 615 ought to be
relabeled as a 500 level course. The Department of Economics may propose such a
change in the future. We agree that the two courses that are part of our macroeconomics
core form a sequence.
9. Our choice of peer institutions is consistent with that in Oregon State University’s
Strategic Plan. We aim to provide the best possible graduate education in Economics to
our students, and that is reflected in our proposal.
If the designers of the Applied Economics proposal believe it is adequate to model their
program after those at Cornell University, Northeastern University, Auburn University,
Clemson University, Mississippi State University, Texas Tech University, Western
Michigan University, etc. which are not included in OSU’s Strategic Plan, we respect
their choice.
10. An account of the resources needed to deliver our proposed program is given in our
proposal. We appreciate the concern the commentators have regarding the financial
soundness of our Department, but emphasize that we have been delivering essentially the
same program successfully for the last 18 years. If anything, we question the ability of
AREc and Forest Resources to deliver the program they propose, given that they have to
cut undergraduate courses, and teach a number of classes that previously were taught by
the Department of Economics.
11. Some statements provided by the commentators are incorrect. We provide
corrections below:
a) The number of undergraduate majors in Economics is 75.
b) The rankings provided for the Department of Economics do not reflect recent
productivity of the faculty. In fact, the data used by Kalaitzidakis et al. is eight
3
years old (1998), and more than half of the faculty in Ecoomics has been hired
after that year. Updated productivity data from the faculty in the Department of
Economics using the methodology of Kalaitzidakis et al. and how it compares to
the productivity of the faculty in AREc and FR is available upon request.
c) A substantial amount of the student credit hours generated by the Department of
Economics come from the Introduction to Microeconomics and Macroeconomics
courses that we teach in the baccalaureate core curriculum.
4
Appendix 6
Budget Table
(OUS and OSU)
Category I Proposal Budget Outline
Estimated Costs and Sources of Funds for the Proposed Program
Total new resources required to handle the increased workload, if any. If no new resources are required, the budgetary impact should be reported as zero.
See "Budget Outline Instructions" on the OUS Forms and Guidelines Web site: www.ous.edu/aca/aca-forms.html
Institution: Oregon State University
Category I Proposal Name: Reorganization of the Graduate Degree Programs in the Department of Economics
Academic Year: 2007-08
Operating Year: 1st
Completed by:
FTE
Barbra King
(indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year--prepare one page for each)
Column A
Column B
From Current Budgetary
Unit
Institutional
Reallocation from
Other Budgetary Unit
Dept
College
Column C
Column D
From Special State
From Federal Funds &
Appropriation Request Other Grants/Contracts
Column E
Column F
Column G
From Fees, Sales, &
Other Income
Endowment
LINE ITEM TOTAL
Personnel
Faculty (Include FTE)
Support Staff (Include FTE)
Graduate Assistants (Include FTE)
Fellowships/Scholarships
*OPE: Faculty
Staff
GTA/GRA
Nonrecurring
Personnel Subtotal:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Other Resources
Library/Printed
Library/Electronic
Supplies and Services
Equipment
Travel
Other Expenses
Other Resources Subtotal:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
Physical Facilities
Construction
Major Renovation
Other Expenses
Physical Facilities Subtotal:
$0
$0
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
$0
GRAND TOTALS:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percentage of Total
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
* See current OPE tables at http://oregonstate.edu/dept/budgets/budghand/tables.htm
Appendix 7
Library Evaluation
OSU Libraries
Collection Development
Library Evaluation for Category I Proposal
Restructuring of the graduate degree program in Economics
Title of Proposal
Economics
Department
College
The subject librarian responsible for collection development in the pertinent curricular
area has assessed whether the existing library collections and services can support the
proposal. Based on this review, the subject librarian concludes that present collections
and services are:
[ ] inadequate to support the proposal (see budget needs below)
[x] marginally adequate to support the proposal
[ ] adequate to support the proposal
Estimated funding needed to upgrade collections or services to support the proposal
(details are attached)
Year 1:
Ongoing (annual):
Comments and Recommendations:
Oregon State University Libraries economics collections suffer in comparison to those of
the peer institutions mentioned in the Category 1 proposal (Ohio State University,
University of California and Michigan State University). See attached report.
Date Received: 6/26/06
Date Completed: 7/26/06
Margaret Mellinger
Subject Librarian
Sign&e
Laurel Kristick
Head of Collection Development
Karyle Butcher
University Librarian
Date
d
7/27/06
Date
Date