Abstract
Since the turn of the twenty-first century, society has experienced significant advances in technology and financial literacy. These shifts have had a profound impact on the production of goods and services, the consumption choices made by individuals, and the borrowing behavior of economic agents. While similar shifts and patterns can be observed throughout much of the twentieth century, these changes had a unique and profound impact on higher education. Until quite recently, technological change in higher education had encompassed marginal shifts, including: the transition from “chalk-and-talk” to “PowerPoint-and-talk,” the incorporation of e-mail and electronic communication between faculty and students, and the utilization of Learning Management Systems (LMS) like Blackboard, Moodle, and Kannu (to name just a few).
The more recent advances have changed the landscape of higher education in more comprehensive ways. With modern technology, students can access their textbooks from just about anywhere (including their hand-held mobile devices), watch material presentations from leading economists, and complete multiple-choice and open-ended assignments that provide real-time feedback and revision attempts (if their professor permits re-work); ultimately, one could argue that modern technology has enhanced the quality of the education experience. From the faculty member’s perspective, this type of advancement may be seen as a complement to the time they invest in teaching their students, or as a substitution of capital for labor that in turn affords additional time to engage in the other essential duties of their profession.
At the same time, today’s students are more financially conscious than their predecessors who were happy to borrow today for the promise of higher earnings in the future. Modern-day students are (rightly) wary of incurring debt and taking out loans that could set them back financially for years to come. That is to say, students are more carefully considering their attendance than they were several years ago. Those that do choose to attend demand a high-quality “product” at a relatively low cost. If academic institutions are going to thrive and faculty are going to be successful, a means of satisfying these demands and advancing one’s career must be carefully balanced.
In How Economics Professors Can Stop Failing Us and its follow-up, The Downsizing of Economics Professors Steven Payson delivers a thoughtful examination of the work that has been done and that must still be done if these goals are to be reached. These volumes are carefully crafted analyses of the environment surrounding and incentive system faced by academic economists who must find a way to balance the technological and demand side changes facing their profession. Not only do the books serve as a highly detailed industry analysis, but they are also a call to action, delivered in a no-frills, straight-to-the-point manner that is both unexpected and refreshing. Despite occasional editorial shortcomings, these volumes create a framework that highlights the precarious position that academic economists find themselves in, and provide a long-overdue call for reform.
These issues, of course, are nothing new to those familiar with the discipline and, in particular, those outside neoclassical, mainstream economics who have long noted the disparities between what is taught in classrooms, what is published in the academic press, and what has significant meaning and practical implications for society. Unfortunately, the ideological divides that exist between neoclassical and heterodox economists are frequently, although not completely, ignored throughout both books. This leads Payson to an overly generalized set of conclusions and prescriptive recommendations that are weaker than they could have been. Regardless, these books do an admirable job of highlighting the important challenges facing modern-day academic economics. While the books are written as standalone volumes they are worth reading in conjunction with one another as they (respectively) target the two primary roles of academic economists: the pursuit of research that enhances our understanding of society, and the education of our students.
How Economics Professors Can Stop Failing Us begins with a preface that sets the stage for the chapters that follow. Here the reader is made aware that the book is not intended to be a joke and is not something that was written on a whim—rather, it is a public airing of dirty laundry that has been carefully considered and studied in depth. Moreover, the book is not presented as a technical article suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed journal but as a treatise intended for a broad audience of academics and non-academics alike. Readers who are accustomed to reading highly technical journal articles will benefit significantly from taking this brief passage to heart.
This tone continues in the first chapter, which, in an effort to convey the serious nature of the need for reform, is intentionally harsh. The primary purpose of this chapter, however, is to establish the three main foibles of the discipline: lack of scientific integrity and professional ethics, arrogance and unwavering loyalty, and cronyism/favoritism. Payson observes that these problems are compounded by the fact that they have become traditions, passed down from one generation of professors to the next, with little indication that a change is forthcoming (chapters 2, 3, and 6).
To be more precise, Payson notes that academic economists find themselves in a self-perpetuating vicious circle, where the current leaders follow in the footsteps of past leaders and, having succeeded at doing so, expect the same from new economists who wish to join their ranks. To ensure one’s career advancement and join the discipline’s elite, academic economists are forced to prove their quality by satisfying their department’s promotion and tenure guidelines and publish in top-tier journals (chapters 4 and 6). In other words, as Robinson (1953) would argue, “sloppy habits of thought are handed on from one generation to the next.”
Given that publications are traditionally considered easier to evaluate than teaching, many institutions have prioritized research over teaching in the review process. This, in turn, leads to an incentive system that encourages junior faculty to pursue publication in top-ranked journals as intensively as possible. Unfortunately, that can sometimes lead to unethical and irresponsible behavior, the creation of “literature-only theoretical discourse” (LOTD), and reduced emphasis on quality classroom instruction.
