University of Oregon Department of Economics
SELF STUDY – March 2006
I.
DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION
A. Degree Offerings and Accreditation
B. Administrative Structure
C. Comparator Programs
D. Role within the University
E. Funding and Budget
F. Infrastructure
pages 2-5
II. CURRICULAR PROGRAMS
A. Undergraduate Programs
pages 5-13
1.0 Description and Rationale for the Curriculum
2.0 Student Characteristics
3.0 Academic and Support Staffing
4.0 Assessment and Reflection
B. Graduate Programs
pages 13-24
1.0 Description and Rationale for the Curriculum
2.0 Student characteristics
3.0 Academic and Support Staffing
4.0 Assessment and Reflection
III. FACULTY
A. Numbers and Status
pages 24-26
1.0 Size and Composition
2.0 Recruitment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion
3.0 Diversity
B. Research and Scholarly Work
pages 26-30
1.0 Current Research:
2.0 Interdisciplinary Projects or Programs
3.0 Funding
4.0 Transfer of Knowledge
C. Teaching
page 30
1.0 Teaching Load and Distribution
2.0 Teaching Support
D. Service
pages 30-32
1.0 Community Service
2.0 Continuing or Executive/Professional Education
3.0 Consulting
E. Assessment and Evaluation
pages 32-34
1.0 Evaluation Criteria
2.0 Assessment
3.0 Faculty Development
4.0 Adequacy of Staffing and Resources
IV. SUMMARY
pages 35-36
1
I. DESCRIPTION AND ORGANIZATION
A. Degree Offerings. Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, Master of Arts, Master of Science,
Doctor of Philosophy.
B. Administrative Structure. Locate the unit within the structures of the University (e.g., English,
Humanities, College of Arts and Sciences). Describe any important formal and informal relationships
the unit has with other departments, institutes, centers, or other units within the university. Briefly
describe the administrative structure(s) of the unit. Summarize the structure and function of major
committees. Describe and explain any significant changes in these structures or relationships which
have occurred over the last five years. Describe any planned or desired changes in these structures or
relationships.
Economics is a department within the Social Sciences division of the College of Arts and
Sciences.
In regards to relationships with other academic units of the University, various members of
the Economics Department serve on the faculties of Environmental Studies, International
Studies, and the Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences. Economics courses are
required for undergraduate degrees in the Lundquist College of Business and the School of
Journalism and Communication. Graduate-level economics courses are also required for
some graduate degrees in Business. Economics faculty have collaborated with faculty from a
variety of programs on campus including Education, Political Science, Psychology, PPPM
(Planning, Public Policy and Management), and Sociology. Similarly, our faculty have
served as advisors on undergraduate and graduate research projects for many UO programs,
especially those in the College of Arts and Sciences and the Lundquist School of Business.
We have taught courses and/or conducted research in such interdisciplinary areas as political
economy, resource and environmental economics, transportation economics, agricultural
economics, health economics, and education.
The chief administrative officer of Economics is the Department Head, who is nominated by
the Department and appointed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Duration of
this appointment is three years. The Department Head works closely with the Associate
Head, the Directors of Undergraduate Studies, Master’s Studies, and Ph.D. Studies, as well as
a variety of department committees. All administrative and committee assignments are made
annually by the Department Head with the exception of the Salary Review Committee, which
is elected annually.
Associate Head: Assists Department Head in departmental administration, with chief
responsibility being course scheduling, teaching assignments, GTF assignments and
workloads, catalog copy, and preparation and updating of various program statements.
Assists Department Head and Ph.D. Director in GTF appointments/reappointments.
Director of Undergraduate Studies: Head adviser to majors and minors and chair of the
Undergraduate Program Committee. Organizes economics undergraduate peer advising
program and works with the department’s Undergraduate Secretary in maintaining files for
economics undergraduate majors and minors.
2
Director of Master’s Studies: Head adviser to Master’s students and chair of the Master’s
Program Committee. Works with Graduate Secretary in monitoring student progress.
Director of Ph.D. Studies: Head adviser to Ph.D. students and chair of both the Ph.D.
Program Committee and Graduate Admissions and Awards Committee. Organizes recruiting
efforts for new graduate students. Works with the Graduate Secretary in monitoring student
progress. Advises head and associate head on GTF appointments and reappointments.
Graduate Admissions and Awards Committee: Reviews files of applicants to the Master’s
and Ph.D. programs. Assists committee chair in selecting and recruiting new graduate
students and in administering graduate fellowships and awards.
Personnel Committee: Assists and advises the Department Head in the evaluation of
nontenured faculty and in the preparation of promotion and tenure cases.
Salary Review Committee: Assists and advises the Department Head in preparing
recommendations for salary increases and in administering departmental teaching load policy.
Also conducts 6th year post-tenure reviews.
Other administrative assignments include Graduate Placement Director, GTF Instructional
Adviser, Library Coordinator, Working Paper Coordinator, Environmental Studies
Representative, and Charitable Fund Drive Coordinator. Other standing committees include
Undergraduate Program Committee, Master’s Program Committee, Ph.D. Program
Committee, Core Exam Committee, the Seminar Committee, the Computing Committee, and
Committee on Outside Funding (COOF).
C. Comparator Programs. For the undergraduate program, identify similar programs that are
offered at other colleges and universities in the state or region. For the graduate program and faculty
identify those programs, nationally or internationally, that are perceived to be the units’ peers. In
each case, describe how the unit is similar to and/or different from these programs? Describe what
specifically makes any of these elements (undergraduate, graduate, faculty) distinctive or unique
relative to these comparators.
There are a variety of different undergraduate economics programs in the region (Pacific
Northwest) as well as within the state. With the exception of our closest comparator in the
region, the University of Washington (UW), these programs are significantly smaller in scale
and breadth of offerings. UW has a significantly larger program than ours (both in terms of
total teaching staff and in terms of tenure-track faculty), but they also rely much more heavily
on nontenure track staff (roughly one third of their teaching staff are nontenure track
instructors). Another distinguishing feature between our undergraduate program and that of
UW is the amount of mathematical and statistical training required. Our students must take
two courses in calculus, one in statistics, and two in econometrics. The UW BA requires one
course in calculus, one in statistics, and none in econometrics. Requirements more
comparable to ours are a part of their BS degree.
Our closest peers and competitors for graduate students include UW as well as UC Davis, UC
Santa Barbara, and University of Colorado. All four of these programs have roughly 50%
more tenure track faculty members than does our department. Their Ph.D. programs are
3
similar in structure to our own. Aside from a modest variation in the field specialties offered,
the main difference between the programs is in the macroeconomics requirement. Ph.D.
programs at the UO, UW, and University of Colorado all require a full year sequence in
macroeconomics, whereas both UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara require only two quarters of
macroeconomics. Differences between the various Master’s programs are somewhat more
substantial. Whereas the UO offers a dedicated Master’s theory sequence and a
Master’s/Ph.D. combined econometric sequence, both UW and UC Davis offer combined
sequences in both, UC Santa Barbara does not make use of Master’s/Ph.D. combined courses
for either theory or econometrics, and Colorado is not currently admitting Master’s students.
D. Role within the University
Units have a variety of roles and responsibilities within the university, and may contribute to the
mission and strategic priorities of the university more directly in some areas than in others (e.g.,
undergraduate education or graduate education; basic or applied research; enriching the lives of
Oregonians; international awareness, etc.). What are the unit’s perceptions of the University’s
strategic priorities; and how does the unit contribute to fulfilling those priorities? Identify specific
ways in which the unit contributes to the mission of the UO. In both cases, focus on those things the
unit does particularly well, or that you believe are relatively unique or distinctive.
The Economics Department makes substantial contributions to every dimension of the
University’s mission. As detailed in the various sections below, the Department has an
excellent undergraduate program that services an ever-increasing number of students. Despite
the pressures of growth, we put substantial effort into enriching our student’s educational
experiences. We also have excellent graduate programs. We have consciously tried to keep
graduate enrollments stable, rather than to grow in proportion to our undergraduate program.
All of our faculty are actively engaged in research programs – both theoretical and applied.
Although the size of our faculty is small, many of our productivity statistics compare
favorably to “top-twenty” programs. Our Oregon Economic Forum Initiative has served to
educate the public about economic issues and analysis while simultaneously providing the
public with the foundation for a reasoned assessment of issues involving globalization, health
care, local development and taxation, and more. Specific details regarding our academic
programs, research activity, and community service are described in appropriate sections
throughout this document. Perhaps the most distinctive quality of our department is its
collective ambition to strive for excellence in all areas, while remaining mindful of the
broader objectives of the College and University. Our ability to function well as a team, even
in the most challenging of circumstances, has been an important factor in our success.
E. Funding and Budget
Using the data provided, briefly summarize the unit’s budget including sources of funds, expenditures
relative to student credit hours and faculty FTE, and grant and contract funding. Comment on recent
trends in these figures.
Our primary sources of funds include general fund income (including all salaries), summer
session profits, grant/contract funding, endowment returns, and expendable gifts. General
fund income is by far the largest of these income sources. Economics has consistently been
one of the “best values” on campus in terms of expenditures per student FTE. Indeed, the
University-provided financial statistics show that compared to Economics, expenditure per
student FTE are 24% higher on average in the social sciences division, 48% higher on average
in the College of Arts and Science and 59% higher on average in the University in general.
4
F. Infrastructure
Describe and comment on the facilities dedicated to the unit, the types and amounts of technical
support, and the types and amount of administrative support. Describe any significant changes in
these over the last five years. Describe any planned or desired changes in these elements. What are
the most pressing needs?
Our departmental facilities and resources are substandard when compared to our comparators
(though less so when compared to other departments on this campus). Our offices are small
and have no reliable means of temperature regulation. The raw number of offices is barely
sufficient to house faculty and graduate student instructors, with none to spare for such
purposes as accommodating visiting scholars. We have no dedicated classrooms for
undergraduate courses. Our two graduate classrooms are frequently inadequate to service our
graduate classes or accommodate the audiences of our most popular guest speakers. Our
Undergraduate Resource Center (URC) provides both a small computer lab and an area for
study-group meetings, research, and consultation with peer advisers. The computer lab
contains five computers and two printers (one computer and one printer are in peer advising
section of the URC) that are networked to university computing facilities. We also have a
graduate student computer lab (TERF), which contains eight computers and one printer that
are networked to university computing facilities. Support for hardware and software
purchases for our undergraduate and graduate labs has historically been strong, but changes in
the manner in which UO educational technology funds are allocated causes serious concern
for the future. Indeed, regular renewal of equipment and software in these labs is absolutely
essential for our academic programs. We have a loyal and highly valued staff, but program
growth, increasing grant activity, and the ever-expanding list of rules and regulations have
served to push us up to (or even past) our office staff’s capacity.
II. CURRICULAR PROGRAMS
A. Undergraduate Programs
1.0 Description and Rationale for the Curriculum
1.1 Degree Programs and Options for Majors: Describe the bachelor’s degree program options
including the total number of required credits and credit distribution among any options. If more
than one option or specialization track is available, list each option or track and their curricula
separately (use attached Appendix format). Briefly explain the rationale for the structure of the
major requirements, including any prerequisites or proficiency requirements. Indicate the
scheduled frequency at which courses within the curriculum are offered. What is the typical size
of classes within each segment of the curriculum? Describe any opportunities for independent
study, research, honors programs, international experiences, and/or participatory learning
experiences that exist within the major curriculum.
The coursework requirements for a Bachelor’s degree in Economics have six components.
(Grades of C- or better must be earned on all major requirements. See Appendix A.1 for
further details on our undergraduate degrees. It is worth noting that we also have a
population of undergraduate minors whose numbers are rapidly approaching 200. Details
of our economics minor requirements can also be found in Appendix A.1.)
