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