It is here that cronyism, favoritism, and loyalty to one’s sub-field are said to compound the challenges facing the discipline. Journal editors are typically well-respected academic economists with sub-field expertise, and they play a critical role in the publication of journal articles in an area they have a vested interest in seeing succeed. They are also likely to be dissertation and hiring committee members, generating an intense and sometimes personal interest in ensuring the success of select younger economists. This creates an environment where theoretical research within a sub-field is often built by a small number of individuals making marginal contributions to an esoteric literature whose growth directly benefits the career of the contributor(s), the reviewers (if they are cited), and the senior economists with whom they are associated (chapters 4, 6, and 8).
This limited group of contributors creates a potentially unethical review process and literature that lacks scientific integrity, as it is commonly evaluated only by the rigor of its empirical methodologies and the statistical significance of its findings (chapters 5, 7, and 9). While Payson notes that LOTD is a discipline-wide epidemic he also acknowledges that it is more prevalent in some sub-fields than others. Consistent with Carrick-Hagenbarth and Epstein (2016), Payson notes that heterodox economists, in particular, are fighting against the tide of LOTD by publicly expressing serious concern over the state of “standard” economic literature and potential conflict of interests, as explained by chapters 3 and 8.
Returning to the joint role of academic economists as educators and researchers, Payson notes that the pursuit of this research, which rarely provides benefit to society, frequently forces academic economists to reduce the time they devote to their students. This time, he argues, would directly benefit the society they should be serving as agents of their university. Not only does the intense pursuit of a top-tier publication detract from the time devoted to teaching, but it often results in the exploitation of graduate students who are powerless to fight against their mentors (chapters 4, 5, 6, and 9).
In implicit agreement with the views summarized and coalesced by Elsner and Lee (2010), Payson sets forth an argument that the evaluative standards used by academic economists largely set the stage for these problems (chapters 4 and 6). If a realignment that encouraged a culture of active pluralism and evaluated scholars by their contribution to social knowledge were to replace the standards of impact factors, citation counts, and journal rankings (which are perceived as somewhat arbitrary and the byproduct of a flawed peer-review system) the discipline may quickly find itself in a more desirable state.
While Payson’s criticism of the arrogance of academic economists is woven throughout the discussions outlined above, it is not the only example of such arrogance offered within this volume. Joining those allocating time to LOTD, are sports and experimental economists who are both called out for failure to take their roles as analysts and agents for change seriously (chapter 8). Albeit, through different channels, Payson argues that members of both sub-fields place fun and personal intrigue ahead of their professional responsibility to contribute to useful knowledge; worse yet, they pass these traits along to their students.
In the final passages of this first volume, Payson concludes that the academic economics discipline is broken, but not beyond rehabilitation. In fact, some of the same characteristics that led the discipline to this crossroads are the keys to redemption (chapter 11). The loyalty that has led academic economists to idolize their leadership, perpetuate the trail of LOTD, and impose (on their junior colleagues) the same expectations that they were held to, does not need to be eliminated but, rather, redirected. If senior members of the discipline are able to perform a critical self-evaluation, and hold themselves and their junior colleagues to a new standard, where loyalties are redirected to students and upholding the scientific standard of the discipline (as heterodox faculty members have been calling on their colleagues to do), there is hope. More specifically, if one were to follow Payson’s advice and take it to heart, the keys to navigating the changes in academic economics (and higher education in general) would be twofold: first, eliminating the publish-or-perish system; and second, challenging professors to hold themselves accountable to their students and recognize their responsibility to contribute to literature only when their work will contribute to useful knowledge.
Overall, this book provides a comprehensive review and critique of the academic economics profession and higher education in general. The views set forth are familiar to those within heterodox circles, but this text does an admirable job of presenting these views to a broader audience. The arguments are focused around three main themes that appear throughout the book in different contexts, highlighting that most (if not all) of the discipline’s ills are interrelated matters. The treatise is interspersed with examples from the LOTD and corollaries to the game of chess that help highlight the game higher education has, in many ways, become.
While the volume serves an important purpose, some occasional detours and asides that are used for illustrative purposes never quite find their way back to the point at hand. This tends to leave the reader hanging, and may prevent some readers from finding the book as impactful as they should. Regardless, How Economics Professors Can Stop Failing Us goes a long way to establishing and explaining the shortcomings and inefficiencies within the field, and sets the stage for what is to come in The Downsizing of Economics Professors.
While How Economics Professors Can Stop Failing Us alludes to the fact that the academic economics profession is bloated, arrogant, and willfully ignorant of change, The Downsizing of Economics Professors states it outright. Much like the volume reviewed above, this book begins with a preface that sets the tone for what is to come. Here the technological advances that have been made in higher education (i.e., LMS, online course companions, and various modes of distance learning) are introduced, along with a careful description of those to whom academic economists should be loyal—the students they are entrusted with educating. These students are tech savvy, financially responsible individuals who should not be treated as mere means to justify the professor’s position as an academic economist. The first chapter serves to reinforce these points and highlights that the increased usability of the internet, for learning and research purposes, has changed the professor’s role within the university, regardless of whether or not academic economists care to admit it.
