ten

grad school wins

On Friday, I gave a presentation at a graduate student colloquium organized by the Carleton Graduate Economics Society—and I actually placed in the top three out of the presenters, which was pretty cool. OH, and my sister, and besties Justin and Melissa, came out to see me present, which was even cooler.

My paper, on the efficiency and equity arguments against lowering tuition fees, can be read here. Better yet is the bad-ass Prezi I made for it!

nine

remedial studies for our university system

I've been a terrible blogger since I started school again, but I'm going to try to get back into it.

The topic of my education class this week—yup, I'm back in that class again, except this time for credit. Yay!—was PSE reform. The readings for class served as the inspiration for an opinions piece I wrote for my old paper, the Fulcrum, which I've included below.

One of the most interesting pieces we had to read was a report by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). They recently commissioned a report entitled The Benefits of Greater Differentiation of Ontario's University Sector. To me, a system of greater differentiation would solve multiple problems plaguing our current education system, in particular those based on accessibility to information. Here are some of my thoughts on where the system needs to go, written in the form of an open letter to university presidents across the country: 

Dear university presidents of Canada,

You are failing us. No, I’m not talking about the hundreds of failing grades we rightfully earned last semester. I’m talking about how the million undergraduate students enrolled in Canadian universities right now are being ill-prepared for the working world in a poorly organized education system.

It’s no secret recent grads are having a hard time finding jobs. With youth unemployment at 13.5 per cent, even the brightest students are stuck waiting tables a few weeks after graduation. And perhaps we’ve been naïve. We busted ass for four years to earn that BA, but we shouldn’t have really expected to enter the work force and make a livable wage. Wait—what?

It seems like the university system in Canada is overly preoccupied with the input-output function of institutions. On the input side, students enroll, tuition is paid, funding for research comes in, professors and other support staff fill the buildings. Then a bunch of stuff happens, and we magically have graduation rates, research findings, and rankings to report.

But what about your students? Where do our academic experiences, satisfaction with the university we’ve likely devoted four years of our lives to, or the extent to which we’ve truly mastered our field fit into this black-box approach to education? What’s going on inside that box is where the majority of our problems occur.

Universities pride themselves for teaching students critical thinking and reasoning skills. Yet upon entering the work force, many grads have little to offer employers in terms of “skills”. Skills, primarily associated with the hands-on learning done at colleges, are a severely lacking component of university curriculum. When one considers the majority of BA graduates would like to enter the work force without further education, learning a skill or two in undergrad isn’t asking a lot.

We also lack the information we need to make decisions about our education—be it as 16 year olds in high school trying to decide if university is for us, or as 25 year olds making the decision to pursue a PhD. While it may be difficult to publish national data on enrolment, graduation rates, and employment of recent graduates, you have this information on your schools, and that’s the information we care about.

And because you have this information, it should be used to design better policies that help students in the long run. Why do you admit thousands of students to education programs when there’s already an excess of teachers in most provinces? Why are doctoral students in some disciplines accepted in high numbers when there is a shortage of tenure-track positions available? While higher enrolment means more money for the university, you aren’t doing students any favours by awarding us degrees in fields already flooded with workers.

Admittedly, you’re not all bad. Some of you have recognized these problems and designed policies to address them. And, admittedly, these issues aren’t entirely your fault. The provincial governments, and an absent federal presence in education policy, are also to blame, as are administrative staff, professors, and students themselves. But you’re supposed to be the leaders in this failing group project. You can set policy that promotes better learning outcomes for your students.

I know you aren’t exactly rolling in the dough right now, and you’ve seen your financial support from the government go down in the last decade. What’s more, poor employment prospects for youth have driven up enrolment rates, as students pursue second, sometimes third, degrees. But the key to making our education more worthwhile doesn’t depend on financial solutions to the problems.

What if you all worked within your provinces to create a more differentiated system of universities, specializing in the areas at which your institutions excels? If schools were differentiated by research versus teaching intensity, undergraduate versus graduate focus, or what special programs they offer, such as co-op or technical training, students could choose the school that best suits their career ambitions.