5
1. Introduction to Economic Analysis: Microeconomics (EC 201) and Introduction to
Economic Analysis: Macroeconomics (EC 202). Offered each quarter and summer. Class
sizes range from 20-350 students. Also offered online. Students are strongly
recommended to take college algebra before enrolling in these courses.
2. Calculus for Business and Social Science I,II (MATH 241, 242) or Calculus I,II (MATH
251, 252). Offered by the Mathematics Department each quarter and summer.
Enrollments - 30 to 120 students. We consider differential and integral calculus training
to be a key component of our student’s education.
3. Introduction to Methods of Probability and Statistics (MATH 243) or Econometrics
(EC 423). Statistical analysis is a fundamental tool in applied economic analysis. MATH
243 is offered each quarter/summer, with enrollments around 100 students. EC 423 is a
much more advanced statistics course and constitutes the first quarter in our graduate
econometrics sequence. It is offered only in Fall and enrollments average around 30.
4. Intermediate Microeconomic Theory (EC 311) and Intermediate Macroeconomic
Theory (EC 313) or Advanced Microeconomic Theory (EC 411) and Advanced
Macroeconomic Theory (EC 413). These courses provide the theoretical foundations for
all of our 400 level field course offerings. EC 311 and EC 313 are offered each
quarter/summer with enrollments ranging for 40-100 students. EC 411 (EC 413) is a
Master’s level counterpart to EC311 (EC 313) and is offered only during Fall (Winter).
Enrollments in EC 411 and EC 413 are generally less than 30 students.
5. Introduction to Econometrics (EC 420, 421) or Econometrics (EC 423, 424 – with
EC425 being strongly recommended). Our requirement of a two-course econometrics
sequence is somewhat unique amongst undergraduate economics programs, and we feel it
is a valuable part of our students’ professional training. EC 420 and 421 are offered every
quarter. EC 423 and EC 424, the first two quarters of our graduate econometric sequence,
are offered only during Fall and Winter respectively. Those pursuing this option are often
math majors and considering graduate work in economics. Average enrollments in our
econometrics offerings are around 45 students.
6. Additional 7 economics courses (28 credits) numbered 300 or above, at least 5 of which
(20 credits) are numbered 400 or above. Requirements listed above represent the
foundational tools and/or theory for carrying out economic analysis. This final
requirement ensures that students receive in-depth training in a variety of economic fields.
A menu of 300- level courses (where introductory economic theory is a prerequisite) and
400- level courses (where intermediate economic theory is a prerequisite) are offered each
quarter and summer. Most of these are offered at least once per year and enrollments
generally range from 15 to 100 students.
Students are encouraged to choose one or more professional concentrations that are
consistent with their career goals. We offer concentrations in Business EconomicsBanking and Finance; Business Economics-Management, Marketing, and Accounting;
Economics and Public Policy and Administration; Environmental Economics; Graduate
Preparation in Economics and Mathematical Economics; International and Development
6
Economics; and Law and Economics and Political Economy.
Majors can receive up to 4 upper-division credits for an approved internship. Students are
typically required to do 3 hours of work per week for a 10-week term for each academic
credit received. Internships are intended to provide training, supervision, and experiences
that extend beyond the specific work experience. Examples of recent internships by UO
economics majors include: Business Analyst, Boeing Corporation, Seattle, WA; Intern,
Merrill Lynch, Portland, OR; Marketing Technician, Fundacion Jatun Sacha, Quito,
Ecuador; Suite and Preferred Services Intern, Portland Trailblazers, Portland, OR; and
Sales Representative, Brasher's Auto Auctions, Eugene, OR.
Study abroad experiences give students the opportunity to learn more about other cultures,
acquire/improve language skills, and enhance academic training. Students can choose
from over 80 programs across 50 countries and programs range from 3 months to one year
in length. Recent UO economics majors have studied abroad at such locations as: Siena,
Italy; Quito, Ecuador; Beijing, China; Budapest, Hungary; and Guadalajara, Mexico.
Students may apply to graduate with honors in economics if they complete their upperdivision economics coursework with a 3.5 GPA or higher and complete a research paper,
written under the guidance of a faculty member, for 4 credits in Research (EC 401).
A participatory learning experience that is also designed to lead to an honors paper is the
Economic Analysis of Community Issues sequence, EC 418 and EC 419. The purpose of
the course is to give hands-on experience at economic research. Students work with
interested community groups or government agencies to define a question of interest, with
the final project being a 30 page (approx.) research paper and a 30-minute powerpoint
presentation to the local non-profit or governmental organization in question. This has
been an enormously successful program, both from the perspectives of the students, as
well as the participating nonprofit and government agencies. A few recent projects
include: “The Impact of the Living Wage on Disposable Income,” “Effects of Medicaid
Expansions on Health Insurance Coverage: The Case of the Oregon Health Plan,”
“Willingness to Pay for Recycling in Eugene, Oregon,” and “Classroom Peer Effects: A
Model of Disruptive Behavior in Middle School Classrooms.” We are currently working
to integrate some of the community projects from this honor’s class into empirical project
assignments for our other undergraduate field and econometrics courses.
1.2 General and Service Education: What roles, if any, do general education offerings and service
courses to other disciplines play in the curriculum? Describe the general education and/or
service course offerings and briefly explain the rationale for these courses. Describe any recent
trends in these types of offerings, including enrollment trends.
All University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, Fine Arts, or Science students must complete
at least 15 credits of Social Science group-satisfying courses. There are twelve social
science group-satisfying Economics courses: EC101 Contemporary Economic Issues;
EC201 Introduction to Economic Analysis: Microeconomics; EC202 Introduction to
Economic Analysis: Macroeconomics; EC233 Microeconomic Principles and
Environmental Issues; EC330 Urban and Regional Economic Problems; EC333 Resource
and Environmental Economic Issues; EC340 Issues in Public Economics; EC350 Labor
7
Market Issues; EC360 Issues in Industrial Organization; EC370 Money and Banking;
EC380 International Economic Issues; and EC390 Problems and Issues in the Developing
Economies. This list represents a full array of entry-level economic theory courses and
entry-level economics “field” courses.
Bachelor’s degree candidates must also complete a minimum of 6 credits in two of the
following “Multi-cultural” categories: A: American Cultures; B: Identity, Pluralism, and
Tolerance; C: International Cultures. Economics offers two courses in category B: EC330
Urban and Regional Economic Problems and EC430 Urban and Regional Economics, and
two courses in category C: EC390 Problems and Issues in the Developing Economies and
EC490 Economic Growth and Development.
Several of our courses are service courses to other programs. Our introductory micro and
macro theory courses (EC201 and EC202) are, for instance, required of all students
majoring in programs with the Lundquist College of Business. The School of Journalism
and Communication requires at least eight hours of any economics courses for its majors.
Other programs, such as Planning, Public Policy, and Management within the School of
Architecture and Allied Arts recommend EC201 and EC202.
1.3 Interdisciplinary and International Components: Describe the extent of the unit’s participation
in interdisciplinary courses or curricula and the rationale for the development of and
participation in these courses or curricula. Describe any components that provide international
experiences for majors.
Economics courses are important components of the curriculum for several
interdisciplinary programs, such as Environmental Studies, European Studies,
International Studies, and Latin American Studies. International Studies, for instance,
lists 10 different economics course as satisfying elective course requirements within their
major. The economics courses serving these interdisciplinary programs (such as
development economics, environmental economics, international economics, and
monetary economics) are also key components of our economics curriculum, thus their
presence in our catalog is not predicated on an interdisciplinary justification.
1.4 Use of Technology: Describe the extent to which technology is being used to deliver the
undergraduate curriculum. Comment on the use of class management technology (i.e.,
Blackboard) in the undergraduate curriculum. Identify all courses that are delivered
predominantly or exclusively via distance learning. Discuss any plans to increase or decrease the
use of technology and/or distance learning.
Technology is increasingly an important device in the delivery of undergraduate
instruction, especially in lower-division courses where Powerpoint and multimedia
presentations are used extensively. In a pilot program started this year, our colleague Bill
Harbaugh is employing Pocket PCs in his introductory microeconomics course. These
handheld devices are connected via a wireless network and enable students to participate
in real-time economic experiments that teach fundamental economic principles by having
the students compete, cooperate, and explore strategic interactions among themselves.
The department also has two tablet PCs that are used as community property within the
department for instructional purposes. They receive considerable use in both
8
undergraduate and graduate instruction. Blackboard and email are used extensively as a
means of communicating with our students outside the classroom.
We currently offer three Economics courses online – EC201 (Introductory
Microeconomics), EC202 (Introductory Macroeconomics), and EC380 (International
Economic Issues). Each of these courses is also offered as traditional in-class courses.
Considerable effort (primarily on the part of our colleague Steve Haynes) has been put
into ensuring that our online offerings are rigorous and on par with traditional in-class
courses. We are sensitive to the fact that college students increasingly have jobs, raise
families, and have other commitments that make it difficult for them to be full-time
students in the traditional sense. Our online courses enhance access to nontraditional
students as well as provide high quality instruction and time flexibility to traditional
students. We are in preliminary discussions regarding a very limited expansion (one or
two courses) of our distance education program.
2.0 Student Characteristics
2.1 Number of Students and Enrollment Patterns: Discuss trends over the past 10 years (or since
the time of the last review) in the numbers of students within the program and degree options.
Discuss enrollment patterns such as enrollment at different levels of the curriculum, enrollment in
individualized study and other specialized courses, and whether or not students are customarily
enrolled for summer as well as other quarters.
Our enrollment numbers have increased substantially in recent years. According to
University data, we grew from 197 majors and 95 minors in 1994 to 345 majors and 165
minors in 2004. This growth appears to be accelerating as in Fall 2005 we had over 430
majors! In the past 5 years alone, the total undergraduate student credit hours has
increased from 27,264 to 40,176, a nearly 50% increase! Over this time frame the split
between lower division and upper division courses has been relatively stable, hovering
around 35% of all undergraduate student credit hours being at the lower division level.
We run a successful summer session program, but it is not customary for students to enroll
in the summer as well as the regular academic year.
2.2 Demographic Data: Describe the demographic characteristics (including gender, age,
race/ethnicity) of undergraduate majors. Highlight any characteristics on which majors in the
area may differ from the University as whole (e.g., higher percentage of non-traditional students)
Our students do not generally declare themselves as economics majors until they have
completed introductory micro and macroeconomics, although this has been becoming
somewhat less true in recent years. Consequently, the demographics of the majors taking
upper-division courses are more truly representative of our student body. The data
provided by the University indicates that from Fall 1994 to Fall 2004, the raw number of
female economics majors has more than doubled (currently constituting around 32% of
our student body). During this same time period, the raw number of nonwhite economics
majors has increased by about 25% (currently constituting around 35% of our student
body). We were not provided with the ethnic demographics of other departments, but
Economics has one of the most diverse student bodies on this campus. The age data we
were provided does provide for comparisons with other campus programs. The
9
economics majors taking our upper division courses tend to average around 23 years of
age. This is comparable (though slightly lower) than in the social sciences and it is about
a year younger than college-wide or university-wide averages.
2.3 Diversity Initiatives: Describe and comment on the extent and quality of the unit’s efforts to
attract, retain, and graduate members of traditionally underrepresented groups.
The department puts forth significant efforts to enrich our undergraduate program through
a variety of initiatives such as the development of new courses, the offering of regular
career days, the sponsorship of guest speakers (especially successful alumni), and the
development/maintenance of a vibrant peer advising group. We also participate in the
financial sponsorship of a number of events for student organizations such as the Korean
Student Association and the International Student Association. We are currently in the
process of establishing an economics summer program for middle school students. This
program will be a week-long, half-day program targeting local kids who are statistically
unlikely to go to college, e.g., from lower SES backgrounds, no parent with a college
degree, Hispanic ethnicity, etc. To facilitate participation, students will receive free bus
passes, lunches, as well as a modest stipend.
