Designing the Economics Curriculum: A Survey of the Use of Big Ideas and Proficiencies

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 7 Designing the Economics Curriculum: A Survey of the Use of Big Ideas and Proficiencies Rodger Adkins and Michael Newsome 1 Abstract Michael Salemi and John Siegfried have advocated several significant changes, most significantly the big ideas principles course, in undergraduate economic education and in the economics major. This article focuses on several of these recommendations and reports the results of a survey of economic department chairs across the United States to ascertain the extent to which the recommendations are either in place or are being considered for implementation. Results, reported by institution type and other characteristics, also show the extent to which department chairs are familiar with Hansen s proficiencies and the degree to which changes have been implemented based on the proficiencies. Introduction Salemi and Siegfried (1999) have proposed a major revision of undergraduate economic education. They address the difficulty of providing principles level courses that meet the needs of both economics majors and non-majors. They note that 44% of students at four-year institutions enroll in at least one course of economics, but only 2.0 to 2.2% of all bachelor degrees are awarded in economics. Most students enrolling in economics courses take the lower-level principles courses, and the percentage of high school graduates who enroll in these courses at post-secondary institutions, especially two-year institutions, continues to rise. These trends lead Salemi and Siegfried to make several recommendations to strengthen the general economic education experience of all students while continuing to meet the needs of economics majors. Salemi and Siegfried provide several criticisms of the traditional two-semester principles course which dominates the initial exposure of most students to economics. In particular it is noted that principles courses currently must cover a large number of concepts in order to provide a firm foundation for economics majors who will be taking upper-level classes. But this may be too much coverage for those students who will never become economics majors. Salemi and Siegfried suggest a different approach to introductory economics. In their scheme, all students take a one-semester Big Ideas course which emphasizes application of basic principles over the introduction of hot ideas [but does] not span the breadth of topics in a traditional course (p. 357). A second more advanced principles course would cover topics not included in the first principles course and prepare economics majors for their upper-level courses. Students not planning to major in economics would not be required to take this more advanced principles course. Departments then could create several upper-level courses having only the Big Ideas course as a prerequisite, allowing non-majors to take further coursework without needing more preparation at the principles level. Courses specifically for majors would have both the Big Ideas course and the more advanced second principles course as prerequisites. Salemi and Siegfried suggest using the National Voluntary Economics Content Standards to determine the content of the Big Ideas course. These standards indicate what economic concepts citizens should understand in order to operate well in society (Siegfried and Meszaros, 1997). The general focus is on depth of understanding of a few key concepts and the use of abstract principles to comprehend the real world. 1 Roger Adkins, Ph. D, Division of Finance and Economics, Lewis College of Business, Marshall University, One John Marshall Drive, Huntington, WV, 25755, adkinsr@marshall.edu; Michael A. Newsome, Ph.D. Division of Finance and Economics, Lewis College of Business, Marshall University, One John Marshall Drive, Huntington, WV, 25755, 304-696-2613, newsome@marshall.edu

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 8 To improve the major and allow field courses to become more rigorous, Salemi and Siegfried propose that intermediate micro, intermediate macro, and statistics be made prerequisites for all field courses in the economics major. Salemi and Siegfried recommend content changes for all three of these courses. Significantly, they propose that the field courses be structured to help students acquire all of the Hansen proficiencies. When Salemi and Siegfried wrote their article, there were five such proficiencies; however, Hansen has revised his list to include an additional proficiency (Hansen, 1986 and 2001). The revised proficiencies are: 1. Access existing knowledge; 2. Display command of existing knowledge; 3. Interpret existing knowledge; 4. Interpret and manipulate economic data; 5. Apply existing knowledge; and 6. Create new knowledge (2001). In his two papers, Hansen provides examples of how each proficiency can be achieved. While Hansen suggested a research seminar for seniors in his 1986 paper, Salemi and Siegfried call for a capstone experience which can range from an independent study to a thesis or a course. The capstone experience would particularly focus on Hansen proficiencies five and six, improving the analytical and creative capabilities of majors. We have surveyed economic department chairs throughout the United States to ascertain the extent to which department chairs are aware of the Hansen proficiencies and the Salemi and Siegfried Big Ideas course concept. We find that a minority of department chairs is familiar with the Hansen proficiencies ideas and even fewer have implemented or considered implementing curriculum changes based on them. Similarly, we find a minority of department chairs has considered changing the principles sequence to include the Big Ideas course. We examine the differences in characteristics between institutions that do and do not make these changes and suggest a plausible explanation for why most institutions cannot make the changes without some difficulty. The Survey and Response Rate A survey instrument was designed to elicit information from economics department chairs at US colleges and universities about departmental characteristics, economic curriculum characteristics, familiarity with the Hansen proficiencies and the Salemi and Siegfried Big Ideas course, and the degree of curriculum change each department has either implemented or is considering implementing. In particular, each department Chair was asked to relate his or her department s consideration of changes related to the Hansen