On the topic of technical training, creating academic versus applied streams in certain disciplines would be an effective way to ensure those students who wish to pursue a career in academia are learning the knowledge they need, while students who hope to enter the labour market upon graduation can learn the skills their employers desire. Partnerships between local colleges and employers can help facilitate these programs.

If nothing else, supply prospective students with all the information they need to make their education decisions—and let that information guide policy made by the university. Graduates will be best able to service the needs of the labour market if we can be confident we are earning degrees in high-demand fields, and program selection and admissions should reflect those realities.

At the end of the day, I know you care about us. These problems keep you up as late as our crappy closing shifts at the bar. I met Allan Rock, president of the University of Ottawa, last year, and by the end of our brief chat, he made it clear to me he cares just as much about the future of university education as I do. You all do—how could you not? We’re your students, employees-to-be, and the future of this country. So please, don’t let another couple hundred thousand of us walk across the stage on graduation day without doing something to make our degrees worth more than the paper they are printed on.

eight

happy friday! 

today's ecocomic goes out to my best girl, laurel, with whom i debate, formulate, and test the majority of the assumptions i make on a daily basis.

ass = u + me, gurl

i love you, GC!

seven

the wins and woes of women in the workforce

Women have had some major triumphs in the PSE system in recent decades. In fact, when it comes to getting a degree, we're kicking ass. Some interesting statistics:

• In 1971, 68 per cent of graduates between 25 and 29 were male. By 1991, women comprised the majority of university graduates
• As of 2006, 81.1 per cent of females surveyed in the Youth in Transition Survey were in university or college, versus 68.4 per cent of males. This difference is due mainly the the large percentage of women in universities
• In 2010, 71 per cent of women between 25 and 44 years old had completed a post-secondary education, compared to 65 per cent of men
• In elementary school, females tend to behave in a way that promotes better school outcomes. One study showed boys aged 10–11 are less likely to work neatly, more likely to get into fights, and more likely to be restless or hyperactive
• This trend continues in to high school, affecting factors that are directly linked to positive post-secondary outcomes. Females perform better on standardized tests, receive higher grades, spend more time doing homework on a weekly basis, and are less likely to have to repeat a grade

So the good news is women are—in larger numbers than ever before—making it in to post-secondary institutions, particularly when compared to men. But the news isn't all good. Upon entering the workforce, women still face inequality when compared to their male counterparts:

• In 2008, women earned about 65 per cent of what men earned in the same year. These differences can be attributed to difference in hours worked, as women are less likely to work full time
• Females have a more difficult time paying off their student debt, since women earn, on average, less than men
• According to the Canadian Association of University Teachers, 28.7 per cent of full-time professors at all ranks and only 15.1 per cent of full professors are women. In 2006–07, female full-time professors on average earned $117,875, while males of the same status earned $124,603
• The percentage of women members of Parliament in the House of Commons sits at 22.1 per cent—below the OECD average
• According to the 2006 census, the number of women in Canada working in the STEM fields ranged from 12.2 per cent in engineering to 36.7 per cent in the life sciences. A study done in the U.S. has projected it will take another 40–50 years before men and women are being hired at an equal rate in the STEM fields
  

In addition to the inequality faced by women in the workforce, a paper by the University of Ottawa's Education Policy Research Initiative found: 

The negative effects of being in a low income family, of having parents with no PSE of their own, of coming from a single parent family, or of being disabled are all greater for females than males. 

Something to think about on the 101st anniversary of International Women's Day!

six

people without jobs, jobs without people

On Feb. 26, CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup hosted an episode entitled, "Should the education system be better tailored to fit the job market in Canada?" Inspired by a report published in the GTA earlier that week, the two-hour program discussed the post-secondary education system; what programs are being under (or over) studied; the increasing importance of colleges, apprenticeships, and workplace training; and the transition from school to the workforce with special guests and callers across the country.

There's a striking disconnect between the market for post-secondary education and that of the labour market, with very few existing mechanisms in place to facilitate an equilibrium between the markets. Universities, which appear to be very unresponsive to the demands of the labour market, issues acceptances to programs without consideration of the employment prospects these students will face upon graduation. Meanwhile in the job market, there are fields—particularly the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields—that are experiencing growing labour shortages.