2.4 Academic Quality: Discuss data available on the academic characteristics of majors within the
program including entry test scores (e.g., SAT), average entering GPA, GPA at graduation, and if
applicable, placement test scores (or comparable metrics for performance-based disciplines).
Compare these characteristics to those of closely related departments, and the university as a
whole. Also include a discussion of trends over time and any other indicators collected by the
unit.
There appears to be a trend toward improvement in both high school GPA as well as in
SAT score for both our majors and the campus at large. Our numbers appear to be
comparable to those of the social sciences division, but are slightly lower that those posted
in the College or University in general. (Although it is worth noting that those of our
students who declare economics as their major early in their careers. have tended to have
GPA and SAT scores at or above College and University averages.)
2.5 Graduation Patterns: Describe trends in the number of degrees and the length of time required
for degree completion since the time of the last review or within the last 10 years. What are the
approximate attrition rates from the major? Compare these indicators to those in closely related
departments and the University as a whole.
The University-provided data in this category indicates that economics students tend to
graduate slightly more rapidly (4.8 years to degree completion) than elsewhere in our
division, College, or University. Relatively few of our students declare themselves as
economics majors until after their freshman year. From that point on, our retention rates
appear to be comparable to averages in the social sciences division, College, and
University. These numbers are stable – retention rates at sophomore, junior, and senior
levels are in the neighborhoods of 89%, 85%, and 93% respectively.
3.0 Academic Support and Staffing
10
3.1 Teaching: What proportion of courses at each level (e.g. lower division, upper division) are
taught by tenure track faculty, adjuncts, instructors, and/or graduate teaching assistants? If noninstructional staff has responsibility for delivering some elements of the curriculum, describe the
nature of their involvement and the rationale for this practice. How are decisions regarding
course assignments made?
All 400-level courses, with exception of undergraduate econometrics, are taught by tenure
track (or retired) faculty. Graduate teaching fellows (GTFs) do regularly teach selected
sections of our undergraduate econometrics courses EC420/EC421 and 200/300-level
courses. Indeed, the teaching of such courses represents an ideal training ground for
honing our Ph.D. students’ instructional/communication skills and the experience gained
in this forum is an important component of our Ph.D. program. We take great care to
match each GTF’s teaching assignment with their research interests. GTFs are generally
not assigned independent courses until the completion of their second year, after which
the norm is for the teaching load to entail only one course in each of two quarters with a
third quarter free from any instructional duties. In short, the scope of our use of graduate
students as instructors is limited and is defined by the size of our graduate student
population rather than our need to cover courses. With the exception of internship
training, non-instructional staff are not involved in the delivery of our curriculum. Course
assignments are made through a careful assessment of our teaching needs, the expertise of
our staff, and the preferences expressed by our faculty. (Faculty annually complete a
survey outlining their preferences in regards to potential teaching assignments.)
3.2 Advising and Other Services: Who provides academic advising to undergraduates? Does the
faculty or other staff serve in additional roles, such as mentor, internship supervisor, other? How
are decisions made regarding the assignment of academic advisors and service in other roles?
The primary provider of undergraduate academic advising is our Director of
Undergraduate Studies, with support provided as needed by the rest of our faculty. Our
undergraduate secretary also plays an important role in informing students of various rules
and regulations. All of our faculty are available as mentors and supervisors for readings
classes, research projects, etc. Students self-select faculty for such supervisory roles
based on previous interactions and research interests.
4.0 Assessment and Reflection
4.1 Quality of the Undergraduate Curriculum: What procedures does the unit use to evaluate a)
the quality of undergraduate courses and degree programs; b) the progress of individual students
toward a degree; and c) the long-term effectiveness of the program? Describe the results of these
assessments. How satisfied is the unit with the breadth and quality of the various parts of the
curriculum? Describe the ways in which issues such as the development of critical thinking,
communications skills (written and spoken), cross-cultural awareness, and/or individual-based
research and learning have been addressed. Discuss how grade inflation has been dealt with in
the unit’s undergraduate courses. Highlight any areas of specialization and/or features of the
unit’s undergraduate programs that make them distinctive or unique.
In addition to this program review process, the department evaluates all aspects of its
undergraduate programs as part of routine self-assessment. Such discussions can be
initiated by any faculty member, but most frequently emerge through discussions amongst
11
the department head, associate head, and Director of Undergraduate Studies, or some
subset thereof. This assessment process has led to a number of incremental changes in
recent years, most notably in regards to the design of template syllabi for courses that are
offered by multiple instructors. The department is pleased with the breadth and quality of
its entire undergraduate curriculum. As new faculty have joined the department we have
taken care to design and offer new courses that enable us to effectively “export” this new
knowledge base to our students. Our entire curriculum is focused on the development of
critical and analytical thinking. Written projects and oral presentations are a key
component of many (if not all) of our 400-level course offerings. These may manifest
themselves as individual efforts, team efforts, or both. We place a special emphasis on
training students to appreciate and understand all dimensions of economic issues and
analysis, including cross-cultural factors. The Department has established norms for the
grading of undergraduate classes and upon the completion of each academic quarter, grade
distributions for all undergraduate economics courses are publicly released amongst all
instructional faculty to help maintain observance of these norms. Inspection of GPA in
economics courses relative to those elsewhere on campus reveal (see Appendix D) that we
have been effective at staving off grade inflation pressures. Our program is perhaps most
distinctive in its analytical rigor, especially in regards to its econometrics requirements.
Also noteworthy are our offerings of professional concentrations and the emphasis on
community service oriented honors projects.
4.2 Curriculum Changes: What significant changes have taken place in course offerings and degree
programs over the past five years? Explain the rationale for these changes and their relation, if
any, to recent trends and developments in the field, to ongoing assessments of student learning
and the curriculum, and/or to trends in the placement of graduates. Are there desirable changes
in the undergraduate curriculum that have not been accomplished? What has prevented the
implementation of these changes? What changes, if any, are being considered or planned for the
next 3-5 years.
The curricular changes that have taken place in the last five years have been primarily in
the area of course offerings. We have added courses in the areas of community issues,
experimental economics, game theory, health economics, and public economics. These
additions were part of an explicit effort to make use of our faculty’s skills and interests in
the most effective way possible. We are always looking for ways to improve and enrich
our curriculum, but there are no substantial modifications pending at this point in time.
4.3 Quality of Instruction and Advising: What procedures are used to judge quality of instruction
and academic advising within the undergraduate curriculum (e.g. course evaluations, classroom
visitations, post-graduation surveys of students, etc.)? Discuss the results of these assessments.
Comment on how this unit compares to similar departments and the University as a whole.
Every economics course is evaluated by students, both with numerical and written
evaluations. Peer reviews of in-class instruction, syllabi, and teaching materials are a part
of regular faculty evaluation at times of contract renewal, tenure and promotion, and posttenure review. GTFs likewise undergo a detailed review of their instruction by our GTF
instructional advisor or designee. The UO Teaching Effectiveness program offers a
variety of activities and services to engage the academic community in viewing, assessing,
and improving undergraduate instruction. We also distribute exit surveys to our graduates
12
seeking feedback on their perceptions of the quality of their educational experience.
These assessments are overwhelmingly favorable. A representative quote from our exit
survey reads, “The economics staff has been the best I’ve experienced in this university.
Class is well organized, lectures are interesting, and they are always available for help.”
4.4 Student Learning: Describe what the graduates of your programs should know and be able to do
when they leave the university. How does the unit assess the extent to which students have met
these expectations? Include a discussion of any department-specific indicators that have been
developed (e.g. exit exams or blind reading of senior essays) as well as university-provided
indicators of the quality of the graduates.
Our undergraduates receive solid training in both theoretical and empirical economic
analysis. They are also expected to be able to effectively communicate their analysis both
verbally and in written form. Most students also follow our strong suggestion to focus
their study to attain one or more of the professional concentrations our program offers.
These skills are assessed and tested in each of the 400-level economics field classes they
must take to satisfy our degree requirements.
4.5 Student Satisfaction: What steps does the unit take to assess graduating students’ perceptions of
the quality of their experiences? What are the results of these assessments? Have any changes
been made in the undergraduate program based on these measures?
Students submit numerical and written evaluations of every course taught in our
department. We also distribute exit surveys to all of our graduates. Another source of
feedback is through our very active peer advising group. The feedback received from
these various mechanisms has been overwhelmingly favorable. We cannot point to
changes that are driven solely by student feedback. Even so, student input has served to
reinforce decisions to adopt modifications (e.g., the implementation of template syllabi for
courses taught by multiple instructors.)
4.6 Postgraduate Placements: Describe any data available on the postgraduate academic and
career placement of students. Are there specific trends in these placements? Does the unit assist
in the placement of graduates? To what extent are alumni, visiting committees, or advisory
boards involved in evaluating the quality of the unit’s graduates in the work place?
See Appendix B.1 for a listing of known career placements. We are not aware of specific
trends in placement data. We host “Economics Career Days” in which a panel of
professional economists (frequently alumni) discuss their career paths, the importance of
the economics training, and provide general “words of wisdom”. We do not use alumni,
committees, or boards to evaluate quality of graduates in the work place.
B. Graduate Programs
1.0 Description and Rationale for the Curriculum
1.1 Masters: Describe the master’s degree curriculum including the total number of required credits
and credit distribution among various fields or subfields. If more than one option or
specialization track is available, list the options or tracks and their curricula separately (use
attached Appendix A format for this purpose). Note any required research experience (or
13
performance or creative activity) such as a thesis, terminal project, internship, or other
experiences outside the classroom. Indicate any associated professional certification or licensure
requirements. Include any additional information concerning curricula emphasis which would
aid in characterizing this program as practice or research oriented. If there is substantial
dependence on some other unit or program, comment on this relationship. Finally, explain the
rationale for the structure and sequence of the curriculum for the master’s degree, including any
prerequisites or proficiency requirements.
We offer a stand-alone Master’s program (distinct from our Ph.D. program) that prepares
students for a wide range of consulting and applied research positions in private industry,
government, and teaching positions at colleges for which a Ph.D. is not required.
Professionals involved in policy-related fields often benefit greatly from master's level
training in economics. The Master's degree also offers outstanding training for students
interested in pursuing further graduate study – Ph.D., J.D., etc. Both thesis and non-thesis
options are available and are generally completed in less than two years. Applicants to
this program must hold a bachelor’s degree from an accredited four-year university, have
training in intermediate micro and macroeconomic theory, have taken at least two terms of
differential and integral calculus, and demonstrate strong scholarship potential.
The Master's degree program consists of the following departmental requirements in
addition to university and Graduate School requirements for the M.A. or M.S. degrees.
Each Master's degree candidate chooses either the course work or the research option.
The course work option requires a minimum of 48 graduate credits. The research option
requires a minimum of 45 graduate credits if the candidate writes a research paper or 51
graduate credits if the candidate writes a thesis. All of our Master’s students are required
to take three terms of econometrics (EC 523, 524, 525) and two terms of economic theory
(EC 511, 513) to be completed by the end of the first full academic year. These courses
form the foundation for the student’s training within their chosen field specializations.
Course Work Option 7 elective field courses, at least 4 of which must be at the 600-level
and must include Econometrics I (EC 607) or Econometrics II (EC 607). These electives
provide both breadth and depth in the student’s chosen field specialization.
Research Option 5 elective field courses, at least 2 of which must be at the 600-level.
