EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
AT CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
March 2009
Prepared by
Tom Trulove, Chair, Department of Economics
Eastern Washington University
In preparing this report I studied the “Department of Economics Program Review Self
Study 2008-2009,” other documents collected, and information found on the Central
Washington University website. I also had the benefit of numerous discussions with the
department co-chairs, faculty, students, the Dean of the College of Business, the Associate Vice
President for Undergraduate Studies and the Provost during an onsite visit of one and a half days.
This external review is unusual in two ways. First, most institutions do them once every
ten years while CWU has instituted the requirement that they be done every five years. Second,
I was the reviewer for the last external review in March of 2004. My conclusion today is exactly
the same as it was five years ago: “…the CWU Economics Department is an exceptional small
department with a very strong and respectable program.” Most of my earlier report remains
valid and applicable.
Student Centered
The department continues to have an exceptionally strong commitment to their students.
Teaching is clearly their priority and they take pains to foster an active and student supportive
learning environment. Department co-chairs and faculty believe that the strongest aspect of their
department is the personal attention given to students. All faculty appear to have open door
policies for students and care is taken in the scheduling to insure that there will be a faculty
member available at all times to advise students. Department faculty have worked out and
implemented an exceptional advising and mentoring program. They are also involved with
career advice and help with placement to a higher degree than I have seen in most other
departments.
Their approach works. When I met with students and asked them what was the best thing
about the department, they replied without hesitation that it was the supportive faculty and the
quality of their educational experience in the Economics Department. The Department takes
pains to collect student comments in all courses as well as from seniors in assessing the overall
program. This effort is the most comprehensive I have seen and the first thing mentioned and
emphasized most strongly by nearly every student deals with the quality of student support and
courses. A large proportion of students complain of low quality courses outside the department
and contrast that with the highly favorable learning experience in economics.
The CWU Economics Department deserves to be commended. Students like their
professors and courses, feel they learn more than they have in other departments while generally
believing the courses rigorous and faculty expectations high. They appreciate the support
available from faculty. Many also praise the department Secretary and display the attitude of
belonging to an academic home. Maintaining this sort of environment is hard work, but the
2
resulting student loyalty, confidence and performance are the rewards for which the faculty are
justifiably proud.
The Faculty
Since my last visit there has been some change in the faculty. Senior members have
retired, although at least one is still a presence and engaged in the student centered and academic
work of the department. The department appears to have done an excellent job of hiring well
qualified new faculty members as replacements. In addition, the department has taken over
responsibility for teaching statistics for the College of Business. Consequently, their faculty has
grown from 7 in 2004 to 8 tenured and tenure-track and 2 contract faculty. It does not appear
that there has been much increase in the number of faculty devoted entirely to teaching
economics.
Once again I find that the department has a very strong faculty for a regional university.
They have found strong replacements for strong retiring members. All tenured and tenure-track
faculty have Ph.D. degrees in economics. All have impressive records in teaching, scholarship
and service. To a higher degree than in most regional universities this faculty demonstrates
dedication to the discipline through continuous professional activity. They publish regularly in
peer reviewed venues, publish books and participate in academic conferences. They are clearly
sought after for service activities in support of CWU. An unusually large number, it seems to
me, have received awards for excellence from CWU. It is hard to see how more could be
expected of them, especially given the high teaching load and focus on classroom activities.
Again the faculty seem a collegial bunch. Communication seems open and they appear
to think of themselves as a team. Without such collegiality the dual chair arrangement probably
would not work. Yet, it has survived and appears strong. None of the faculty I talked with had
any reservations about the arrangement and support seemed universal. There continues to be in
place arrangements for senior faculty to work with junior faculty so as to promote excellence in
the classroom, a productive research agenda and the department culture of student service. This
also serves to help junior faculty prepare successfully for the tenure decision. Collegiality is a
key ingredient to the department’s success.