This issue served as the inspiration for my editorial in the Fulcrum this week, in which I attempt to do this topic justice in 800 words: 

It's storytime.

A few weeks ago, Canadian economist Don Drummond released his much-anticipated report, outlining a series of recommendations for the Ontario government to avoid hitting a projected deficit of $30.2 billion by 2017–18. Among the list of cost-cutting initiatives, Drummond recommended post-secondary education (PSE) funding be contained to an increase of 1.5 per cent annually. Post-secondary enrolment is expected to outstrip that, rising at 1.7 per cent each year.

Backtrack one year. A report, aptly titled People without jobs, jobs without people, is published that details the future of Ontario’s labour market. It predicts Ontario could face a shortage of up to 1.8 million workers in two decades as the baby boomer generation retires.

Interestingly enough, the same report also predicted that by 2031, 77 per cent of jobs would require some form of post-secondary training—university, college, apprenticeship, or industry. As it stands, 60 per cent of Ontarians have some post-secondary education.

Last week, the Toronto Regional Research Alliance released a report stating for every seven job openings in the Greater Toronto Area, there is just one qualified recent graduate of a post-secondary program—a trend that will persist as students continue to shy away from the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Beyond indicating a serious love of report writing amongst Canadians, this series of events outlines the set of challenges facing both our post-secondary institutions and the labour market during a time characterized by fiscal constraint, shrinking labour force, and growing demand for post-secondary graduates.

In short, we have people without jobs, and jobs without people.

There are many mechanisms by which the federal or provincial governments can address these conflicting concerns. Immigration policy can be changed to allow more workers—particularly skilled workers—into our labour force, and regulations can be altered to facilitate the transfer of skills across borders, allowing immigrants with PSE credentials to work in their country of choice.

There needs to be a concerted effort—emphasis on the word “concerted”—across the levels of government to increase access to PSE institutions amongst those groups that are traditionally under-represented at colleges and universities. Governments should also create a national database containing the earnings outlook for different occupations across the country, while placing an emphasis on marketing the STEM fields critical to innovation and productivity—two keys to prosperity in our knowledge-based economy.

Despite the opportunities for government intervention, the disconnect between the education and labour markets during a time of limited financial resources provides an opportunity for PSE institutions to save themselves.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, universities—though often touted as the marketplace of ideas and exchange of information—are underwhelming in terms of innovation, responsiveness, and efficiency when it comes to their operations. As the public spending on universities has declined in the past decade, universities have an incentive to accept more graduates irrespective of their desired field of study. There is little thought to the labour market, and enrolment rates do not reflect the rates of (un)employment in various disciplines.

The challenges posed by the needs of the labour market create a unique opportunity for Canadian universities to fix the broken model under which they’ve been operating for decades.

When it comes to getting more people into PSE institutions, universities need to reach out to high schools and make the opportunities available to students through PSE more clear, particularly those high schoolers who aren’t making it past Grade 12.

And what fields these students will enter also matters. The university programs offered to students should reflect the demands of both applicants and labour market conditions. Although it’s difficult to predict which fields we’ll need most a decade or two from now, we can be sure we aren’t producing enough STEM graduates in Canada as it stands.

To ensure students are securing meaningful work upon graduation, universities need to build more partnerships within the surrounding community in order to offer more co-op placements to their students. They need to partner with local colleges and offer students joint degrees that will give them both cognitive and practical skill sets, as an increasing number of university graduates are resorting to secondary college diplomas upon facing poor job prospects after graduation.

Universities also need to experiment with online education, particularly as there is a growing need to update the skills of those already in the workforce who do not have the time to return to university full time. Additionally, fast-tracked, three-year programs—with more spring and summer courses offered to students—is another mechanism by which the number of qualified graduates entering the workforce can increase.

The growing disconnect between what we are learning in school and what we need in the real world is a problem solved by the same materials we need to fuel our economy: Innovation, adaptability, and efficiency. If politicians, universities, colleges, high schools, and students can’t step up and collaborate on these issues, we may very well have an end-of-the-world scenario fit for our opinions section this week.