Here again, these electives provide both depth and breadth in the chosen fields of
specialization. A thesis/research paper must be approved by two department members on
a topic from an area of economics in which a 600-level field course has been taken. This
project must demonstrate the candidate's ability to perform economic research and
normally involves the formulation of a theoretical model and its statistical testing.
Further details regarding our Master’s programs can be found in Appendix A.2. An
interdisciplinary Master's degree is offered by the Environmental Studies Program.
Graduate courses in Biology; Economics; Geography; Planning, Public Policy and
Management; and other disciplines constitute that program.
1.2 Doctoral: Describe the doctoral curriculum, including the total number of required credits and
credit distribution among various fields or subfields. If more than one option or specialization is
available, list the options or tracks and their curricula separately (use attached Appendix A).
14
Indicate whether the master’s degree is usually completed before proceeding to the doctoral
degree program and explain any differences in requirements between students entering with or
without a master’s degree. Explain the rationale for the structure and sequence of the doctoral
curriculum, including any prerequisites or proficiency requirements. Describe all requirements
for advancement to candidacy (e.g., written examinations, oral examinations, required papers,
proposals), including recommended or required deadlines for completing each component.
Our doctoral program prepares students for faculty positions in colleges and universities
and for advanced research positions in both government and private industry. The
program, with its low student/faculty ratio, is structured to develop high quality research
and teaching skills as well as facilitate successful and timely completion of the degree.
Admission requirements include a bachelor’s degree from an accredited four-year
university, training in intermediate micro and macroeconomic theory, at least two terms of
calculus, and a record demonstrating strong scholarship potential. A prior Master’s
degree is not required. Degree requirements include the following.
1. Three terms each of microeconomic theory, macroeconomic theory, and econometrics
to be completed in the first year of the program.
2. In the summer immediately following completion of the courses above, qualifying
examinations in both micro and macroeconomic theory are taken. One opportunity for a
retake is offered approximately 6 weeks later.
3. Students who pass the qualifying examination but have a GPA below 3.0 in
econometrics must take a competency examination in econometrics, which is administered
the Thursday before the first week of fall classes. Students who fail the competency
examination must retake each econometrics course in which they received a grade lower
than “B” and pass it with a grade of “B” or better.
3. Students must file an approved program of study by December 15 following the
qualifying examination.
4. Two-course EC 607 sequences in two fields of economics must be completed with a 3.0
GPA or better. By winter term of the third year, a research paper for at least 6 credits of
Research (EC 601) must be completed in one of the fields and approved by two members
of the faculty with specialties in that field. Regularly offered field specialties are Applied
Econometrics, Economic Growth & Development, Environmental Economics,
Experimental Economics, Game Theory, Health Economics, Industrial Organization,
International Economics, Labor Economics, Macroeconomics, and Public Economics.
5. As a breadth requirement, students must complete at least five 600-level field courses in
economics, in addition to their field course requirements, with a 3.0 GPA or better.
6. A prospectus for a dissertation is required for advancement to candidacy. There shall
be an oral defense of the prospectus before the economics faculty prior to its formal
approval by the candidate's dissertation committee.
7. Candidates must complete a dissertation that constitutes a significant contribution to the
field, as judged by the candidate's committee. A formal, public defense of the dissertation
is also required.
Although not required, we also offer an intense 3-week mathematical preparatory class for
our incoming graduate students just prior to the start of fall classes. Further details
regarding our Ph.D. program can be found in Appendix A.3.
15
1.3 Instructional Relationships to Other Programs: Describe how graduate instruction and
research, performance, and/or creative activity in this unit relate to other programs
(undergraduate, graduate, professional, postdoctoral) within the unit, in other University units, or
with other OUS institutions. What is the rationale for these relationships? Identify other
programs where students frequently take minor fields of study or other program options in the
unit. Describe the extent of the unit’s participation in interdisciplinary programs at the graduate
level. List any courses in the program that are requirements, prerequisites, or frequently
recommended for students in graduate degree programs outside this unit.
Graduate instruction and research are integral to both our graduate and undergraduate
programs. For our graduate programs, this is self evident as the instruction of graduate
students and supervision of their research represents the major portion of their training. A
key component of Ph.D. student training is the development of effective communication
skills, especially in regards to classroom teaching. Such skills have high value whether
the student’s career path is academia, government, or private sector. Our undergraduate
programs benefit from classroom spillovers, from opportunities to participate in research
with faculty, and from instruction provided by graduate teaching fellows.
Other University units also rely on our department for graduate instruction. For instance,
the Lundquist School of Business relies heavily on our graduate offerings, especially in
microeconomic theory and econometrics. We have also occasionally served students from
other institutions. One such example was in Spring 04 when the third quarter of our Ph.D.
Micro Theory sequence was also offered to Oregon State University (OSU) students.
(Kolpin taught this class, which was offered through a combination of a live two-way
video feed between the two campuses and weekly in-person sessions on the OSU
campus.) We also participate in interdisciplinary Ph.D. and Master’s programs in
Environmental Studies, though the numbers have been small (currently we have one Ph.D.
student pursuing this degree.)
The primary courses that are either outright required or heavily recommended for graduate
students from various programs in the Lundquist College of Business include: EC508
Mathematical Economics; EC523, 524, and 525 (our first year graduate econometrics
sequence); EC511 (our Master’s level micro theory course); EC607 Micro Theory I, II,
and III (our first year Ph.D. micro theory sequence); and EC607 Advanced Econometrics I
and II (advance econometrics courses in time series and cross section techniques
respectively). Many of our other graduate offerings also frequently enroll significant
numbers of LCB students.
1.4 Research Participation: What types of formalized research training do graduate students
receive before they begin work on their theses or dissertations? Describe the nature and extent of
this training, how it differs for masters and doctoral students, and the rationale for the specific
nature of this training. If any of these training experiences are not a part of the regular
curriculum, how are these experiences supported and how are students selected for them?
Ph.D. students in economics must take at least 9 EC607 field courses in addition to the
three microeconomic theory, three macroeconomic theory, and three econometrics courses
required in the first year. Master’s students who are pursuing a research option must take
at least 2 EC607 field courses. In recent years, almost all of our Master’s students have
pursued the coursework option where a thesis is not required, but they instead are required
16
to take at least 4 EC607 field classes. All of our field courses have research training
components and many require the production of a preliminary research project. As such,
they provide a foundation for initiating research, both specific to the field in question and
in economics in general. Prior to the production of their dissertations, Ph.D. students must
also produce a “field paper” under the guidance of two faculty experts and must complete
and defend a dissertation prospectus with the supervision of a committee of at least three
Economics faculty and one faculty member outside of our department.
1.5 Teaching Preparation: How is the development of graduate students’ teaching abilities
addressed by the program? What types of teaching experiences do graduate students have during
their program, and what percentages of the students get those experiences? Describe any awards
or other types of support for graduate students’ teaching.
Graduate Teaching Fellowships (GTFs) are reserved almost exclusively for Ph.D.
students. (Occasionally in times of high need, we may recruit a Master’s student for a
GTF appointment that only entails grading support.) All students who successfully
complete the first year of our Ph.D. program, including the passing of our core exams, will
receive a GTF appointment if they so desire. Instructional training begins with two years
of grading support and discussion sections/lab assignments. GTFs generally do not
receive their first independent course assignment until the completion of their second year,
after which they will typically teach two independent quarter-courses in each remaining
year in our program. We offer one or more “Distinguished Teaching Awards” to our
GTFs each year. These awards are distributed at our departmental graduation ceremonies
and include a modest monetary award. Our GTFs routinely develop into truly outstanding
teachers, a fact that is reflected by our graduates’ consistent success in receiving job offers
when entering the academic job market (100% success rate in the last 5-years).
1.6 Funding: Describe the stipend support packages available for graduate students and the number
of each type of appointment (teaching and research assistantships, fellowships, traineeships)
available annually. Describe the procedures used to allocate the support and any information as
to how the level and type of student support compares to that offered by closely related units, the
university as a whole, and comparator universities.
Although some faculty have research grants that enable them to support graduate students,
the only regularized graduate assistantships the Department offers are GTFs. The GTF
support package includes a full tuition waiver, health benefits, and a salary of up to
$12,000 (salary is for academic year 2005-2006). In recent years we have been awarding
7-10 new GTF awards to incoming Ph.D. students each year. Students who are making
satisfactory progress in our program continue to receive GTF support through at least their
fourth year. In recent years we have been able to continue support through the fifth and
sixth years, if needed. GTF awards are initially allocated by the Graduate Admissions and
Awards Committee and its chair. Subsequent reappointments depend on the continuation
of satisfactory progress towards the degree. Correspondence with our comparators suggest
that our support is comparable to that of the University of Washington, but substantially
below schools in the University of California system and the University of Colorado.
In addition to GTF support during the regular academic year, we also have two means of
summer support. Kleinsorge Summer Research Awards are granted to an average of 4
17
Ph.D. students completing their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of our Ph.D. program. Applicants for
this award must complete a research proposal and have a faculty advisor complete a
nomination form. Applications are evaluated and winners are selected by our Graduate
Admissions and Awards Committee. For the summer of 2005, these awards were for
$2700. A second means of support are summer teaching awards, which include a
comparable stipend.
To conclude this section it is worth noting that more than 1/3 of the funding for graduate
student support is provided by faculty leaves. While this is a functional arrangement in
our current circumstances, we will face serious challenges should faculty taking full or
partial leaves for extended periods of time choose to resume their full-time appointments
within the department.
2.0 Student characteristics
2.1 Number of students and Enrollment Patterns: Discuss trends over the past 10 years (or since
the time of the last review) in the numbers of students within each segment of the graduate
programs. Discuss enrollment patterns such as enrollment at different levels of the curriculum,
full-time and part-time ratios, and the extent to which students are customarily enrolled for
summer as well as other quarters. What is the optimal size of the graduate program at each level
(Masters, Doctoral)? If the current program differs from the optimal size, how does the unit plan
to move toward that goal?
Over the last 10 years our Master’s enrollments have averaged around 10 new students per
year. Our Ph.D. program has been stable in size in the last 10 years, typically totaling in
the low 30’s. The number of incoming Ph.D. students is primarily dictated by available
funds (our Ph.D. program is largely funded by soft money) and the number of departures
from graduation or failure to pass the core examinations. Doctoral students and Master’s
students alike are customarily enrolled as full time students up until their terminal quarter,
when students may choose not to enroll in more credits than needed for degree
completion. With exception of our preparatory mathematical economics course (taken by
most incoming graduate students), we do not offer Ph.D. level courses as a part of summer
session. A small number of classes are available to Master’s students during the summer.
Otherwise, summer enrollments are primarily composed of research credits or supervised
college teaching credits. There is room for some growth in our Master’s program, the
limiting factor has been applicant quality. Given the current state of our resources, our
Ph.D. program is already optimal in size.
2.2 Demographic Data: Describe the demographic characteristics (including age, gender,
race/ethnicity) of graduate students. Highlight any characteristics on which graduate students in
this unit may differ from graduate students in other units within University.
Throughout the last 5 years, approximately 50% (70%) of our Ph.D. (Master’s) students
have been international students, approximately 30% (20%) have been females. Most of
our international students would be considered ethnic minorities if they were US citizens.
We do not keep track of age data. University-provided data suggests that our graduate
student population tends to be younger than many other programs on campus.
18
2.3 Diversity Initiatives: Describe and comment on the extent and quality of the unit’s efforts to
attract, retain, and graduate members of traditionally underrepresented groups. Discuss any
initiatives that focus on international students, or providing international experiences for enrolled
students.