proficiencies and Salemi and Siegfried s Big Ideas course. The survey instrument was developed and improved through focus groups. The mail survey consisted of two pages. On the first page, each department chair was asked to provide information concerning departmental and economics curriculum characteristics. Some questions elicited information concerning the size of the major, the size of the faculty and the highest economics degree awarded by the department. Other questions focused on the number of courses in, and curricular use of, intermediate microeconomics, intermediate macroeconomics, and statistics. Respondents were asked how these three courses were used as prerequisites. The second page of the survey instrument elicited information concerning each department s consideration and implementation of curricular changes related to the curriculum concepts discussed by Hansen, and by Salemi and Siegfried. In particular, survey participants were asked if their departments had considered making the specific change (adding the Big Ideas course) to the principles sequence as suggested by Salemi and Siegfried, and if so, to what extent. The participants were also asked about their familiarity with the Hansen proficiencies and the degree to which these proficiencies were used in discussions about the comprehensive curriculum. Finally respondents were asked about their use of capstone courses, theses, and independent study projects. Mailing labels for the chairs of economics departments were obtained from the American Economic Association. These labels included addresses for 800 different US and 37 different Canadian colleges and universities. Surveys were mailed to the chairs of all the US and Canadian schools on March

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 9 28, 2003. 2 Between April 1, 2003 and July 7, 2003 respondents returned 182 useable surveys, a response rate of 22.8%. Respondents could either return the completed survey by mail or access the survey on-line and reply by e-mail. Of the 182 department chairs providing usable responses, nine replied by e-mail and the rest by mail. Responses were obtained from schools in 46 states and the District of Columbia. Data obtained from the surveys was combined with other information available about each school. Institutional characteristics for each of these schools were collected from Barron s Educational Series (2003). Accreditation status was found at the website for the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Each school s Carnegie Classification was found at the Carnegie Foundation s website. The Results Responses were received from chairs at schools across all the Carnegie Classifications. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the responding department chairs schools. Respondents come from broad ranges of school size, departmental size, and tuition cost. While one responding school has a student body of 707 another has a student body of 61,085. While one responding department has no current economics majors another has 3000 majors. The annual tuition rates at the responding schools range from $1,768 up to $25,636. Freshman acceptance rates range from 12.9% to 100%. A small majority of the responses are from public schools. Among respondents, there are somewhat more AACSB-I accredited schools than non-aacsb-i schools (53.8% vs. 46.2%). It is possible that the respondents to the survey are department chairs who are more concerned with the undergraduate economic education issues addressed in the survey than are those chairs who did not return the survey. In the case of some characteristics, information is available for both responding and non-responding schools and the two groups can be compared. These characteristics for responding schools are compared against the characteristics of the non-responding schools in Table 2. A department chair responding to the survey is more likely to be from an institution with a larger student body, to be from a publicly funded school, to be from a school with a lower freshman acceptance rate, and to work in an AACSB accredited college than a department chair who did not answer the survey. There is no significance difference between respondents and non-respondents with regard to Carnegie Classification or annual tuition. Table 3 lists the economic curriculum characteristics of the responding schools. Almost every school in the sample of respondents requires intermediate microeconomics and intermediate macroeconomics as part of the economics major. Sixty-one percent of the responding schools offer intermediate microeconomics and 57.5% offer intermediate macroeconomics, more than once a year. Less than 14% of the schools use both intermediate microeconomics and intermediate macroeconomics as a prerequisite for all of their upper level courses. Several of the school characteristics listed in Table 1 are significantly different between these schools and all others. 3 Schools that require both intermediate courses as prerequisites are more likely to award a Ph.D. in economics, have a larger number of students, have a larger number of undergraduate economics majors, and have more full time economics faculty. However these schools are less likely to be AACSB accredited. At 48.9% of the schools, neither intermediate microeconomics nor intermediate macroeconomics is required for any of the upper level courses. Schools that do not require either course as a prerequisite for any upper level course are more likely to have a smaller economics faculty, have a lower annual tuition, have a higher freshman acceptance rate, and have a smaller institutional student body. These schools are less likely to offer a Ph.D. or Masters Degree in economics. 2 The authors are primarily interested in departments of economics in the US and only the results for those schools are presented in this article. The authors did survey the 37 Canadian department chairs and seven were returned (an 18.9%) response rate. Readers interested in the results of those seven surveys may contact the authors. 3 In the discussion of curriculum characteristics listed in Table 3, we look for significant differences in the school characteristics found in Table 1 across the curriculum characteristics. School characteristics that are not found to be significant across curriculum characteristics at the 0.05 level are not listed in the text. For example, differences in funding source, acceptance rate and annual tuition are not found significant between schools requiring both intermediate courses and all others, and so are not described here.