The Department’s standards for promotion and tenure continue to be solid and in line
with those at other regional universities with high expectations. Weighting of teaching, scholarly
and service activities appear sound and reflect that the department is engaged in levels of effort
appropriate for the university setting. It is important to maintain this emphasis. At a number of
regional universities the administration has insisted that teaching occupy 80% or more of a
faculty member’s time, thereby ignoring the importance of continuing scholarly and professional
activity. These universities are in danger of becoming nothing more than glorified community
colleges. CWU needs to maintain its current approach, especially in light of CWU’s AACSB
accreditation asperations.
The department has done a good job of analyzing their efforts and accomplishments. The
various tables they created to show their academic accomplishments, student evaluations of
courses as compared with the College of Business and the university as a whole, curriculum, and
assessment information are all quite useful. They all show a very competitive department when
compared with others, both inside and outside CWU.
Teaching is closely monitored for all faculty with evaluation based on a variety of
information including student evaluations, classroom visitation and review of teaching
3
approaches and materials. Standards are high and demanding. However, I am most impressed
by the expectations found in the department’s self-review and in conversation with the co-chairs.
They expect faculty members to share their backgrounds, both educational and professional, as
well as their research experience with students. Availability to students is expected and
maintained. Faculty are expected to integrate their research findings into their lectures. They are
expected to bring contemporary economic problems and issues into the classroom, integrate the
use of computers and the latest technology in their teaching and use case studies and other
techniques to make the subject more immediate and relevant to students. Faculty are encouraged
to direct students with research projects, include students in their work and otherwise establish
arrangements for independent or individualized study. This is all the more impressive since
many departments simply give lip service to teaching and base their personnel decisions on
something else. The CWU department appears to take their teaching and student support
seriously.
Requirements for scholarship are rigorous and applied throughout the ranks. The
department is probably one of the most productive in the College of Business and contributes
much to the college’s quest for AACSB accreditation by having faculty designated as
“academically qualified” and “academically proficient.” The department takes scholarship
seriously and does particularly well in the area despite the university’s rather remote location and
the challenges associated with regional universities in general. The number of refereed articles
in professional journals, books and nationally acclaimed textbooks demonstrate the strength of
this faculty.
Economics Department faculty are clearly active in service to the department, college and
university. They are good campus citizens and from time to time some have been asked to
engage in service to the wider local community. Given the quality of the faculty and their
individual expertise, it is a shame that they have not been asked or that they have not chosen to
participate in public service at the state or regional level to a greater extent. Service on various
boards and commissions, both public and private, would be highly valuable to citizens and
organizations in this state as well as providing experiences that could be used for classroom
enrichment . It is understandable, however, that with the need to excel in research and
publication activities for the AACSB accreditation quest, little time remains for off-campus
service.
The Program
There have been a couple of changes in the department and program since I last reviewed
it. The department offers an undergraduate degree in economics with specializations in
(1) General Economics, (2) Managerial Economics and (3) Economic and Business Forecasting,
with the track in Economic and Business Forecasting being new. In addition they offer two
minors, one for students in the College of Business and the other for students from other colleges
on campus. Another new development since my last review is that responsibility for teaching all
statistics courses in the College of Business has been assigned to the economics department.
The General Economics track is for students who seek more demanding analytical careers
or intend to apply for graduate programs in economics. The Managerial Track is designed for
students looking for more general employment opportunities or those interested in graduate study
in some professional program, about two-thirds of the majors. The Economic and Business
Forecasting track is designed for students who want a career where a strong understanding of
4
statistics can be applied to business and economics research and decision making. Each of these
tracks has a comprehensive set of program goals and learning objectives which are clearly stated
and have been arranged into an assessment matrix so that the department can track its progress in
meeting the goals and objectives.
The General Economics and Managerial Economics tracks have been a successful part of
the program for some time. They parallel the usual tracks at in other good economics programs
and have proven their worth in helping students prepare for career paths in the field. The
Economic and Business Forecasting track is too new to evaluate. It appears to be a promising
program with some merit, but it is not entirely clear to me how it is fundamentally different from
what students could achieve before through the regular curriculum augmented with some
individualized instruction. It does appear to take advantage of the new department
responsibilities in statistics.