Although our graduate student body is very diverse, with students from around the globe,
we are always looking for opportunities to attract high quality students from the full range
of demographics. For instance, in this year we are making use of the Graduate School’s
fighting fund program to recruit a Native American candidate and a female international
candidate. In past years we have also used the McNair scholarship program to recruit
students from underrepresented groups.
2.4 Academic Quality: Discuss data available on the academic characteristics of graduate students
applying to, and accepted by, graduate programs in this unit (separate these data by Masters vs.
Doctoral if appropriate). Include information on criteria used to make admissions decisions (e.g.,
entry test scores, average entering G.P.A., placement test scores, portfolio, audition). Include
data on applicants, students offered admission, and those who accept, including measures of
selectivity and yield. Compare these characteristics to those of similar departments and the
university as a whole. Also include a discussion of trends over time and any additional indicators
collected by the unit.
Applications and admissions GRE data for the last 5 years are found in Appendix B.2.
There is variation from year to year, but the Ph.D. students to whom we extend
fellowships have, on average, quantitative and analytical GRE scores around the 80th
percentile and verbal scores in the 60th percentile. Master’s student scores are more
variable, but tend to run about 10 percentiles lower. While GRE scores and undergraduate
GPA are useful for admissions evaluation, better predictors of a student’s success in our
graduate programs are the scores earned in advanced economics and mathematics courses
(beyond intermediate economic theory and beyond multivariate calculus respectively).
Letters of recommendation are also useful, particularly when the sources are known to us.
Given that “key indicators” in our admission process are different from those used in other
departments on campus, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons across
departments. There is no clear trend in the quality of our graduate population.
2.5 Graduation Patterns: Describe trends in the number of degrees and the length of time required
for degree completion at each level of the graduate program since the time of the last review or
within the last 10 years. What are the approximate attrition rates from each portion of the
graduate program? For the doctoral program, what percentages of students successfully reached
advancement within four years, and what percentages completed the degree within seven years?
Compare these indicators to those for closely related departments and the University as a whole.
We have a long-standing policy of admitting some students each year whose records show
promise, but also significant concerns. In order to ensure that these students are aware of
the challenges they face, their admissions letters also include a clear warning of deficits in
their prior training. Occasionally there are big successes to come of these groups of
students, so we feel that this policy is worthwhile. It does, however, skew our attrition
rates. Consequently, it is more revealing to consider the attrition rates of students who
have completed at least two quarters of coursework. Amongst that group, virtually all of
our Master’s students in recent years have completed their degree within two years.
19
Amongst Ph.D. students who have completed at least two quarters of coursework in our
program, approximately 75% have passed our core exams and continued on in our
program. Of those students passing the core exams, the vast majority finish their degrees
within 4-5 years and virtually all finish within 6 years. Ph.D. students are not advanced to
candidacy until they have defended their prospectus, which is generally considered to be a
fairly well developed draft (with incomplete sections) of the dissertation. Consequently,
students are often not advanced to candidacy until they are within 6 months or so of
completing their degrees.
3.0 Academic and Support Staffing
3.1 Teaching: What proportions of courses in each segment of the graduate program are taught by
each of the following: tenure track faculty, adjuncts, and instructors? How do these proportions
compare to those for other similar units within the university? If non-instructional staff shares
responsibility for delivering the curriculum, describe the nature their role and the rationale for
this practice. If graduate teaching assistants are involved in teaching any graduate courses,
describe the nature of that involvement and the rationale for this practice. How are decisions
regarding course assignments made?
All graduate-level courses are taught by tenure-track faculty. We do not have data from
other departments on campus to make direct comparisons on this statistic. Neither
graduate students nor non-instructional staff share any involvement in curriculum delivery
or teaching. Course assignments are made by our associate head in consultation with our
department head. The assignments are based on department needs, faculty expertise, and
the preferences expressed by individual faculty.
3.2 Advising and Mentoring: How are advisors assigned to graduate students and what is the
advisor/advisee ratio at the graduate level? What is the role of the advisor in the unit? Describe
the nature of any workload adjustments that the unit makes for faculty service on dissertation or
thesis committees?
The chief general advisor for Ph.D. students is the Director of Ph.D. Studies and the chief
general advisor for Master’s students is the Director of Master’s Studies. The Department
Head and Associate head also play a role in these duties. In regards to advising and
supervising student research, students select their own advisors. Given the relatively
modest sizes of our graduate programs, the advisees/advisor ratio is relatively small,
although this can vary from instructor to instructor depending on their research specialty
and student research interests. The research advisor’s role is in supervising the research
project and serving as a professional mentor. Other regularized advising services
provided by faculty include those provided by our Graduate Placement Director – who
helps advise students through the job search process and arranges for our faculty to
administer mock interviews of students; and the GTF Instructional Advisor - who
provides orientation sessions at the start of the year, evaluates GTF instruction, and
provides general instructional advice as needed. In regards to workload adjustments, there
is an effort to adjust service assignments so as to help compensate for differentials in
student supervision loads. Such differentials are also explicitly recognized whenever
merit pay evaluations take place.
4.0 Assessment and Reflection (Master’s and Ph.D. are assessed separately)
20
4.1 Quality of the Graduate Curriculum: What procedures are used to evaluate a) the quality of
graduate courses, mentorship, and advising; b) the progress of individual students toward a
degree; and c) the long-term effectiveness of the program? Describe the results of these
assessments. How satisfied is the unit with the breadth and quality of the various parts of the
graduate curriculum? What proportion of the graduate curriculum consists of courses that
contain only graduate students (i.e., 600 level)? If a significant proportion of courses are not
graduate-only (i.e., 400/500 courses), describe what requirements are added to these courses to
assure that graduate level training is taking place. Describe the ways in which issues such as time
toward degree, attrition, involvement in research, and job placement have been addressed.
Identify any areas of specialization and/or features of the unit’s graduate programs that make
them distinctive or unique.
In addition to this program review process, the department evaluates all aspects of its
graduate programs as part of routine self-assessment. Such discussions can be initiated by
any faculty member, but most frequently they emerge through discussion between the
department head, associate head, director of Master’s studies, and director of Ph.D.
studies, or some subset thereof. This assessment process has led to incremental changes
in recent years, but nothing dramatic. The department is pleased with the breadth and
quality of graduate curriculum it has been able to sustain, especially given our small scale
and limited resources.
We offer 16-18 600-level courses each year. The only other portion of the Ph.D.
curriculum is the first year econometrics sequence EC523/524/525. Although a select
group of our very best undergraduate students do enroll in this sequence, it is essentially a
graduate-only sequence. Thus, for all practical purposes, 100% of our Ph.D. curriculum is
composed of graduate-only courses. In addition to the econometrics sequence just noted,
Master’s students must also take our Master’s level microeconomic and macroeconomic
theory classes EC511 and EC513. As with the econometrics sequence, only a select group
of our very best undergraduates enroll in these courses, so these too are essentially
graduate-only courses. In addition to the 5 effectively graduate-only courses noted above,
our Master’s students must take an additional 7 courses, at least 4 of which must be at the
600-level if they are pursuing the coursework option, or an additional 5 courses, at least 2
of which must be at the 600-level if they are pursuing the research option. Consequently,
the Master’s curriculum is effectively either 75% or 70% graduate-only courses depending
on the path taken. Typically a paper or other forms of additional work are demanded of
Master’s students that are enrolled in classes for which a substantive portion of the
students are undergraduates.
There have been no major issues with time to degree, attrition, involvement in research, or
job placement with either our Master’s or Ph.D. programs. What is particularly distinctive
of our Master’s program is the rigor of the coursework required. Master’s students have
their own micro and macro theory courses, but all of their econometrics training and about
one half of their field specialty training are in Ph.D./Master’s combined courses. Thus our
Master’s students are especially well trained for employment in which they carry out
empirical economic analysis or a continuation of their graduate training in a Ph.D.
program. The distinctive features of our Ph.D. program include the depth and breadth of
our field offerings (for a program of our size), the low student/faculty ratio which enables
our students to receive more personal attention than they may have received at many other
21
Ph.D. programs, a relatively low average time to degree completion, and the extensive
(though not exploitive) teaching experience received as part of their training.
4.2 Curriculum changes: What significant changes have taken place in the graduate program(s)
over the past five years? Explain the rationale for these changes and their relation, if any, to
recent trends and developments in the field, to ongoing assessments of student learning and the
curriculum, and/or to trends in the placement of graduates. Are there desirable changes in the
graduate curriculum that have not been accomplished? What has prevented the implementation of
these changes? What changes, if any, are being considered or planned for the next 3-5 years.
There have been no major changes to the structure of our graduate programs in the last 5
years. The only changes of note have been the addition of new 600-level field offerings
that are the result of new hires and the evolving interests of existing faculty. Examples of
such include new offerings in environmental economics, health economics, economics of
inequality, and experimental economics. We can expect additional changes of this nature
in the years ahead, as is the case of any healthy and dynamic department, but we do not
have a backlog of desired changes that we have been prevented from implementing.
4.3 Quality of Instruction and Advising: What procedures are used to judge the quality of
instruction and academic advising within the graduate curriculum? Discuss the results of these
assessments.
An annual review is undertaken of all faculty activity, including the quantity and quality
of instruction/supervision. There is some variation across faculty, as would be expected,
but all evidence suggest the overall quality is exceptionally high. For instance, in the
academic year 2004-2005, 9 out of 16 of the faculty teaching 600-level courses received a
rating of 9.5 (out of 10 possible) or higher from their students and only 4 received a rating
below 9.0. Likewise, the quality of supervision appears to be quite strong as well. Exit
surveys completed by graduating students routinely state that one of the best things about
their experience at the UO was the supervision they received from their primary advisors.
One representative quote by a graduating Ph.D. student is as follows, “I have particularly
benefited from the availability of my advisors and the opportunity of one-on-one
interaction, and open-door policy! I believe my instructors have been excellent teachers,
and I have learned a lot not only about my discipline, but also about the profession.”
4.4 Student Learning: What outcomes are expected for students at each stage of the graduate
program and how does the unit assess the extent to which students have met these expectations?
Include a discussion of any departmental specific indicators that have been developed (e.g. exit
exams or blind reading of comprehensives). To what degree have graduate students published
research (or presented creative work) before graduation?
Master’s students are assessed on a course-by-course basis, through their overall GPA,
and (if a research option is pursued) through the quality of the research paper/thesis. In
addition to such assessments, Ph.D. students must also successfully pass core exams in
microeconomic and macroeconomic theory after the completion of their first year of
coursework. These exams receive blind grading and students receive two opportunities to
receive a passing score, the first opportunity is in June/July and the second is in
September. A core exam is not offered in econometrics, though students must earn at
least a 3.0 GPA in econometrics or pass a special competency exam before they are
22
allowed to continue in our Ph.D. program. The rationale for not offering a core
(qualifying) exam in econometrics is not that we feel this is a less important part of their
training. Instead it is that we have felt that the imposition of three comprehensive exams,
rather than just two, following the completion of their first year of study may serve to
dilute the quality of their study and comprehension of core economic theory. A natural
solution to this dilemma would seem to be to spread the exams out over a longer period of
time. The downside to this would be that our current system provides students with a
relatively rapid resolution of whether or not they will qualify to continue in our program,
which we feel is a highly desirable property for the mix of students we typically enroll.
It is not uncommon for graduate students to submit papers for publication prior to
graduation. However, given the notoriously long lags in the editorial process for
economics journals, it is relatively rare for papers to be published prior to graduation. It is
common practice for graduate students to present their research at professional
conferences prior to graduation and the Department provides financial support to help
offset the requisite travel expenses.
4.5 Student Satisfaction: How satisfied are graduating students with the quality of their
experiences? How do these measures compare with data from similar units and from the
university as a whole?