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 10 Table 1: Characteristics of Respondent Schools Carnegie Classification of the Institution (% Schools) Baccalaureate/Associates Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts Baccalaureate-General Master s (I and II) Doctoral (Extensive and Intensive) Specialized Institutions Highest Economics Degree Awarded (% Schools) Baccalaureate Masters Ph.D. Median Number of Students at Institution Minimum Maximum Median Number of Current Undergraduate Economics Majors Minimum Maximum Median Number of Departmental Full Time Faculty Minimum Maximum Funding Source (% Schools) Public Private Average Acceptance Rate for Incoming Freshman (%) Minimum Maximum Average Annual Tuition ($) Minimum Maximum 3.3 13.2 26.9 44.5 10.4 1.7 62.4 14.9 22.7 7548 60 9 55.5 45.5 70.2 10283 707 61085 0 3000 0 98 12.9 100.0 1768 25636 AACSB Accredited (% Schools) 53.8 Intermediate microeconomics is a prerequisite for at least one upper level course at 47.3% of the responding schools. For these schools, the three most commonly listed courses having intermediate microeconomics as a prerequisite are, in rank-order, industrial organization, labor, and quantitative methods/math econ. Intermediate macroeconomics is a prerequisite for at least one upper level course at 40% of the responding schools. For these schools, the three most commonly listed courses having intermediate macroeconomics as a prerequisite are, in rank-order, monetary theory and policy, money and banking, and forecasting. Table 3 shows that most schools (96.7%) require statistics as part of the economics major. At a little more than half of the schools (53.9%), statistics is taught by the economics department. At 83.5% of the schools, statistics is a prerequisite for at least one upper level economics course. This percentage is higher than the percentage of schools requiring either intermediate microeconomics or intermediate macroeconomics as a prerequisite for at least one upper level course. Respondents stating that statistics is a prerequisite for at least one upper level class were asked to list the courses that had statistics as a

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 11 prerequisite. The three most commonly listed courses, in rank-order are econometrics, quantitative methods/math econ, and forecasting. Table 2: Comparison of Selected Characteristics between Respondents and Non-Respondents Carnegie Classification of the Institution (% Schools) Baccalaureate/Associates Baccalaureate-Liberal Arts Baccalaureate-General Master s (I and II) Doctoral (Extensive and Intensive) Specialized Institutions Respondents 3.3 13.2 26.9 44.5 10.4 1.7 Non- Respondents 5.13 18.11 25.16 40.4 11.2 0 Median Number of Students at Institution* 7548 4127 Funding Source (% Private)* 45.5 57.2 Average Acceptance Rate for Incoming Freshman (%)* 70.2 73.7 Average Annual Tuition ($) 10283 10561 AACSB Accredited (% Schools)* 53.8 37.6 Note: The Characteristics listed here are those for which information was available for all surveyed schools, whether or not they responded. The asterisk, *, represents those characteristics which are significantly different at the 0.05 level between respondents and the non-respondents. Table 3: Economics Curriculum of Respondent Schools Curriculum Characteristic Intermediate Micro a Requirement for Major Intermediate Micro Offered More than Once Each Year Intermediate Macro Requirement for Major Intermediate Macro Offered More than Once Each Year Intermediate Micro and Macro Both Prerequisite before Taking Any Upper Level Econ Intermediate Micro Prerequisite for at Least 1 Upper Level Econ Intermediate Macro Prerequisite for at Least 1 Upper level Econ Neither Intermediate Course a Prerequisite for Any Upper Level Econ Statistics Requirement for Major Statistics is Taught by the Economics Department Statistics Prerequisite for at Least 1 Upper Level Econ Require Capstone Course or Senior Seminar Exclusively for Econ Majors Require a Thesis or Independent Study Project Do Not Require Capstone, Senior Seminar, Thesis, or Independent Study Project % of Schools 97.8 61.0 98.4 57.7 13.7 47.3 44.0 48.9 96.7 53.9 83.5 47.5 6.7 45.8

