Symposium: A Fresh Look at the Future of the Intermediate Microeconomics Course – Challenges and Opportunities

Intermediate microeconomics occupies a central, but often controversial, position in the undergraduate economics curriculum. It is widely regarded as the hardest ‘core’ course: mathematically rigorous, abstract in content, and frequently a turning point in students’ decisions to persist in the major (Emerson & McGoldrick, 2024). Yet, as the discipline grapples with declining enrolments (Siegfied, 2024), increasing emphasis on quantitative methods (Marshall & Underwood, 2024) and persistent underrepresentation of women and minorities (Bayer & Wilcox, 2019), the pedagogical and curricular design of intermediate microeconomics is ripe for scrutiny.

This symposium brings together three timely and thought-provoking contributions that explore how intermediate microeconomics can be reimagined to better serve students, reflect the evolving discipline, and promote inclusivity. Hoyt et al. provide a data-rich analysis of recent trends in economics education and the implications for the intermediate core. Jacobson and Viceisza offer a pedagogical manifesto for inclusive teaching in intermediate microeconomics. Halliday and Mamunuru propose a substantive rethinking of the course’s content and structure, advocating for a problem-centred, modernized curriculum. Where these papers differ is in their primary focus. Hoyt et al. provide a macro-level analysis of trends and structures, Jacobson and Viceisza focus on classroom practices and instructor mindset, and Halliday and Mamunuru challenge the foundational assumptions of the curriculum itself. Together, these papers offer a compelling case for rethinking not only how we teach intermediate microeconomics, but also what we teach, why and to whom. This symposium builds on and extends a growing body of literature on economics education reform. It echoes calls for greater diversity and inclusion in the discipline (Bayer & Rouse, 2016), for pedagogical innovation (Asarta, 2022), and for curricular modernization (Bowles & Carlin, 2020).

Hoyt et al. begin with a sobering observation: undergraduate economics degrees have declined both in absolute enrolment numbers and as a share of total degrees conferred since 2020, marking the longest sustained decline since 1997. Simultaneously, the share of degrees classified as ‘Econometrics and Quantitative Economics’ (EQE), a STEM-designated variant, has surged, now comprising nearly half of all economics degrees. These trends, the authors argue, are reshaping the landscape of undergraduate economics education and raising critical questions about the role of intermediate microeconomics. Drawing on IPEDS data and recent surveys, they document the increasing mathematical rigour of intermediate microeconomics courses, particularly in EQE programs. For instance, 93% of EQE degrees require calculus as a prerequisite, compared to 59% of general economics degrees. This shift, while aligning with the discipline’s empirical turn, may also exacerbate barriers to entry for students with weaker quantitative preparation (disproportionately women and underrepresented minorities). Finally, the authors argue that intermediate microeconomics can be both a bottleneck contributing to and a potential avenue for addressing these developments. They call for a comprehensive analysis of the course’s curricular fit, content, pedagogy, and instructor characteristics. Their paper sets the stage for the contributions that follow by framing intermediate microeconomics as a critical site of intervention in the broader project of reforming economics education.

If Hoyt et al. diagnose the structural challenges facing intermediate microeconomics, Jacobson and Viceisza offer a pedagogical prescription. Their central argument is that the course need not be a ‘weed-out’ class that filters students based on prior preparation or perceived aptitude. Instead, it can be a ‘gateway’ that cultivates a growth mindset, fosters a sense of belonging, and supports all students in mastering rigorous material. Drawing on research from STEM education and their own classroom experience, the authors outline an inclusive teaching framework. This includes early diagnostics of quantitative preparation, scaffolding of mathematical content, active learning techniques, and the use of relevant, diverse, and personalized (for the instructor or the student) examples to boost engagement. They emphasize the importance of instructor mindset, arguing that instructor beliefs about student ability significantly shape student outcomes. Importantly, Jacobson and Viceisza extend the conversation on inclusive pedagogy beyond the introductory level, where most prior work has focused. They argue that retention in the major hinges not only on entry points but also on the experiences students have in core courses like intermediate microeconomics. Their contribution is both a call to action and a practical guide for instructors seeking to make their classrooms more inclusive without sacrificing rigour.

While Jacobson and Viceisza focus on how we teach, Halliday and Mamunuru address what we teach and whether it adequately reflects the current state of the discipline or the interests of today’s students (and economists of the future). They argue that the standard intermediate microeconomics curriculum, with its emphasis on constrained optimization under complete information, fails to capture the richness of modern economics or the complexity of real-world problems. To tackle this, they propose five updates to the standard course:

(1) Refocusing the curriculum around ‘optional’ topics such as strategic interaction, incomplete contracts, and social preferences.

Halliday and Mamunuru advocate for a problem-centred approach that begins with real-world issues such as poverty, climate change, and inequality and uses theory as a tool to understand them. They draw inspiration from The CORE Project’s The Economy and propose examples such as assurance games in agricultural settings and models of charitable giving to illustrate key concepts. Their contribution is both a critique of curricular inertia and a blueprint for reform. They acknowledge the institutional and pedagogical challenges of change but argue that the time is ripe for a reimagining of intermediate microeconomics that is more inclusive, engaging, and reflective of the discipline’s evolution.

Finally, Orlov and Makler provide their reflections on the papers above, in the context of their own experiences in the economics classroom at university and their research. As they point out, despite the different approaches of the three papers, they share key themes. All three contributions recognize that the current structure and pedagogy of intermediate microeconomics may disproportionately exclude students from underrepresented backgrounds. They offer complementary strategies – curricular, pedagogical, and institutional – for addressing this challenge. All three papers also address content relevance. Each paper questions the alignment between what is taught in intermediate microeconomics and what students need to know to understand the modern economy or succeed in diverse careers. Lastly, all three papers focus on pedagogical innovation. From active learning to problem-centred instruction, the authors advocate for teaching methods that engage students more deeply and support diverse learning approaches and cohorts. Intermediate microeconomics is at a crossroads. As the discipline evolves and student demographics and interests shift, the course must adapt to remain relevant, inclusive, and impactful. The contributions in this symposium offer a roadmap for that adaptation – grounded in data, informed by pedagogy, and motivated by a commitment to student success.