Students submit numerical and written evaluations of every course taught in our
department. We also distribute exit surveys to all of our graduates. The feedback
received from these various mechanisms has been overwhelmingly favorable. (See also
section III.B.4.3 above.) It is difficulty to make meaningful comparisons with other
programs on this campus.
4.6 Postgraduate placements: Provide data on the placement of graduate students over the last 5
years. How does the unit assist in the placement of its graduates? To what extent are alumni,
visiting committees, or advisory boards involved in evaluating the quality of graduates in the work
place?
In the last 5 years, graduates from our Ph.D. program have taken jobs at North Carolina
State University, Gonzaga University, Fitchburg State University, University of
Tennessee-Knoxville, University of Missouri-Columbia, Hollins University, Stephen F.
Austin State University, Sonoma State University, University of Georgia, Cal-State
Fresno, Massey University (New Zealand), Anne Arundel Community College, Marquette
University, St. Joseph’s University, Korea National Assembly, Postdoc at Cambridge
University, Cal State Sacramento, University of Southern Mississippi, American
University of Sharjah, Western New England College, and Bentley College. In addition
to advice provided by faculty mentors, we have a designated Graduate Placement Director
who helps advise students through the job search process and arranges for our faculty to
administer mock interviews. Our Master’s students frequently are on leave from jobs to
which they return upon completion of their degrees. Placements in new positions include:
Agency for International Development, United Parcel Service, Bonneville Power, and
Gardner and Johnson. Many of our Master’s students also go on to pursue further
graduate training either at the UO or elsewhere. We have not used alumni, committees or
advisory boards to evaluate our graduates in the workplace.
23
III. FACULTY
This section should describe and reflect on the quality and adequacy of academic staffing within the
unit. As an attachment to the self-study narrative, units must provide an alphabetic list of faculty
members, their ranks, and the number of masters and doctoral committees they have headed and/or
served on during the past five years. Current curriculum vitae (CV) for each tenure-track faculty
member should follow the text and all appendices. Also include CV for instructors, adjunct faculty,
and any others (e.g. emeriti, participating or courtesy faculty) who regularly teach for the unit.
A. Numbers and Status
1.0 Size and Composition: Describe the size and composition of the unit’s faculty in terms of ranks
and areas of specialization within the discipline. To what extent are non-tenure track (e.g.
visiting, part-time, adjunct) faculty a part of the unit’s programs? Do faculty members from other
university units serve important roles within the unit? What is the typical duration of involvement
for non-tenure track faculty in their roles? Describe the rationale for the unit’s staffing plan.
There are currently a total of 23 faculty who either regularly teach in our department or
who are on full time administrative assignments elsewhere on campus. This list includes
11 tenured full professors: Blonigen (international trade), Cameron (environmental),
Ellis (public), Evans (macroeconomics), Gray (macroeconomics), Haynes (international
finance), Kolpin (game theory), Lambert (public, 1/2 time appointment), Singell (labor),
Stone (labor and currently serving as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences), and
Wilson (industrial organization); 4 tenured associate professors: Davies (international
trade), Harbaugh (experimental), Thoma (macroeconomics), and van den Nouweland
(game theory); 5 untenured but tenure track assistant professors: Chakraborty
(macroeconomics), Magud (international finance), McKnight (health), Piger
(econometrics, starting 2006), and Waddell (labor); 1 full-time adjunct: Duy (Director
of Oregon Economic Forum and Director of Undergraduate Studies); 1 emeritus faculty
member teaching part-time: Whitelaw (environmental); and 1 nontenure track
associate professor whose primary affiliation is not in Economics: Leue (Director of
the Social Science and Instructional Laboratory, she teaches one section of Introductory
Macroeconomics for us each year).
As noted above, we have two non-tenure track faculty who regularly teach courses for us,
Tim Duy and Ed Whitelaw. Tim began teaching for us part-time six years ago. He
became director of the Oregon Economic Forum initiative (see section III.D.1.0) two
years ago and became our director of undergraduate studies during the current academic
year. He has been full-time for the past two years. Ed Whitelaw retired from our
department six years ago and continues teaching for us on a part-time basis. Although
neither of these appointments is tenured, we anticipate that both will continue for the
foreseeable future. We do not anticipate any other such long term non-tenure track
appointments. Also noted above, there is also one faculty member from another program
(Cathleen Leue – Director of the Social Science Instructional Laboratory) who teaches
one course per year in our department. In recent years, we have rarely needed to seek help
covering classes outside of the group detailed above in conjunction with our body of
graduate teaching fellows.
24
2.0 Recruitment, Retention, Tenure and Promotion: Describe the rates at which the unit has
successfully recruited its top choices for new faculty over the last 10 years (or since the last
review). Where have new faculty received their training and/or been employed prior to coming to
the UO? Describe the unit’s record of retaining faculty, and discuss any plans or strategies for
continuing or improving on this record. Provide data on the success rates (successful vs. tried,
and time to promotion) for junior faculty receiving tenure and/or tenure and promotion, as well as
the rates for faculty being promoted to full professor.
From 2001 to the present, all but one search has ended with the successful recruitment of
one of our top two choices. In the case of the one exception, the search was successfully
completed in the following year. Faculty, the year they were hired, and their previous
affiliation follow. Glen Waddell, 2001, Purdue University Ph.D. student; Trudy Cameron,
2001, UCLA full professor; Robin McKnight, 2003, NBER postdoctoral fellow and MIT
Ph.D. student; Nicolas Magud, 2004, University of Maryland Ph.D. student; Peter
Lambert, 2005, York University full professor; Jeremy Piger, Federal Reserve Bank of St.
Louis. We had failed searches in 1998 and 2000. In 1999 we carried out two searches,
both culminating in one of our top three choices. Shankha Chakraborty, 1999, UCLA
Ph.D. student and Ron Davies, 1999, Penn State University Ph.D. student.
Although our resource constraints represent a serious challenge, we have been very
successful at faculty retention over the last ten years. The only retention failures have
been David Figlio (currently holding an endowed chair at the University of Florida) and
Jim Ziliak (currently holding an endowed chair at the University of Kentucky). Both of
these individuals received offers that more than doubled their UO salaries.
Seven junior colleagues have gone through the promotion and tenure process during the
last ten years. Six of these ended with positive tenure decisions (Blonigen- one year early
promotion; Chakraborty - an on time/ongoing case; Davies - one year early promotion;
Harbaugh - on time; van den Nouweland - on time; and Ziliak - on time) and one (Silva)
ended with a negative decision. Five colleagues have been promoted to full professor
(Blonigen - four years as associate; Ellis - eight years as associate; Kolpin - six years as
associate; Singell - seven years as associate; Wilson - six years as associate).
3.0 Diversity: How do the proportions of women and minority groups on the unit’s faculty compare
to the University as a whole, comparator institutions, and the field nationwide. What specific
plans and programs does the unit have in place to increase the proportions of traditionally
underrepresented groups in the faculty and to support their professional development?
Our department has consistently adopted a policy of aggressively recruiting high quality
candidates, with extra attention to underrepresented groups within our profession. Indeed,
six of our last eight hires have been from under-represented demographic groups. We
have no plans to change this very successful policy. All of our junior faculty receive
strong support in their professional development. For instance, every conference travel
request by junior faculty members has been funded in recent memory. We also have a
formal “Junior Faculty Study Leave” policy in which junior faculty are provided with the
opportunity to take campus leave for one quarter at 85% pay if the leave promises to yield
substantial benefits to the faculty member’s research program.
B. Research and Scholarly Work
25
1.0 Current Research: Provide a brief description of notable and/or unique ongoing research,
performance, or creative activity in the unit. Describe three to five major accomplishments in this
area over the past five years by faculty and/or graduate students.
All of our faculty are actively engaged in ongoing research programs that cover virtually
every area of economics and range from both the theoretical to the applied. A concise
summary of the subject matter of this ongoing body of research from our tenured and
tenure track faculty follows below.
Blonigen: examines trade protection and steel; spatial relationships in FDI; and the role of
port efficiency on US trade.
Cameron: broad "statistical lives" study concerning the values for policy analysis of
reductions in risks to life and health.
Chakraborty: macroeconomics of diseases; effect of culture in shaping people's attitudes
and economic development.
Davies: spatial econometrics on FDI data; mandatory minimum sentences and illegal drug
purity; tax competition for FDI; skill upgrading in outsourcing.
Ellis: political economy, specifically the causes and consequences of corruption, and the
co-evolution of economic and political institutions.
Evans: the role of expectations and learning in monetary and fiscal policy; cash-inadvance models; stochastic gradient learning; optimal constrained rules.
Gray: birth rate issues; Ricardian equivalence for subnational states; nonlinear tax effects
on endogenous growth.
Harbaugh: neural basis of philanthropy; experimental bargaining; risk with choices or
prices.
Haynes: forward premium paradox; cross-price effects in international trade; sign
reversals/linear restrictions; exchange regime and interest rate arbitrage.
Kolpin: axiomatic analysis of cost and resource allocation; strategic behavior in college
financial aid policy; agglomeration externalities/regional competition.
Lambert: income taxation with sacrifice equalization, but using rank-dependent social
welfare; equitable taxation; poverty-growth relationship.
Magud: exchange regimes choice under foreign-currency debt; capital controls; trade
dynamics; political fiscal policy.
McKnight: price elasticity of demand for medical care; consumption-smoothing and
health benefits of Medicare; spillovers from health insurance.
Piger (starting 2006): Bayesian econometrics, macroeconomic effects of inflation
targeting, business cycle identification.
Singell: examination of the efficacy of financial aid, in general, and the Pell program, in
particular, in influencing college outcomes.
Stone: birth rate issues; Ricardian equivalence for subnational states; nonlinear tax effects
on endogenous growth.
Thoma: transportation networks; structural change and lag length; output volatility;
variable gain and learning models.
van den Nouweland: decision making under cooperation; endogenous determination of
cooperative arrangements; applied game theory.
Waddell: personnel economics and contract theory; human capital and education; and
empirical IO with applications in spatial econometrics.
26
Wilson: spatial economic theory, choice modeling, and efficiency measurement; the
international steel market; railroad and motor carrier markets.
Our faculty have produced a wide range of exceptional work in recent years. As
requested, we restrict our discussion to just 5 examples, though do so while also noting
there have been many other outstanding projects produced in our department. We
intentionally highlight the work of a mix of full, associate, and assistant professors.
Bruce Blonigen has assembled an extremely influential body of work on antidumping
trade protection that started with a National Science Foundation grant from 1998-2000.
Over the previous five years, he has published 10 papers on antidumping trade protection,
including 2 articles in the American Economic Review and 2 articles in the Journal of
International Economics. This work has also led to a U.S. antidumping webpage that
shares important datasets on antidumping activity that he has collected, as well as
providing a forum for researchers on antidumping to post working papers. He is currently
working on projects connected with another National Science Foundation grant, joint with
Wes Wilson, that extends this earlier work by examining trade protection issues connected
with the U.S. steel industry. In a distinct, but related body of work, he has also made
major contributions to the area of foreign direct investment, with publications in outlets
such as the American Economic Review, Review of Economics and Statistics and the
Journal of International Economics.
Trudy Cameron has been heavily involved in a major project concerning the measurement
of individual willingness to pay for private measures and public programs to reduce risks
to life and health. These measures are essential ingredients in the quantification of the
social benefits of costly environmental, health and safety regulations. One part of this
project generalizes the more traditional and limited notion of the Value of a Statistical
Life (VSL) to subsume a wide variety of avoided illness profiles. A second part of the
project considers willingness to pay for public prevention and treatment programs to
reduce risks to the community, where willingness to pay to may depend not only on the
potential lived saved, but also on the number of illnesses prevented or treated, and the
duration of the project. This research project has been conducted in collaboration with JR
DeShazo of UCLA and with the assistance of UO Ph.D. students Ryan Bosworth and Dan
Burghart (with Erica Johnson scheduled to join the team very soon), and undergraduates
Graham Crawford, Ian McConnaha, and Tatiana Raterman. The initial work at UO was
supported by a subcontract from UCLA, with funding from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Health Canada. Continuing work has recently been funded for an
additional two years by a grant from the National Science Foundation to the University of
Oregon. The project has thus far produced six manuscripts, with several more on the way.
