Canadian Masters of Economic Programs: Have They Changed over the Last Decade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTThis paper presents the results of a survey of directors of of Economics programs to determine the missions, inputs, and outcomes of these degree programs throughout the United and Canada. The survey asks respondents to provide information on program admission requirements, curriculum, faculty characteristics, enrollment, graduation rates, student financial support, and placement. The results of degree programs in the United are compared to those in Canada. Current characteristics of Canadian degree programs are also compared to our previous survey conducted 10 years ago. Similarities and differences between programs in the United and Canada are highlighted.INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThis paper first presents data from terminal economics degree programs in Canada and then compares these programs to terminal economics master's degree programs in the United States. The data are from a survey of all terminal master's programs in Canada and the United that was conducted by Survey Monkey in 2012. We then compare the results from this survey of Canadian schools to the results of a previous survey of Canadian terminal master's programs based on a survey conducted in 2002.The first study to look at master's of economics programs was by Barr, Aby, and Willhite in 1991. They reported the results of a survey of departments offering both Ph.D.'s and master's degrees in economics. The survey focused upon the differences in the degree structures and graduate degree placement. Another study by Thornton and Inees (1988) looked at master's degrees in economics and focused on admissions requirements, curriculum requirements, and time needed to earn a degree and graduate placement into careers and doctoral programs. As noted by McCoy and Milkman (1995) neither of these studies attempted to ascertain significant differences in programs that may be associated with different intuitional characteristics or different program goals, (p. 157) As far as we can tell the only other research in this area has been conducted in various manuscripts by McCoy and Milkman.McCoy and Milkman published the results of an initial survey of terminal master's programs in economics in United universities in 1995, and the results of a second survey in 2006. Both of the studies were published in the Journal of Economic Education. While the study published in 1995 only included programs in the United States, the survey done for the paper published in 2006 also included Canadian universities. However the results were not presented in the paper published in 2006. Instead a separate article, Masters in Economic Programs: Comparing Canada and the United States was published by the Journal of Economic Education in 2008.DATA AND DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSThe data collected in 2012 was collected through an on-line survey using Survey Monkey. All of the universities in the United and Canada listed in Peterson's Online Guide to Graduate Programs in Economics which offered a terminal master's degree in economics were surveyed. This totaled 195 in the United and 27 in Canada. The emails were sent out in early spring of 2012. Those who did not respond were sent a second email which also contained the survey in the late spring of 2012, and this was followed by an email survey attempt to the nonresponders in the fall of 2012. In the previous surveys of of Economics programs the surveys were sent out by postal mail and we asked respondents to send the completed surveys back to us. The survey is very extensive and this may be why our survey response rate is slightly below what is was in the previous surveys. This time our response rate was 33 percent for the Canada universities (compared to 45 percent in the prior survey), and for United universities the response rate was 32 percent (compared to 37 percent in the prior survey).There seem to be less programs that offer the terminal master's degree in economics in the United States. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".