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 12 At 45.8% of the schools there is no capstone, senior seminar, thesis, or independent study project requirement. At 47.5% of the schools there is a capstone course or senior seminar exclusively for economics majors. Several of the school characteristics listed in Table 1 are significantly different between these schools and all others. Schools that have a capstone course or senior seminar requirement are more likely to have a smaller group of economics majors and have a smaller institutional student body. These schools are less likely to offer a Ph.D. in economics. At 6.7% of the schools, a thesis or independent study project is required. Schools that have a thesis or independent study requirement tend to have significantly fewer majors, fewer faculty, to be privately funded, and to have a higher annual tuition. Table 4a shows the percentage of schools that have considered implementing or have implemented curriculum changes based on a consideration of the Hansen proficiencies. Of the responding department heads, 30.5% state that they are familiar with the Hansen proficiencies. Of those who are familiar, 14.8% say that their departments have implemented Hansen-related changes to the curriculum, 18.5% say that their departments are discussing these changes, and 66.7% indicate that their departments are not seriously discussing such changes. This means that 4.5% of the total respondent schools have implemented comprehensive curriculum changes based on the Hansen proficiencies. 4 In Table 4b, the sample is divided into two groups: those who are familiar with the Hansen proficiencies, and those who are not. The school and curriculum characteristics found in Tables 1 and 3 are tested to see if each is statistically significantly different between the two groups. Table 4b shows those characteristics which are significantly different at the 0.05 level. Table 4a: Consideration of Changes based on the Hansen Proficiencies Familiar with Hansen s Proficiencies (% of Total Sample) 30.5 Of Those Familiar with Hansen, what Percent: Implemented Related Curriculum Changes Is Discussing Related Changes Has Not Discussed or Is Not Seriously Discussing Related Changes 14.8 18.5 66.7 Table 4b: Schools Familiar with Hansen s Proficiencies vs. That that are Not, Significant Differences in School and Curriculum Characteristics Familiar with the Big Ideas Course Not Familiar with the Big Ideas Course School Characteristics: Median Number of Students at Institution 5660 8466 Average Acceptance Rate for Incoming Freshman (%) 68.8 73.7 AACSB Accredited (% Schools) 46.3 56.9 Economics Curriculum: Require a Capstone Course or Senior Seminar for Econ Majors 57.7 37.0 Note: All the School Characteristics and Curriculum variables listed in Tables 1 and 3 were tested for significance difference across the two groups. Characteristics not found significantly different at the 0.05 level are not listed in the table. 4 Because there are so few schools that have actually implemented or discussed changes based on the Hansen Proficiencies, it is difficult to find statistically significant differences in the characteristics between schools that have and have not implemented Hansen related curriculum changes. However it may be worth noting that the schools implementing or discussing the changes do have nonsignificantly less students, higher tuition, and lower acceptance rates.