George Evans has embarked on a major research program that applies the theoretical tools
on learning and expectation formation, set out in his 2001 book with Professor Seppo
Honkapohja (University of Cambridge), to issues of macroeconomic policy. In a series of
three papers with Honkapohja and two with Bruce McGough (Oregon State), including
published papers in the Review of Economic Studies, the Journal of Money Credit and
Banking, and Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, they show how the
implementation of optimal monetary policy must take into account the way boundedly
rational agents form expectations, since the failure to do so can be destabilizing or lead to
unintended fluctuations. In another pair of papers, Evans and Honkapohja look at the
27
impact of learning for the interaction between monetary and fiscal policy. In particular,
they analyze the way in which large adverse shocks might push the economy under
learning into deflation and stagnation (a "liquidity trap") and how appropriate
modifications to monetary and fiscal policy can avoid this outcome. In related work in
progress (with Jim Bullard of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank and with a former
student, Avik Chakraborty, now at the University of Tennessee), Evans has shown how
learning theory can explain well-known puzzles in asset pricing, including excess
volatility of stock prices and the forward-premium puzzle for foreign exchange rates.
Bill Harbaugh is working with Ulrich Mayr of the UO Psychology Department and Dan
Burghart, an Economics PhD student, on a study of the neural basis of philanthropy.
Their work uses the fMRI scanner in the Lewis Center for Neuro Imaging to show what
parts of the brain people use when they react to an involuntary transfer of money from
themselves to a charity, and what parts they use when deliberating about making a
voluntary transfer. They are able to predict who will give money to charity based on the
degree of activation in parts of the brain associated with pleasure during the involuntary
transfers. This result provides evidence for the pure motive for voluntary contributions to
provide public goods.
Robin McKnight has a project entitled "Medical Price Sensitivity and Optimal Health
Insurance for the Elderly." This project estimates the price elasticity of demand for
medical care among the elderly, in a quasi- experimental framework. This is one of the
most important questions in health economics and one that has not been convincingly
answered in the context of the elderly, in spite of the obvious policy-relevance. It is worth
highlighting the fact that Robin also won the 2003 John Heinz Dissertation Award for the
best dissertation on social insurance in any field, given by the National Academy of Social
Insurance.
2.0 Interdisciplinary Projects or Programs: Describe interdisciplinary research projects or
programs with other units on campus or with other universities or agencies. How successful is the
unit in developing and supporting these types of activities? How important are these kinds of
interdisciplinary relationships to faculty and graduate students in the unit? What changes in this
area, if any, are being considered or planned for the next 3-5 years.
Our faculty are engaged in a large number of such projects, a small sample of which
includes: Blonigen’s membership on the UO International Studies faculty; Blonigen,
Harbaugh, and Singell’s cost study for the UO Education School; Cameron’s “statistical
lives” projects with public policy coauthors and her various Environmental Protection
Agency projects and committees; Duy’s extensive efforts with the Oregon Economic
Forum initiative; Harbaugh’s study of the neural basis for philanthropy, a collaboration
with Ulrich Mayr of the UO Psychology department; Gray and Stone’s birth rate studies,
joint with Jean Stockard of UO PPPM (Planning, Public Policy and Management) and
their nonlinear tax and endogenous growth study with Neil Bania of UO PPPM; Wilson’s
extensive work with the US Army Corps of Engineers; the NBER appointments of
Blonigen and Harbaugh; and a multitude of scholarly collaborations with our faculty and
coauthors from around the nation and the world. These various projects and programs
have been an important component of our collective research programs and the ongoing
success is self-sustaining.
28
3.0 Funding: Describe and evaluate the level of internal and external funding for research or
performance/creative activity for faculty in the unit. Are the faculty and unit competing effectively
for external support? What are the unit’s goals, if any, for internal and external research
funding? How does the unit’s performance in this area compare to other similar units within the
University, the University as a whole, and comparator departments at other universities.
All tenured and tenure track faculty receive a total of $1500 in research support funds
from the University and the College of Arts and Sciences. A number of other internal
research support efforts are separate from these funds. The Department (along with
support from the College) regularly renews faculty computer systems. Depending on the
processor intensity of the faculty member’s research agenda, systems are typically
renewed on a 3-5 year basis. The Department supports up to two domestic conference
trips ($700 each) and one international conference trip ($850) for all faculty, with junior
faculty being allowed to make even larger numbers of requests for such support. The
College also provides an additional $350 in travel support for up to one international
conference per year. Junior faculty receive summer research support from the University
in their first summer and support from the Department in their second summer. These
levels are currently at $7500 per summer. The College also has a Junior Professor
Development grant program where junior faculty can receive up to $1000 annually.
Economics faculty have been quite successful at competing for external funding despite
the limited (relative to other areas such as the sciences) support that is available for
traditional areas of economics research. A listing of external grant funds received in the
last 5 years appears in Appendix B.3. The total dollar amount of these awards is likely
small relative to our main comparators due to our much smaller size.
4.0 Transfer of Knowledge: Describe any significant recent research or other scholarly/creative
interactions with the private sector which have been developed by the unit or individual faculty
members (other than consulting). To what extent are faculty engaged in the knowledge or
technology transfer process (e.g. invention disclosures, patents, license agreements, spin-off
companies)? Does the unit actively encourage such activities or consider them in evaluations
such as tenure and promotion decisions? What are the policy and/or regulatory concerns that
influence your unit's ability to form research or creative partnerships with the private sector (e.g.
conflict of interest policy, Oregon Administrative Rules, intellectual property rights)?
The Department has made substantial contributions to “transfer of knowledge” through
both its contributions to basic economic science (outlined above), its teaching
contributions (outlined below), its community service contributions (outlined below). Of
special note is the Oregon Economic Forum initiative, outlined in section III.D.1.0 below.
Inventions, patents, spin-off companies, and the like are not a factor in our discipline.
C. Teaching
1.0 Teaching Load and Distribution: Describe how the teaching loads of faculty within the unit are
determined, including the number and level of courses. Does the pattern of teaching assignments
differ among members of the unit and if so, what are those differences and what is the rationale
for this distribution?
29
All full-time tenure track faculty have a base teaching load of 5 quarter-courses per year,
with course reductions that can be earned for research productivity or service assignments.
(Most faculty currently meet research productivity standards that make them eligible for a
one-course reduction from their base load.)
2.0 Teaching Support: How does the unit support and reward the development of quality teaching?
To what extent have faculty, GTFs, and other instructional staff used these mechanisms and what
have been the results?
The Department supports and rewards the development of quality teaching in a variety of
ways. First, quality instruction is a very important and explicit component of
tenure/promotion cases, post-tenure reviews, as well as for merit pay evaluations. Second,
we offer a research fund bonus of $1000 to all tenure track faculty teaching large lower
division courses. The intent of this program is to establish a clear tangible signal that we
place high value on quality instruction. Third, our teaching load policy provides for a
course reduction for the development of a new course outside of one’s area of expertise.
Fourth, faculty are encouraged to develop new courses within their areas of expertise by
the expectation that once developed, they would be granted the opportunity to teach the
course on a regular basis. Fifth, a variety of university-level sources have been used to
provide financial support for the development of new courses. For instance, a University
of Oregon William’s Council grant (awarded to Blonigen and Harbaugh) was used as seed
money to establish EC 418/EC 419 Economic Analysis of Community Issues and an
Education Technology grant (awarded to Haynes) was used as seed money to establish our
online offering of EC380 Issues in International Economics. Sixth, we annually give
modest financial awards that are handed out at our graduation ceremonies to our best
graduate student instructors. Seventh, we have nominated our faculty for university level
teaching awards on a fairly regular basis, nominations that have often been successful (for
instance, Blonigen and Wilson have been awarded the Ersted teaching award – the most
prestigious teaching award granted on this campus).
D. Service
1.0 Community Service: Describe the extent to which the unit’s professional expertise is made
available to the community, state, and nation through lectures, concerts, service to governmental
boards, scientific/professional associations, or any other means. Evaluate the quality of this
service and indicate how it contributes to the unit’s instructional and/or research programs?
The Department’s contributions to community service have been extensive. The Oregon
Economic Forum, a joint program between Economics and the College of Arts and
Sciences, serves as a platform for business, academic, and government leaders to explore,
in a non-partisan format, economic issues affecting Oregonians. For instance, the Second
Annual Oregon Economic Forum, held on October 18, 2005, covered the topics of health
care and international trade via presentations by Economics faculty members, business
leaders, and government officials to an audience of 140 persons. The Director of the
Forum, Tim Duy, also publishes a monthly index of economic indicators for Oregon that
is widely covered by the state media outlets. The Forum also connects with the
community via speeches and press contacts. For example, in the past year Duy has
30
spoken to the Columbia Corridor Association, the Salem Economic Development
Corporation, the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, and the Portland Paint Association. Duy
has also volunteered his services to a regional planning agency, the Lane Council of
Governments. Mark Thoma maintains and contributes material for a highly successful
blog on contemporary economic issues – Economist’s View
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/. Thoma’s writings have been quoted
in such outlets as the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post, and The
Oregonian. In its first year, Economist’s View had well over 300,000 visits and 500,000
pages read. Our faculty have made frequent contributions in the form of television
interviews, radio interviews, editorials in newspapers, presentations at state and
community nonprofit organizations. Wilson's research is actively disseminated to the
community, states, and nation through active releases and newsletters submitted by the
Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, he routinely speaks to and with such groups.
These activities form the basis for some of his research and are brought directly into the
classroom through homework and/or project assignments as well as into the supervision of
student research. As noted previously, we offer a two-course sequence in Economic
Analysis of Community Issues (EC418/EC419) in which economics honors students and
their faculty advisors (Blonigen and Harbaugh) undertake projects for the benefit of local
nonprofit and governmental organizations. There is also the previously mentioned plan of
Blonigen and Harbaugh to lead a week long economics summer camp for local
disadvantaged youth in which they will use economic experiments and other participatory
exercises to demonstrate economic thinking, and provide basic information on the rewards
to a college education. This service is all part of our instructional program, either as inclass instruction or as a part of a broader mission to educate the public.
In terms of service to the profession, our faculty participate extensively in national and
international conferences, both through individual presentations and organization of
sessions. Guest seminars at other academic institutions or government/professional
organizations are also common place, as is referee/review service for scholarly journals,
promotion and tenure, grant reviews, and program reviews. Our faculty also serve on a
substantial number editorial positions for scholarly journals, a sample of which includes –
Blonigen: American Economic Review, the Journal of International Economics, Canadian
Journal of Economics, and Journal of International Business Studies; Cameron: Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy; Davies: North American Journal of Economics and
Finance and Journal of International Business; Ellis: Briefing Notes in Economics; Evans:
Macroeconomic Dynamics and Journal of Economics, Dynamics, and Control; Lambert:
Social Choice and Welfare and Journal of Economic Inequality; and Singell: Economics
of Education Review. Other highlights in professional service include Cameron’s status as
President-Elect for the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists and her
service on a variety of EPA advisory boards; and Harbaugh’s service on NSF and EPA
panels. Clearly these efforts are all central to our collective research program.
