1
ANTHOLOGY Ranking Top Economics Departments JAGJIT S. BRAR, ASGHAR NAZEMZADEH, AND PETER CHOW Southeastern Louisiana University Several studies employing different crite- ria have attempted to rank the top econom- ics departments in the U.S. Recently, Laband [SEJ, 1985] proposed a new criter- ion which he claims to be superior to other previous criteria. In addition, he used 12 criteria that others had previously employed and re-ranked the top 50 departments on the basis of data for the 197t-83 time period. Although, altogether Laband employed 13 criteria that were aimed at capturing the quantitative publication success, the qualita- tive publication performance, and the teaching effectiveness of economics depart- ments, he did not address the question of whether different criteria yield significantly different rankings. The purpose of this study is to fill this gap by examining the above hypothesis, both deductively and inductively. A new and much simpler approach is employed to rank the top 50 economics departments. The new ranking is then compared to the Laband rankings. The results of this study indicate that various departmental rankings available to date are not significantly different from each other in spite of the differences in methodology. For the purpose of comparison, the 13 Laband rankings were matched with one another into 78 pairs. To determine how closely these rankings are related to others, the Spearman rank-correlation coefficient, as well as the Pearson rank-correlation coefficient, were estimated. Of the 78 pairs tested, all but four were closely related to one another. Although the overall rankings generated by using different criteria were closely related to each other, still there were differences in the rank order of several departments. To determine whether these differences were statistically significant, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was employed. The results revealed that of the 78 possible pairs of the Laband rankings, statistically significant differences existed in only one pair that compared the ranking on the basis of the school origins of faculty with the one that was based on the total number of pages published by graduates. Thus, it can be concluded that economics departmental rankings available to date are quite consist- ent in spite of differences in the criteria employed by various authors, so much so that even the comprehensive criterion used by Laband did not produce significantly different rankings. To investigate the issue inductively, a new departmental ranking was developed on the basis of total pages published by economics departments in the AER during 1974-84. In the case of multiple authorships representing more than one university, total pages of the article were proportionately allocated to the universities represented. The new ranking was then paired with the 13 Laband rankings and all previously mentioned tests were repeated. Once again, the results showed a great deal of similarity among various rankings. For 10 of the 13 pairs, including the pair that compared rankings based on Laband's comprehensive criterion and the much simpler criterion employed in this study, no statistically significant differences in the rank order of departments were identified. 126

Ranking top economics departments

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ranking top economics departments

ANTHOLOGY

Ranking Top Economics Departments

JAGJIT S. BRAR, ASGHAR NAZEMZADEH, AND PETER CHOW Southeastern Louisiana University

Several studies employing different crite- ria have attempted to rank the top econom- ics departments in the U.S. Recently, Laband [SEJ, 1985] proposed a new criter- ion which he claims to be superior to other previous criteria. In addition, he used 12 criteria that others had previously employed and re-ranked the top 50 departments on the basis of data for the 197t-83 time period. Although, altogether Laband employed 13 criteria that were aimed at capturing the quantitative publication success, the qualita- tive publication performance, and the teaching effectiveness of economics depart- ments, he did not address the question of whether different criteria yield significantly different rankings.

The purpose of this study is to fill this gap by examining the above hypothesis, both deductively and inductively. A new and much simpler approach is employed to rank the top 50 economics departments. The new ranking is then compared to the Laband rankings. The results of this study indicate that various departmental rankings available to date are not significantly different from each other in spite of the differences in methodology.

For the purpose of comparison, the 13 Laband rankings were matched with one another into 78 pairs. To determine how closely these rankings are related to others, the Spearman rank-correlation coefficient, as well as the Pearson rank-correlation coefficient, were estimated. Of the 78 pairs tested, all but four were closely related to one another.

Although the overall rankings generated by using different criteria were closely

related to each other, still there were differences in the rank order of several departments. To determine whether these differences were statistically significant, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was employed.

The results revealed that of the 78 possible pairs of the Laband rankings, statistically significant differences existed in only one pair that compared the ranking on the basis of the school origins of faculty with the one that was based on the total number of pages published by graduates. Thus, it can be concluded that economics departmental rankings available to date are quite consist- ent in spite of differences in the criteria employed by various authors, so much so that even the comprehensive criterion used by Laband did not produce significantly different rankings.

To investigate the issue inductively, a new departmental ranking was developed on the basis of total pages published by economics departments in the AER during 1974-84. In the case of multiple authorships representing more than one university, total pages of the article were proportionately allocated to the universities represented. The new ranking was then paired with the 13 Laband rankings and all previously mentioned tests were repeated. Once again, the results showed a great deal of similarity among various rankings. For 10 of the 13 pairs, including the pair that compared rankings based on Laband's comprehensive criterion and the much simpler criterion employed in this study, no statistically significant differences in the rank order of departments were identified.

126