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 13 Schools which are familiar with the Hansen proficiencies are more likely to have a smaller institutional student body and to have a lower freshman acceptance rate. These schools are also less likely to be AACSB accredited. The schools familiar with the Hansen proficiencies are much more likely to require a capstone course or senior seminar. Table 5a: Consideration of Changes based on the Big Ideas Course Considered Making the Big Ideas Course Changes (% of Total Sample) 29.4 Of Those Who Considered the Big Ideas Course Changes, what Percent: Implemented Related Curriculum Changes Is Actively Considering Related Changes No Longer Considering Related Changes 43.4 20.8 35.8 Table 5b: Schools Having Implemented or Actively Considering the Big Ideas Course vs. Those that are Not, Significant Differences in School and Curriculum Characteristics School Characteristics: Implemented or Considering the Big Ideas Course Not Implemented or Considering the Big Ideas Course Median Number of Students at Institution (Students) 4799 7978 Funding Source (% Private) 53.0 42.7 Average Acceptance Rate for Incoming Freshman (%) 58.4 77.3 Average Annual Tuition ($) 14577 9371 AACSB Accredited (% Schools) 41.2 56.8 Economics Curriculum: Intermediate Micro Offered More than Once Each Year 68.0 59.5 Intermediate Macro Offered More than Once Each Year 70.6 54.8 Intermediate Micro Prerequisite for at Least 1 Upper Level Econ 61.8 43.9 Note: All the School Characteristics and Curriculum variables listed in Tables 1 and 3 were tested for significance difference across the two groups. Characteristics not found significantly different at the 0.05 level are not listed in the table. Table 5a shows the percentage of schools that have considered implementing or have implemented curriculum changes that involve a consideration of the Salemi and Siegfried s Big Ideas course. Of the responding department heads, 29.4% state that their departments have created or have considered creating

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 14 the Big Ideas course and changing the principles sequence as recommended by Salemi and Siegfried. Although the correlation between the department heads who are familiar with Hansen and the department heads who have considered the Salemi and Siegfried changes is positive (0.10) it is not significant at the 0.05 level. As shown in Table 5a, of those schools that have considered the Big Ideas course change, 43.4% have implemented it, 20.8% are actively considering the change, and 35.8% are no longer considering the change. This means that 12.6% of the total respondent schools have implemented the principles curriculum changes recommended by Salemi and Siegfried. In Table 5b, the sample is divided into two groups: those that either have implemented or are seriously considering implementing Salemi and Siegfried-based Big Ideas course changes, and those who have not seriously considered these changes. The school and curriculum characteristics found in Tables 1 and 3 are tested to see if each is statistically significantly different between the two groups. Table 5b shows those characteristics which are significantly different at the 0.05 level. Schools which have implemented or seriously considered implementing the Salemi and Siegfriedbased Big Ideas course principles sequence are more likely to have a smaller institutional student body, to be privately funded, to have a lower freshman acceptance rate, and to have higher annual tuitions than other schools. These schools are also more likely to offer intermediate microeconomics and intermediate macroeconomics more than once a year, and require intermediate microeconomics for at least one upper level course. The schools implementing or seriously considering implementing the change are less likely to be AACSB accredited. Discussion Most economics faculty would agree that student attainment of the Hansen proficiencies is a worthy goal; that better prepared majors allow for more interesting and useful field courses; and that non-majors are sometimes forced to learn breath over depth. The revamping of the traditional two-semester principles sequence as recommended by Salemi and Siegfried could instill the Hansen proficiencies in economics majors by creating one Big Ideas course for every student, adding a second principles course designed especially for majors, requiring majors to take both of the intermediate theory courses and the statistics course prior to any field course, and finally requiring majors to take a capstone course. Benefits would accrue to non-majors in that more time could be spent on a few important concepts. If one of the roles of a department chair is to act as a change agent in his or her department, then it might be expected that common theories about curriculum changes should be widely familiar, understood, considered, and often implemented. Our survey results suggest that chairs are not currently interested in altering the format of economics principles, nor are they particularly well-informed about a long-standing proposal by Lee Hansen to strengthen the skills of the major. We see that the Salemi and Siegfried changes and the Hansen proficiencies are not being widely considered as keys to changing the economics curriculum. This is not to blame department chairs. A Salemi and Siegfried-style approach represents a major structural change for most economics departments. There are several constraints that may be limiting the ability of department chairs to act. The need for faculty consensus may be one constraint on implementing major changes. Faculty may not agree that a problem exists. And even if there is some agreement that a Big Ideas course may offer promise, can faculty agree on which big ideas go into the first course and which go into the second? And even if faculty agree that intermediate micro, intermediate macro and statistics should be required before any field course, will faculty be willing to relinquish control