The reason given for developing this track was a little puzzling to me. The argument
seemed to be that the AACSB accrediting team said that the economics department was not
integrated closely enough into the College of Business, so the Forecasting track was developed
to overcome that criticism. This seems strange in light of the fact that many universities with
accredited business schools exist where economics departments, which teach all the economics
courses, are in colleges other than business (usually liberal arts or social sciences colleges). My
own department is an example as is the one at University of Oregon. These departments are not
in any way formally integrated with their campus business colleges, yet they seem to perform
their task adequately to maintain accreditation and without criticism from the accrediting body. I
was unaware that integration of the economics department into a business college was a
threshold issue for accreditation.
This issue of integration raises another concern for me. Economics departments,
including the one at CWU, are usually very active in the university’s general education program
with courses used for meeting the university’s breadth requirements a major part of their duties.
They also teach a full complement of courses supporting other majors, including those in the
business school. These courses which interact with the rest of the campus serve as important
tools for recruiting majors. Economics is not just about business. In fact, economics is just as
relevant to government decision making, management of natural resources, social work, and
engineering to name but a few areas. Economics is required to some extent by many programs
outside the College of Business (17 by a cursory count), within the College (10) and as an
elective or suggested course (3). It is important that the Department of Economics not become
so exclusively oriented to the College of Business that it loses its wider role and support in the
university community.
In addition, the Department of Economics participates in College of Business degree
programs at the Sea-Tac and Lynnwood Centers as well as offering some courses via distance
education to Yakima, Moses Lake and Wenatchee. This has to be quite a burden with such a
small faculty and where travel to the off-campus sites is difficult and not always possible. The
department uses two-way video with a combination of live instruction to make these efforts
possible. It appears that in order to accommodate the program at least one faculty member lives
in the Seattle area for part or half of the year.
While such off-campus and distance programs are becoming essential for the financial
health and future role of our regional universities, they do present special challenges.
Community colleges are eager to replace us in their communities, especially if we are not there
or close to their populations. Resources need to be made available to hire faculty, both regular
5
and adjunct, as well as to supervise and monitor the quality of instruction. We compete only by
giving face-to-face courses and not with internet offerings. It seems to me that the CWU
department is being asked to undertake this mission with inadequate resources. Addressing this
resource issue during the current economic crisis may be very difficult, but once recovery is
underway it is an issue that will need attention. Academically strong support by the Department
of Economics for the off-campus business degree offerings must be facilitated for a successful
accreditation decision.
The Curriculum
The department offers a sound curriculum that is in the mainstream for small good
departments. They have adjusted to provide more emphasis in quantitative areas and with more
quantitative courses as the discipline and its employment requirements have changed. The
majors are exposed to rigorous courses with high expectations. The introductory courses are
designed to develop a reasonable degree of economic literacy. All emphasize critical thinking
skills and communication ability. Most of what I said in my 2004 report is just as applicable
today as it was then. All of the department’s curriculum appears to be strategically related to the
goals and learning objectives of their various program components as well as consistent with
curricular expectations of major national bodies suggesting such standards.
This is a small department and limited staffing appears to affect the upper-division
courses that can be offered and the frequency of offering. In addition there appears to be a
relatively large number of required courses as compared with electives. Students in any of the
tracks have a somewhat constrained set of choices, and, given that some of the required courses
are offered only once a year, advising has to be very early in the major’s career and perfect or a
student will need more than four years to graduate. In fact, the most frequent student complaint I
heard or read about the department was concerning scheduling. Students felt some stress about
getting courses in the right sequence and early enough so they could graduate on time. They
frequently called for more sections of required courses throughout the year.
The curriculum and its various courses seem to match well the training and interests of
the faculty. Faculty recruiting has obviously been guided by the requirements to teach important
and required fields. Yet, given the small faculty, there are some courses that have not been
taught in several years, especially courses that might be of interest to students outside the
College of Business or to economics majors interested in non-business careers. This probably is
not an issue that can be remedied without more faculty justified by more students.