Despite the changes technology has brought about in course management and day-to-day classroom operations, many economists (who should astutely notice and respond to changes in their industrial environment) have lobbied against more substantial changes (i.e., substitution of traditional classes with more cost-efficient massive open online classrooms (MOOCs)). Given that many view these changes as threats to their position, Payson notes that it is not unexpected that faculties are fighting vehemently to preserve the traditional classroom environment (chapters 2 and 4). In light of his earlier work, Payson’s critiques of the burgeoning literature against MOOCs echoes the arguments against LOTD that are outlined above. More specifically, he notes that these articles are frequently written by discipline leaders, driven by assumptions that are often weak and/or ad hoc, and provide statistically significant findings that support the author’s position in higher education.
The presence of these articles lobbying against MOOCs does not deter Payson who notes that they could potentially provide significant benefit(s) to the fiscally responsible students of today, and may provide a previously unconsidered path toward remedying the ills of the discipline. If MOOCs are accepted as a substitute for small class lectures, each course will be able to provide equal access to education for thousands of students at a time, reducing inequality in education and the monopoly power universities hold over their students (chapters 5 and 6). The expansion of MOOCs would also allow faculty members to focus their efforts on tasks for which they hold a comparative advantage.
That is, those who are talented lecturers will be able to focus their efforts on the teaching of MOOCs without feeling pressured to generate literature that is more likely than not written in an attempt to win the game and further their careers (chapters 3 and 5). Thus, the “product” of economists who engage in teaching will: a) be of a higher quality than what is delivered when the faculty member is being pulled in several directions; b) reach more students than they are able to reach when their efforts are constrained by their home university; and c) reduce perceived quality differences that are often related to the cost of tuition (and have potentially long-lasting impacts on students). In short, MOOCs will increase the value of the contributions made by teaching economists.
Likewise, faculty members who are more interested in performing research will be able to do so in an environment where they are commissioned for purposeful research that contributes to useful knowledge. While this work may not be penned as part of the academic economics field and thus may constitute a shrinking of the academic economics discipline, Payson is quick to note that there will also be opportunities for growth via term paper graders, test proctors, and content experts (chapter 5). Each of these fields would require specialized knowledge of economics and could serve as employment for many of the academic economists who are no longer involved in the teaching of economics. Thus, the industry will change, but not all non-teaching academic economists will be truly displaced.
This volume concludes by presenting two important items for additional thought. First, although public university systems offer their product at a relatively low-cost, they are highly subsidized through tax revenues that are generated elsewhere. An expansion of MOOCs would lower the cost to both students and the state, allowing either a general reduction in taxes or a redirection of funds. Thus, if the quality of education were to remain constant or, as Payson suggests throughout the text, improve, society as a whole would benefit from the transition (chapter 7). Second, he issues a public call for economists to carefully consider their positions as academic economists and, if they find that they are not needed at this juncture, to seek employment in an area where their expertise will provide more significant benefits.
While Payson hits on many important points in this second volume, and adeptly lays out a plan to move the academic economics discipline forward, he again overlooks the importance and potential ramifications of the divide between mainstream and heterodox economists. While his plan could well lead to more efficient resource utilization, with fewer faculty members providing higher quality lectures, fewer LOTD publications, and more publications that make a meaningful contribution to society, it could come at significant cost.
With fewer faculty teaching, and the current tendency for academic economics departments to favor neoclassical instruction, it is reasonable to conclude that the lessons of Marx, Keynes, and the post-Keynesians, and even the relevance of institutions and history (to name just a few potential casualties) would be lost. This, in turn, would reduce the number of students exposed to heterodox and pluralistic views which model the very ideals Payson has espoused in both volumes. Taken to its logical conclusions, the specialization and widespread adoption of MOOCs, if not carried out thoughtfully and carefully, could further propagate the issues Payson has raised throughout both books.
Despite this oversight, The Downsizing of Economics Professors provides a well thought-out and balanced discussion of the changes taking place in higher education and pushes the reader to consider the impact of technological change on an industry that has remained relatively constant throughout much of its history. This contribution is more focused than How Economics Professors Can Stop Failing Us, takes fewer detours, and makes its point more succinctly. It is well worth reading by those already working in higher education, those considering a career in academics, and anyone who is asking what comes next for academic economists.
In conjunction with one another, the two volumes set forth the primary shortcomings of academic economists in terms of their teaching and their research. The books provide evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, of the virus-like nature of the cronyism, arrogance, and lack of professional ethics that plague the industry. Refreshingly, the volumes call out academic economists in a straightforward manner, in their own language, and issue a rallying call for improvement and change that are, perhaps, long overdue.