over content and methods? To improve the major Salemi and Siegfried (p. 358) indicate departments should stop thinking of the major as comprising a set of individual subjects and begin visualizing it as a process that turns novices into economic thinkers. The first step is to improve coordination among courses starting with intermediate theory. Evensky and Wells (1998) report on their experience attempting to create the kind of coordination Salemi and Siegfried recommend in a program where the intermediate theory courses must be taken before field courses. They indicate their attempt to turn a series of courses into a program failed because the department could not establish ownership of the critical course in their program. To expose students to the Hansen proficiencies faces some of the same difficulties since the proficiencies will have to be spread among a number of different faculty and courses. But, where a sufficient number of faculty are supportive of innovative

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 15 teaching and learning, the Hansen goals or other alternatives may be achievable (Carson, Cohn, and Ramsey, 2002). Another type of constraint on implementing the major changes required by Salemi and Siegfried may involve the logistics of maintaining the dual curriculum for majors and non-majors. A faculty resource constraint will emerge in many instances. If enrollments in a labor class were not large before creating one course for majors and another for non-majors, then one or both might now be considered low enrollment classes by central administration. Part of the reason that Salemi and Siegfried propose the general education track is to provide stability in department enrollments in the face of the declining numbers of majors. Assume departments have only a limited number of gifted teachers. Do you place more of these strong teachers in the general education track to build enrollments at the expense of the economics major? Furthermore, programs without capstone courses will have to create one. Will one section each term be necessary or will several sections a term be required? Capstone courses tend to be labor intensive and, as a consequence, exist where the number of majors is small and/or the institution is small. A final type of constraint for departments that might wish to make Salemi and Siegfried type changes involves the difficulties it may create when it comes to advising majors. The small school or department with a small number of majors and limited resources often cannot offer more than one section each year of intermediate micro and macro theory. In this situation, students deciding to major in economics who have already accumulated hours as a junior (or who are entering their senior year) will find they are not in the position to do so unless they delay graduation. Small departments cannot afford to turn away potential majors. And students who transfer from a Salemi and Siegfried-based institution to an institution with the traditional sequence may have difficulties. Will the Big Ideas course transfer as micro, macro, both, or as a general elective? The Hansen proficiencies and the Salemi and Siegfried proposals are well-thought out, interesting, and useful. For a myriad of reasons, however, the profession is not considering these ideas and discussing how their laudable goals might be achieved by tweaking the proposals. In time, implementation of some or all of the proposals made by Salemi and Siegfried may occur because either a critical mass of faculty want to enhance student learning or outside elements push for change. One such outside element might be the growing accountability movement requiring assessment of programs. Departments may be forced to respond to state governments and boards of governors that have a long-term commitment to learning. While department chairs may not be familiar with Hansen s proficiencies and/or Salemi and Siegfried s proposals, this does not mean that faculty have not separately or collectively made some of these changes. Departments with a number of faculty strongly committed to student learning likely have coordinated their efforts to yield some (if not all) of Hansen s desired outcomes. Therefore, we should not interpret the results of the survey as indicating that learning outcomes are not being met. More research needs to be conducted concerning to what degree the Hansen proficiencies are already being achieved in traditional programs, and how faculty teaching style, course content, departmental culture, and program sequencing affects the achievement of the proficiencies. With more research and discussion, and a better dissemination of state-of-the-art teaching theories, we can only improve economic education. References AACSB International, Found online at http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/accreditedmembers.asp Barron s Educational Series, Profiles of American Colleges with CD ROM, 2003 Edition, Barron s Educational Series, Hauppauge, New York. Carlson, J., R. Cohn, and D. Ramsey. 2002. Implementing Hansen s proficiencies. Journal of Economic Education 33 (Spring): 180-91. Carnegie Foundation, found online at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification/ Evensky, J., and M. Wells. 1998. Making a series of courses into a program: a case study in curriculum development. Journal of Economic Education 29 (Winter): 72-80.

JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE EDUCATION Volume 5 Number 2 Winter 2006 16 Hansen, W.L. 2001. Expected proficiencies for undergraduate economics majors. Journal of Economic Education 32 (Summer): 231-42. Hansen, W.L. 1986. What knowledge is most worth knowing--for economics majors? American Economic Review 76 (May): 149-52. Salemi, M. and J.J. Siegfried. 1999. The state of economic education. American Economic Review 89 (May): 355-61. Siegfried, J.J. and B.T. Mescaros. 1997. National voluntary content standards for pre-college economics education. American Economic Review 87 (May): 247-53.