There are other aspects of the curriculum that merit comment. Globalization is here and a
fact of life in the future. The department’s initiative to internationalize their introductory courses
and require a strong international component in their major tracks is far sighted and
commendable. Surprisingly few departments have done this or have gone so far. In addition,
their focus on integrating computers and relevant technology into the student experience is very
useful and appropriate. This will produce graduates who are better prepared with relevant
understanding and skills.
Assessment
Demands for formal assessment of all aspects of instruction and programs have increased
dramatically over the past few years. An entire assessment bureaucracy has grown up and its
6
time consuming demands often seem to threaten the ability to actually carry out programs and
educate students. Obviously, good professors assess student learning in their courses by giving
examinations, providing homework exercises and assigning papers. They make adjustments in
their courses based on the results of these activities as well as trying new approaches and
materials in future sections. Given the exceptionally high regard with which the CWU faculty
are held by their students, both past and present, they obviously are constantly assessing and
adjusting.
Are they meeting their course learning objectives? Certainly, but the assessment
bureaucracy wants formal reports couched in the arcane language of the educational
establishment. Designing formal assessment elements in courses and producing the reports takes
time away from actual teaching and should be held to a minimum. However, sometimes outside
accrediting agencies or state boards demand such reports so they must be produced. There is less
excuse for such demands from on-campus sources. Administration should recognize that the
departmental and college process of evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion adequately
insure rigorous assessment of course content, learning objectives and quality instruction.
This is not always the case for overall program assessment. In my 2004 report I was
somewhat critical of the department’s approach for assessing the results of their program. The
method did not seem capable of determining the level to which goals and learning objectives
were being achieved by graduating majors. The department apparently took these comments
seriously and has made extensive revisions to their program assessment methodology.
They appear to have strengthened even further one process that I found very impressive
before. To an unusual degree they conduct exit surveys of graduating seniors, have an end-ofprogram review questionnaire, identify alumnae and persuade them to write evaluations, solicit
student letters and e-mails evaluating aspects of the program and keep logs of student comments
concerning each course and professor. The volume of lengthy and thoughtful comments about
the overall program and student experience impress me even more this time and would be the
envy of most departments. The department also takes these comments seriously and quite
obviously uses them when discussing program improvements. While this type of program
assessment cannot easily be displayed as charts and graphs, it is nonetheless high quality
assessment.
Few departments make such an effort to learn from their graduates. This department
administers a fairly comprehensive survey instrument where they ask alumni to rate various
aspects of the program from the perspective of how well the department prepared them for their
careers. They focus on competencies such as critical thinking, communications, quantitative
reasoning, and general economic literacy. In addition the department seeks specific suggestions
on how graduates think the program can be improved as well as getting feedback on what the
graduates appreciated most about it. The department takes this information seriously.
Perhaps the biggest change in program assessment is the development of a new capstone
sort of course called “Economic Assessment” which is offered twice a year and provides students
nearing graduation with a serious review of essential theoretical concepts as well as various endof-major assessment activities. Students also receive career orientation and are required to
prepare a resume and write a paper on some contemporary economic issue which can become
part of their job application packet.
One of the most significant parts of this new program assessment approach is the
replacement of the department’s old internally developed assessment exam, which I criticized
before, with the Economics Major Field Exam developed by the Educational Testing Service and
7
which is used nationwide by most of the better universities. While its adoption is too recent to
have produced any comprehensive view, it will provide complete data concerning the
performance of CWU economics majors relative to students at a large number of other
universities in the United States and abroad. CWU students and the department must now be
competitive beyond just the CWU campus. This is a very high standard and one which is quite
objective in its application. Results will not only drive the department to constantly enhance
performance, but also will potentially be very useful with accrediting agencies. It takes courage
and some degree of self-confidence to embark on this path and I admire the department for doing
so.
I view the assessment activities of the CWU Economics Department very favorably.
