|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2006‒04‒01
four papers chosen by Jonas Holmstrom Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Sörlin, Sverker (CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Royal Institute of Technology) |
| Abstract: | More explicitly than before, universities have become instruments of industrial and economic growth policies. This has led to an increase in accountability regimes and in the application of the so called New Public Management on universities hitherto governed by a Humboldtian, Weberian, or Mertonian norms and a high degree of internal freedom and autonomy. This paper reviews some of the literature on these phenomena and analyzes critically some of the positions taken. It is concluded that while there is arguably a considerable change in governance going on in Western university systems, the change is far from altering the academic ethos. Still, it is argued, institutional norms should also be defended, which could be achieved through differentiation of higher education and among research performing institutions and organizations. An important virtue of the university remains to deliver social value precisely because it is an institution of credibility, criticism, and trust. |
| Keywords: | University Governance; University Management; Higher Education Policy; Higher Education; Research Policy; University Licensing. |
| JEL: | I21 |
| Date: | 2006–03–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:cesisp:0053&r=sog |
| By: | Wendy A. Stock (Department of Economics and Agricultural Economics, Montana State University); T. Aldrich Finegan (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University); John J. Siegfried (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University and AEA) |
| Abstract: | Information about 586 individuals who matriculated into 27 economics Ph.D. programs in Fall 2002 is used to estimate first and second year attrition rates. After two years, 26.5 percent of the initial cohort had left, equally divided between the first and second years. Attrition varies widely across individual programs. It is lower among the most highly rated 15 programs, for students with higher verbal and quantitative GRE scores, and for those on a research assistantship. Poor academic performance is the most cited reason for withdrawal. About 15 percent transfer to other economics programs because they are dissatisfied with some aspect of the particular program where they first enrolled. |
| Keywords: | Attrition, dropouts, economics Ph.D. programs |
| JEL: | A14 A23 I2 |
| Date: | 2006–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:van:wpaper:0608&r=sog |
| By: | Wendy A. Stock (Department of Economics and Agricultural Economics, Montana State University); T. Aldrich Finegan (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University); John J. Siegfried (Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University and AEA) |
| Abstract: | Using a sample of 26 U.S. economics Ph.D. programs in Fall 2003, we estimate that only about 12 percent of the U.S. and Canadian students accepted for doctoral study did not enroll in any U.S. economics Ph.D. program in Fall 2003 or Fall 2004. It is not possible to increase the supply of new Ph.D. economists substantially by "closing the sale" on accepted applicants: additional qualified applicants are needed. Nonmatriculants are remarkably similar to enrollees in demographics, prior education, test scores, and fields of special interest, but express less interest in economic research and are less likely to have been offered financial aid. An expected financial aid deficiency was also the most-cited reason for deciding not to matriculate, followed by how long it takes to earn an economics Ph.D., and the expectation of higher lifetime earnings in a career other than economics. Most who decided against an economics Ph.D. enrolled in an alternative graduate program. |
| Keywords: | Matriculation, economics Ph.D. programs |
| JEL: | A14 A23 I2 |
| Date: | 2006–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:van:wpaper:0609&r=sog |
| By: | Tiffany Hutcheson (School of Finance and Economics, University of Technology, Sydney); Harry Tse (School of Finance and Economics, University of Technology, Sydney) |
| Abstract: | It is a concern amongst academics that students, unless required, attend tutorials on an irregular basis and when they do attend do very little preparation. Tutors often find that many students simply attend the tutorial to copy down answers written by the tutor on the board. This paper examines the problem of tutorial attendance using two approaches. The first approach evaluates quantitatively whether there is a link between tutorial attendance and the grades achieved by students for assessment tasks. The second approach involves the analysis of responses made by students to a survey completed in the Spring Semester 2005. In the survey students are asked questions on how regularly they attend tutorials, on their preparation of tutorial questions and for reasons why they do not attend tutorials. |
| Date: | 2006–03–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:uts:wpaper:145&r=sog |