The Department also has a history of service to the University that is too long to provide
in complete detail here (specifics can be found in our respective vitae). To provide some
sense of the scale of the contributions, we note that in this year alone members of our
department are serving as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences (Stone); chair of the
Faculty Advisory Council (Kolpin) which is the primary advisory body to the University
President; chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee (Singell) which is the primary
31
advisory body to the Provost on promotion and tenure; chair of the Deans Advisory
Committee (van den Nouweland) which is the primary advisory body to the Dean on
promotion and tenure; co-chair of the Steering Accreditation committee (Gray) which is
preparing the UO accreditation report.
2.0 Continuing or Executive/Professional Education: To what extent is the unit involved in
offering continuing education and professional development courses or programs? List any
courses offered through continuing education. Describe any courses or programs designed for
professional or executive education. Identify any of these courses or programs that are offered in
locations other than the Eugene campus, or via distance technology. Describe any changes that
are being considered or planned for the next 3-5 years.
Continuing/professional education initiatives are significant elements of our department’s
contribution to the University’s mission. Our distance education offerings – which
currently include sections in EC201 Introductory Microeconomics, EC202 Introductory
Macroeconomics, and EC380 International Economic Issues – help to expand the
University’s access to nontraditional and community education students who find it
inconvenient or even impossible to take courses during regular workday hours. We have
taken great care (thanks to the efforts of Steve Haynes, the primary architect of these
online offerings) to ensure that these courses are rigorous and measure up to the standards
set by our traditional in-class courses. We are currently contemplating the addition of a
400 level course to further facilitate student access. There is also broad participation
throughout our department in professional education via presentations at professional
workshops, conferences, and guest seminars.
3.0 Consulting: To what extent is the faculty involved in outside consulting work? Provide a
quantitative and qualitative assessment of this type of work and explain in what ways it
contributes to the unit’s instructional and/or research programs.
We engage in a relatively modest amount of such activity, examples of which include
Chakraborty’s work for the International Monetary Fund; Evan’s work for the Federal
Reserve Bank; Singell’s work for the UO on financial aid policy and on the impact of the
UO on the state of Oregon; and Wilson’s work with the US Army Corp of Engineers. In
every instance, these activities have been directly related to the faculty member’s research
program and have often led to projects in which undergraduate and graduate students have
also participated. These activities have had a decidedly positive impact on both our
instructional and research programs.
E. Assessment and Evaluation
1.0 Evaluation Criteria: Describe how (and how often) the unit evaluates the quality of its faculty in
teaching; research, performance, and/or creative activity; and service. How are the results of
these evaluations used by the unit? Attach a copy of the standards for promotion and tenure that
have been developed with the approval of the appropriate Dean and the Provost. Attach a copy of
the standards used for post-tenure review. Provide a copy of any other standards or forms used to
evaluate teaching, research/performance or service.
All Economics faculty submit a faculty activity report on February 15th of each year. This
report provides a detailed accounting of the faculty member’s professional activities
32
during the previous 12 months. This record is evaluated by the department head and our
elected Salary Review Committee for the purposes of administering our teaching load
policy. Additional evaluations occur, along with the provision of an updated record of
professional activity, whenever opportunities for merit pay increases present themselves.
Individual reviews of faculty also occur on a regular basis. Junior faculty are reviewed on
an annual basis by the department head in consultation with our personnel committee.
Contract renewals of junior faculty are subject to a more substantive review which
resembles a promotion/tenure case without the solicitation of external reviewers. Tenured
faculty receive post tenure reviews every three years, with a substantive post-tenure
review carried out every six years by the elected salary review committee and the
department head. Details regarding individual faculty reviews, including promotion and
tenure reviews can be found in Appendix B.4.
2.0 Assessment: Provide a brief overview of the quality of the research, teaching, and service of
faculty in the unit. How do assessments of faculty teaching compare to similar departments and to
the University as a whole? Highlight any areas in which faculty have provided exemplary service
to the university, the discipline, the public. How does the research, performance or creative
activity in the unit compare nationally or internationally to research in the discipline? Describe
any external rankings of the unit. What are the unit’s goals for faculty in the research/creative
activity area.
University of Oregon Economics faculty are making exceptionally high quality
contributions in each of the areas of research, teaching, and service. All faculty members
are actively engaged in research programs. Despite averaging fewer than 17 full time
equivalent tenure track faculty over the last three years, the department has published
nearly 100 refereed papers in a wide range of quality outlets including “top ten” journals
such as American Economic Review and Journal of Economic Theory. We have also
enjoyed substantial success in securing external grants (as outlined in section III.B.3.0).
Teaching has also been an area of high achievement. All of our faculty place a high
priority on providing high quality instruction. We have two Ersted award winners
(Blonigen and Wilson) on our current staff and one retired Ersted winner (Whitelaw) who
continues to teach for us. Blonigen and Harbaugh have won two Williams Council grants
to support the development of their sequence, Economic Analysis of Community Issues
EC418/419. There have also been a substantial number of new courses developed in
recent years, including those in experimental economics (Harbaugh), game theory (Ellis
and van den Nouweland), health economics (McKnight), and environmental economics
(Cameron). There has also been an ambitious overhaul of our distance education
offerings (Haynes) to make them as rich and rigorous as traditional in-class offerings.
We have very civic-minded faculty who have made exceptional service contributions, to
the University, the profession, and the community. See Section III.D.1.0 for details.
3.0 Faculty Development: What does the unit do to encourage and develop research, performance
or creative activity? How well are these incentives working? Describe any deficiencies in
facilities and resources that negatively affect the unit’s attempts to reach its research objectives.
33
The Economics Department has been enormously successful in nurturing a culture in
which faculty are actively and visibly engaged in their research activity – independently,
with students, and with colleagues on and off this campus. Indeed, one of our most
powerful recruitment and retention selling points is our exceptionally collegial and
research active set of colleagues. The departmental norm is for faculty to work on
campus, be accessible, and interact with others every day, irrespective if one is teaching
that quarter. Many faculty have coauthored with each other and with past/present students
and they are always willing to seek or offer input regarding a research project when
needed. We have a weekly department-wide seminar that faculty attend religiously.
Although our resources are limited, we have tried hard to provide significant subsidies for
conference travel, both domestic ($700 per conference) and international ($850 per
conference). (Note also the $1500 in individual research accounts provided by the
College and University described in section III.B.3.0.) These efforts have been
particularly vigorous for junior faculty where all such requests for support have been
granted in recent years. We have been fairly aggressive in updating computers whenever
the need arises. We also have a Junior Faculty Study Leave policy, described in section
III.A.3.0. Despite the challenges posed by our limited resource base, we feel the efforts
outlined above have been extremely effective.
The most notable deficiency is our building. Aside from its cramped office space, it can
often become uncomfortable due to the lack of temperature regulation. This is most
pronounced in our department seminar room that frequently becomes excessively warm in
the late afternoon sun, especially when the room is filled to capacity.
4.0 Adequacy of Staffing and Resources: Is the unit staffed adequately to meet the needs of
various fields of specialization in the discipline? How will the unit maintain an appropriate
distribution of specializations if available resources remain essentially constant?
Although we are of a small size for a Ph.D. granting economics department we provide a
relatively full service listing of field specializations. The breadth of research interests
held by our individual faculty also enable us to provide a surprisingly deep coverage in
each of the specializations offered. Given the ever increasing number of students we
service (majors and nonmajors alike) the biggest challenge we would face with a constant
resource base would be in keeping our class enrollments from exploding beyond
reasonable levels. Another major challenge, which was also noted earlier in this
document is that more than 1/3 of the funding for graduate student support is provided by
faculty leaves. While this is a functional arrangement in our current circumstances, we
will face serious problems should faculty taking full or partial leaves for extended periods
of time choose to resume their full-time appointments within the department.
IV. SUMMARY
Reflect upon and summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the degree programs and the unit
as whole, and the issues that the unit is likely to face in the next five years. Review briefly the unit’s
objectives for the next 5 to 10 years. What changes might help the unit attain these objectives. If
changes require resources, identify possible sources for any additional resources. If changes will
free-up resources, discuss how those resources would be reallocated.
34
This self-study process has served to highlight a number of remarkable strengths in our degree
programs, as well as in our department as a whole.
• Our undergraduate programs do an extraordinarily effective job of serving our
undergraduate majors and minors as well as the campus at large. Our students recognize that
we are delivering high quality training that will serve them well in their post-collegiate
careers, as is reflected by the fact that we have one of the fastest growing populations of
majors and minors on this campus. Our undergraduate offerings provide exceptional service
to many other programs as well. Indeed, numerous programs either require or strongly
recommend our courses and we provide many popular general education courses. In addition
to being recognized as a high-value program by our students, our cost effectiveness speaks
loudly to our favorable impact on the University’s bottom-line as we are one of the lowest
cost-per-student-credit-hour departments on this entire campus.
• Our Ph.D. program offers strong training in a wide range of economics field specialties.
We have a low student to professor ratio coupled with a high level of collegiality, so our
Ph.D. students can expect more personal attention and mentorship than they might at many
other programs. The vast majority of students complete their degree within 4 or 5 years. Our
students generally spend two full years developing their teaching skills and experience with
grading and discussion section assignments before beginning to teach independent classes.
All students receive ample opportunity for independent course assignments while keeping an
entire quarter free each year from teaching obligations to facilitate timely progress on their
dissertations. Our students routinely mature into outstanding teacher/scholars, as is reflected
by the fact that over the last 5 years, 100% of our graduates applying in the academic market
have received and accepted academic job offers.
• Our Master’s program employs both dedicated Master’s level economic theory classes
along with a long menu of Master’s/Ph.D.-combined econometrics and field classes. With
both coursework and research paths to a degree, our graduates depart with a solid foundation
for either directly entering the workforce or pursuing further graduate training.
• We have a faculty that is, at all ranks, actively engaged in their research programs and
making notable contributions to the discipline. Despite the challenges of competing against
much larger, and much better funded programs, we have been consistently successful at hiring
exceptionally high quality colleagues. We provide a vibrant, collegial, and supportive work
environment in which faculty routinely discuss their research, frequently coauthor projects
with each other and with their students, and continually strive to support and advance the
careers of their colleagues and students. Our faculty is packed with extremely talented
teachers, many of whom have won awards recognizing their instructional efforts. In addition
to its raw talent, our faculty has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to enriching our
students’ educational experiences through the design of new courses, the updating of
established courses, and the employment of new instructional technologies.
• Our department is making outstanding contributions to community service in all
dimensions. At the professional level, department members serve on numerous editorial
boards/positions for scholarly journals, a number of professional advisory boards/panels, and
in the senior leadership of professional organizations. At the University level, department
35
members have served on numerous high profile and time intensive appointments. Our
department has made a long list of substantial contributions at the broader community and
regional level, most notably through our Oregon Economic Forum Initiative.
Our objective for the years ahead is to continue following the path we have already
established as it has led to considerable success in all of our endeavors. This objective also
points to our greatest challenge – sustaining our success in the face of this university’s state of
perpetually deficient financial resources. While we have been able to attract a remarkably
strong set of colleagues who genuinely enjoy working with each other, our salaries lag far
behind that which would be commanded in the open market. Further compounding salary
pressures is the paradoxical “curse” of our own success - the consistently high quality of our
faculty makes it difficult to achieve headway during the rare opportunities for merit pay
increases. Indeed, uniformly high merit mandates that all receive average increases (which
for a cash strapped campus, is synonymous with small increases). Another substantial
challenge is the long-standing under-funding of our Ph.D. program. Over 1/3 of its costs are
covered with the use of “soft” monies. Any change in the state of our soft money income thus
would have serious repercussions for our Ph.D. program, which in turn would have a
cascading effect throughout all of our programs.