Originally published in the Fulcrum on March 7, 2012 at: http://thefulcrum.ca/2012/03/people-without-jobs-jobs-without-people/

five-point-five

how do i love thee? let me count the [statistically significant] ways...

i saw this on greg mankiw's blog today and couldn't resist reposting it. 

reason #124 why economists rule: because who wouldn't want to wake up to a valentine's day card this adorkable:

no? just me?

<3

—m

five

happy valentine's day!

this post goes out to one of my favourite people, without whom i never would have started drawing ecocomics.

from the CORE of my heart

four

where dem feds at?

The topic of my seminar class tomorrow is "jurisdictional issues." In the context of post-secondary education and public policy, this refers to discussions of which level of government is responsible both creating and funding education policy, and the way the federal and provincial governments work with one another—or not so much—to develop policies and programs.

Like in any social science, these observations serve the foundation for normative assessments; in this case, on which level of government ought to be responsible for policy making when it comes to education. In economics, this is, like, a sub-subfield called fiscal federalism—and it's one of my favourites! 

Last year, the Canadian Council on Learning released what would be its final report on education in Canada—the former president and CEO of which, Paul Cappon, will be giving a presentation in my class tomorrow (!!!). The findings of this report inspired an editorial I wrote for the Fulcrum on Oct. 19 on the jurisdictional issues surrounding PSE policy in Canada, which I oh-so-hilariously named "Where dem feds at?".  Check it out:

Last week, the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) released its final report on the state of education in Canada. The independent, national learning organization is set to close in spring 2012 after the Harpergovernment withdrew federal funding last year—and did they ever go out with a bang.

What is the Future of Learning in Canada? analyzes trends in the Canadian education system, from early childhood education programs to post-secondary education, as well as adult learning, workplace training, and Aboriginal learning.

The results? Canadians are falling behind. According to the report, we are “slipping down the international learning curve,” and the government is to blame. More specifically, the study states, “Our governments have failed to work together to develop the necessary policies and failed to exhibit the required collective political leadership.” 

The CCL suggests Canada develop national education standards, and warns policymakers that without a nationwide authority to oversee common education goals, student achievement will continue to decline.

This assessment of our educational institutions seems a little out there. After all, in this edition of the Fulcrum, we write about how our own University of Ottawa was ranked among the top 200 universities in the world, along with eight other Canadian schools. This report is also released on the heals of an article published in the Economist this September in which Ontario’s education system is described as “one of the world’s best-performing schools systems.”

And the CCL does not hesitate to give credit where credit is due. With respect to post-secondary education, Canada is applauded for high education expenditures, strong rates of participation, quality of educators, and an educated immigrant population.

Despite these triumphs, the most consistent criticism of our education system throughout the report is the lack of a cohesive, nationwide approach to education policy. The CCL calls for greater cooperation between the provinces and territories—under which the responsibility of education falls—and the federal government in the development and oversight of education policy in order to create stated objectives, measures of assessment, and cohesion across the country.

This isn’t the first time lack of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments has prevented national objectives from being met, or even developed. Policies on the environment, another area of provincial jurisdiction under our constitution, have fallen to the wayside over the past decade because of disputes over which level of government is both willing and able to implement such policies.

Canadian federalism is a beautiful thing. Under our constitution, the federal and provincial governments are given the authority to regulate the aspects of Canadian society most relevant to them, and this freedom allows a geographically disperse and regionally distinct group of provinces to coexist under the flag of one nation. It’s what makes us the diverse bunch we are.

But federalism isn’t without its flaws. Some areas of jurisdiction are unclear. Health care and education, for example, fall under provincial power, but are financially supported by the federal government. The environment is a provincial concern, but the ability to negotiate an international treaty on climate change resides with the federal government. The tension between who is allowed to act vis-à-vis our constitution versus who has the resources and incentive to do so impedes our ability to get things done from time to time.