They have greatly strengthened their assessment over the past five years. Doing a proper job of
assessment is necessary and important from the standpoint of accreditation and satisfying bodies
such as the HEC Board. That said, my worry is that perhaps too much attention is being focused
on assessment by outside agencies and the administration. Learning objectives for each course
should depend largely on the professor and any assessment method should be able to
accommodate the fact that any two professors will likely teach the same course differently and
with different emphasis. Assessment should not lead to standardization. In addition, the 5 year
program review cycle seems excessive to me, especially when most other departments and
universities in the state are on a 10 year cycle. I fail to see or how the benefits of this attenuated
cycle equal or exceed the costs to the department and university. Returning to a less frequent
assessment scheme might be an area of budget savings as we enter the financial crisis of the next
biennium here in Washington.
The Future
Given the tight scheduling requirements for students, it would be useful if the department
could find a way to offer some of the required courses for the major more frequently. There are
also concerns about staffing courses in the centers in Western Washington as well as some of the
distance classes. The new track in Economic and Business Forecasting also has staffing
implications. While I cannot speak to the staffing needs of the new statistics department
responsibilities, it seems to me that the economics portion of the department continues to be
understaffed. It is difficult at best to find adjunct or special faculty in Ellensburg. This is a hard
working, but small department and I cannot see how they can adequately carry out the offcampus and distance expectations of the university and increase the frequency of some oncampus course offerings without additional faculty. Their small size makes granting faculty
leaves all the more awkward. All of this could have negative implications for a positive AACSB
accreditation decision.
New faculty hires have generally been to replace retiring faculty. The current job market
is producing salaries for junior economists that rival those being paid to their more senior
counterparts previously hired at CWU and other Washington universities. While even the entry
level salaries offered by CWU are below the national market average, higher salaries are
required in Ellensburg due to location and lack of spousal employment opportunities. Attention
needs to be paid to the issue of salary compression. Easily and more quickly that is thought,
such compression downgrades the value of experience and gives a negative message to senior
faculty. Moreover, the record of scholarship and teaching of the CWU economics faculty is
outstanding through all faculty ranks and, I suspect, one of the strongest performances in the
8
College of Business. This comes, in turn, from a highly motivated faculty who spend many extra
hours and much effort in their work. Breaking their morale through salary inequities could
create a major setback to the accreditation effort.
Conclusion
Simply put, this is one of the best small departments I have seen. It is one of the best
economics departments at similar sized comprehensive universities, based on observations made
during our benchmarking efforts at my own university. In my earlier report I said that it set
standards of excellence that others should try to achieve. That remains true and I like the
department even better five years later. There may be a tradition of outside reviewers being
highly critical and finding departmental flaws. I cannot find much about which to complain.
Given the department’s budget, location, mission and the constraints it faces, they are doing an
excellent and admirable job, one which enhances the academic reputation of the College of
Business and CWU.
The faculty have an outstanding level of professional accomplishment and publication
over the past five years. Few, if any, economics faculty at a regional university can boast a
similar record. Central’s graduates are well respected and appear to find job placement soon
after graduation in quite interesting and responsible positions. A few go on to graduate study in
respectable programs and universities. All receive close career and graduate study advice,
support and often direct intervention from department faculty mentors. This is also one of the
most collegial departments I have seen. They appear to support each other and have a strong
commitment to service. Due to their thoughtful choices and assessment of their program, they
are able to maintain a high quality and professionally respectable program within some pretty
severe staffing constraints.
The Department of Economics has to be one of the strongest departments in the College
of Business. Given their solid curriculum, their standards of teaching excellence, their level of
student support and their outstanding publication record, they clearly are one of the most
significant contributors to the AACSB accreditation effort. Their program and standards meet or
exceed expectations about economics departments established by professional organizations such
as the American Economic Association’s Committee on Economic Education, the National
Council on Economic Education and the National Association for Business Economists. This
department is one of the strongest for CWU to put forward in any accreditation exercise.
What I see is a department that has improved over the last five years and one which has
established a culture of excellence. It is one that has recognized the constraints it faces and has
made thoughtful choices in order to maintain the quality of its program and graduates. It is a
department with the courage and confidence to compare itself against national norms. It is a
department committed to constant improvement informed by a multi-faceted assessment
program. It is a unit working at or above capacity and without much margin for cuts in resources
or additional assignments. Most of all, it is a department of which the College of Business and
CWU should be very proud.