What to you call a university that thinks it can do without economics??

A university with marginal utility.

Baldwin:

1. The trade-off is not between English and Economics; they belong to different colleges and the colleges were asked to come up with separate budget cuts.

2. English is a core requirement, and so is Economics. English was not much affected, while Economics was not just reduced, it was ELIMINATED. And do note how CoAL's Dean managed to cut cost while keeping most of its faculty.

3. Economics created, developed, and taught the "international business" (IB) major, a curriculum that is 95% identical to the pure econ major. Include the 100+ IB majors as would be appropriate and the student to faculty ratio changes quite a bit. All in all, economics faculty have been generating some of the highest SCH around. To boot, they publish more and in better journals than their colleagues in CoB.

4. Following your fuzzy logic, rather than cut 10 (or so) positions in economics, CoB might want to consider cutting 5 positions in finance for the same budget effect.

Art

Art,

Economics may be a core requirement, but most students at USM take one (1) course in economics, not the three (3) that are the norm (freshman comp1, freshman comp 2, and literature).  The economics faculty tried very hard to work as many required econ courses into the business major as they could in an effort to protect their phony-baloney jobs; at most business schools, students take 2 econ courses. 

Now consider the economics major: five graduates per year, year after year.  I'm glad you brought up the IB major.  Since its protector, Farhang Niroomand, left town for Houston, I assume Art Vandelay is now the protector of the faith for IB.  USM has zero (0) faculty who are real IB scholars; some who claim this title are merely economists in disguise, untrained in real IB.  A few IB graduates get decent jobs, but most of the firms who hire USM business grads know just how useless an IB degree from USM really is.  USM is facing a mandate to retrench and retain only necessary units and programs.  Aside from all that, the USM IB program isn't even a real IB program by national standards. 

Mississippi needs more well-trained and ethical accountants, bankers, managers, etc., than it needs international businesspeople.  Pushing an IB degree in Hattiesburg is akin to selling the most high-tech roof to a person living in a run-down shack; a better use of money would be to rebuild a firm foundation in business education.  Maybe this budget crisis will allow the elimination some of the fat, low-impact programs that exist as vampires, existing off the energy of productive programs and draining them of their rightful funding.

Before anyone claims that "economics is central to a good business education," let me reiterate that most business students at major universities take only two principles of economics courses.  International economics is NOT necessary for a business degree.  Intermediate economics is NOT necessary for a business degree.  Specialized economics elective courses are NOT necessary for a business degree.  These courses are luxuries, and the Mississippi budget environment is not conducive to many luxuries.  Perhaps if the USM economics faculty had not spent years wasting students' time teaching personal favorite theories and reading from the Hattiesburg American, alumni might care more.  In point of fact, they couldn't care less.

You also mention finance.  Finance has paid a high price: losing three degree programs, a faculty line, and a center directorship.  However, finance carries 250-300 majors at any given time, and finance has real community support from the banking community, the financial services community, the insurance community, and the real estate community.  There are real opportunities for finance graduates to succeed in Mississippi, whereas economics or IB majors have many fewer opportunities.  In addition, there are about five finance faculty for 250 majors (that's about 50 majors per faculty member), while there are about ten economics faculty for 5 majors (that's 1/2 major per faculty member; if you add in IB, the ratio still pales in comparison).

Besides finance, accounting also has an in-state constituency , and management, marketing, and tourism management are right there with them.  The only USM business degree program without an immediate purpose or mission for the people of Mississippi is economics.  The economic development (IDV, etc.) program has usurped economics' position, since the economists have always been too busy with internal politics and other wastes of time to actually assist the state, the community, or individuals where "the rubber meets the road." 

Finally, economics has long been a political problem within the COB, causing disquiet with power grabs, money grabs, and infighting.  USM's economics group isn't productive by any independent measure: they produce a little low-level scholarship, perform negligible university and community service, and they teach very few students outside of the three service courses that vaguely resemble service courses taught at other universities.

USM's economics faculty has known for two decades that its low production of graduates put them at risk for elimination and they have done nothing about it.  It's time to take the ticks off the backs of the hounds.

A friendly word to the COB: "substantive change"

It's not my job to care about this any more, but as soon as these cuts look like a done deal, surely somebody will be on the phone to Tampa. Next fall is too late.

AACSB requires notification of any substantive change in a program. I don't have my book anymore and am not going to look it up, so I can't tell you exactly what the required time frame is.
(And I did not say I didn't care. I said it is no longer my job to care. As it happens, I care very much.)

I wouldn't know. I came to the COB in January 2008, and my position was eliminated June 30, 2009. Therefore I can't tell you what AACSB might do; since USM is hardly the only school having financial trouble, it stands to reason they would have to work with their members. I only made the original comment because I remembered that this needed to be done. It's the sort of detail than can easily be overlooked when so much else is going on.

Anonymous, I don't want to derail this thread any further. If you want to sign in and contact me via private message, I will be glad to continue the discussion. Also, the AACSB has an excellent website.

Not when the wounds are self-inflicted.

Point out the lies, Art.  You cannot. 

Your comments are simply another attempt to marginalize the comments of those who do not agree with you.  Perhaps if you say that my comments are "lies" over and over, others will believe you.  If anyone spends a few minutes checking annual historical graduation numbers for economics (McCain Library) , he/she will find that my claims are true.  If anyone looks up salaries in the USM budget, he/she will find that my claims are true.  If anyone consults historical reports to AACSB and AACSB responses, he/she will find my claims are true.  If anyone shold consult the USM Undergraduate Bulletin, he/she will find my claims are true.  I deal in facts, Art, while you practice a hit-and-run smear campaign designed to demonize, marginalize, and polarize. 

Art, your responses are based on emotion and tradition.  Any philosopher will tell you that those are two of the weakest foundations for logical argument.  Please use facts to counter my statements or remain silent. 

Reproducing a post from a thread at http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic.php?id=4610

Damned demand wrote: "If Economics isn't central to the mission of the COB, then they should have to give up the SCHs associated with teaching econ courses. I just think the Nail and the COB should have to pay some price associated with this move."

I absolutely agree. As shown in an earlier post, econ is a cash cow. For a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, students pay about $200 per credit hour (somebody please correct me if this is inaccurate). 3,750 credit hours in the fall of 2008, so about 7,500 for fall and spring (not including summer) yields $1,500,000 in revenue. APG estimate of projected savings by cutting econ is $924,532. Ergo, USM would lose about $575,000 in profit. CoAL should jump on the opportunity.

Also, on the econjobrumors.com thread, somebody pointed out the following:
"Perhaps a lesson also to those who think it is better to be in a B school than outside it (because allegedly higher salaries, though of course, market has something to do with that). In a b school why should an undergrad be an econ major when either with the same work be acct or fin or with much less work anything else? Outside of B school they all want to be econ majors because they couldnt get into the B school. We switched out of the B school and there was an order of magnitude increase in majors."

In other words, the econ major can thrive in the CoAL, but not in the CoB.