When it comes to implementing an international treaty regarding the environment or developing a set of standards for our schools, it is obvious who has both the resources and incentive to guide action. The desire to have a clean environment for generations to come is no more exclusive to British Columbians than the desire to receive a high quality education is to Ontarians. These values—irrespective of their place in the Canadian constitution—are Canadian values, desired and deserved by all.

Canada’s education system may be in a good place worldwide as it stands, but so was our record on the environment 10 years ago. The CCL is right: It is time for the provincial and federal governments to work together toward developing, implementing, and overseeing the creation of standards for our education system—an initiative that should be led by our federal government. Otherwise, the future of learning in Canada seems to have reached a dead end.

Originally published in the Fulcrum on Oct. 19, 2011 at: http://thefulcrum.ca/2011/10/where-dem-feds-at/

three

love and [education] economics

i started this blog with the intention of talking about "all things economics," but upon creating it, i wasn't really sure what to write about. 

[cut to me not blogging for nine months]

but during my brief hiatus from the blogging world—from which i was surely missed after those riveting first posts—i did some soul searching and found my inspiration for this blog. and so the story goes: 

in early june, i went to the canadian economics association's annual conference, which was held in ottawa this year. after spending two hours pouring through the 122-page program, i finally selected the sessions i wanted to attend. the majority were related to my favourite subfields up until that point in my academic career: development economics, with some growth and labour sessions in there. 

but since i am an economist of sorts, i quickly noticed a pattern: half the sessions i chose were related to education: quality of schooling, barriers to post-secondary education, boys' crisis in higher education, and the list goes on and on. i was somewhat interested in the economics of education since writing an article for the fulcrum about the canadian federation of students' (CFS) education is a right campaign, but never considered education economics as a legit discipline—i don't even think i knew it existed.

those sessions—particularly this general panel on post-secondary education—introduced me to the world education economics (which i learned, quite quickly, most definitely exists and is the definition of "legit"). that weekend, i was completely engulfed by terms i often used without considering their meanings, such as "access" and "barriers"; issues related to quality and system design of PSE institutions (oh, and i became acquainted with the abbrev "PSE"—watch for it); the relationship between the market for post-secondary education and the labour market; research versus policy versus practice; and abbreviations like HEQCO, EPRI, MESA, and so on and so forth. the conversations these economists had—they were so interesting, relevant, and the passion behind their work was infectious. i was hooked. 

so what have i been up to since post "two"? well, beyond the whole being-eic-of-the-fulcrum deal, i've been having a total love affair with the economics of education. 

the ecomance reached a new level a couple weeks ago, when i wrote a feature on accessibility to PSE in light of my faaavvvooouuurrriiittteee day of the year: the CFS's national day of action. this gave me a legit excuse to talk to some of the people whose work on PSE i've been admiring for months (!!!!). one of them teaches at the university of ottawa, and he invited me to sit in on his master's class on education and public policy. during that first class, i had that this-is-exactly-what-i-should-be-studying-for-the-rest-of-my-life realization every five minutes, amidst scribbling down dozens of ideas for my master's research paper (oh yea, i got into my master's).

oddly enough, the class that made me seriously consider switching into economics six-some years ago involved education economics. david gray was explaining the economics behind lowering tuition fees, and i remember being fascinated by the idea that "intended actions often carry unintended consequences" and simultaneously deciding economic principles were a pretty legit way of understanding the world we live in.

so, the point of this post? well, on top of the things i originally intended to write about, be prepared for all things related to the economics behind education: barriers to access, persistence, quality, the way universities are funded, the new role of colleges, student debt, tuition fees, labour market and skillz, jurisdictional issues, public policy—literally, i will be writing ALL the things. oh, and obv posting more ecocomics, because those are just straight up legit. 

[yea, i still say "legit" a lot. sigh. oh, and now i say "sigh" a lot, too]

—m

two

ecocomic

[ek-uh-kom-ik] 

—noun

1.     a comic strip of, or pertaining to, the science of economics.

2.     the most legit form of comics.

3.     undeniable proof economics is not dismal (and that i am a terrible artist).

get it?!?

 

that song rules, btw.