In accordance with the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), this final assessment report provides a synthesis of the external evaluation and internal response and assessments of the Business Economics degree offered by the Political Science and Economics Department.
This report identifies the significant strengths of the programme, together with opportunities for programme improvement and enhancement, and sets out and prioritizes the recommendations that have been selected for implementation.
This report includes an Implementation Plan that identifies who will be responsible for approving the recommendations set out in the Final Assessment Report; who will be responsible for providing any resources entailed by those recommendations; any changes in organization, policy or governance that will be necessary to meet the recommendations and who will be responsible for acting on those recommendations; and, timelines for acting on and monitoring the implementation of those recommendations.
Overview of Programme Review Process:
The Programme Self-Study report was completed in March, 2017. For the programmes under review, it contained the degree-level expectations for these programmes, an analytical assessment of the programmes, course outlines, programme-related data, survey data from the Office of Quality Assurance and appendices with sample examinations and CVs of faculty members.
Two arm’s-length external reviewers (Dr. Brent Gallupe, Queen’s University; Dr. Byron Lew, Trent University) and two internal reviewers (Dr. Kiari Goni-Boulama, RMC, Dr. L Sangalli, RMC) were selected from a list of possible reviewers and approved by the Dean. They reviewed the self-study documentation and conducted a site visit to RMC on the 15th and 16th of January, 2018. The visit included interviews with the Dean of Arts, Vice-Principal Academic, Head of Management and Economics Department, Chief Librarian, as well as several civilian and military members of the Management and Economics Department faculty, and several students in the programmes. The ERC subsequently produced a report based on the Self-Study and site visit. The report was circulated to department members and discussed with faculty.
The reviewers submitted their report in February 2018, in which they describe how the Management and Economics Department programmes meet the IQAP evaluation criteria and the norms of Business Administration and Economics departments elsewhere in Canada.
The Departmental report and the External Review Committee (ERC) report together provide a thorough analysis of the current situation of the joint programme in Economics and Business Administration. All of the actors involved have seized the opportunity to provide useful and important analysis and recommendations about the current Departmental context and the way forward.
Significant Strengths and Weaknesses of the Programme:
The ERC identified a number of strengths of the joint Economics and Business Administration Programmes:
-
“The Committee found that the degree-level expectations are carefully outlined and are linked directly and appropriately to the courses to which they apply. They are consistent with a typical Economics curriculum and Business Administration curriculum.”
-
“The Committee believes that the level of student achievement and preparation is adequate to meet the educational objectives of the institution and of the Joint Economics & Business Administration, and Joint Business Administration & Economics Programs. The educational objectives of RMC and the Joint Economics & Business Administration, and Joint Business Administration & Economics Programs are demanding. The Committee believes that in general, the level and degree of student preparation is sufficient for them to meet these demanding education objectives.”
MGE identifies three primary areas of concern noted by the ERC that influence the status and quality of the programme:
- An increase in published and peer-reviewed research output and more and better funding opportunities provided by the Department of National Defence.
- Need for more human resources and general support personnel (tenure-track and sessional instructors, technical support personnel, library support personnel), more physical facilities, primarily in the area of library resources (the library needs more space and more library technology), and financial resources (to support faculty development, aid in faculty research, provide funding for guest speakers, provide support for class visits to off campus sites, provide support for student academic competitions, etc.)
- The necessity of the hiring of bilingual faculty in Economics.
The Chair of Economics, after consultation with the Head of Management Department, faculty and staff in the programme, submitted a response to the Reviewers’ Report in October 2018. The Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities in consultation with the Chairs (current and acting) of Economics, the Head of Management Department prepared this Final Assessment Report in February 2022. Specific recommendations are discussed, and follow-up actions and timelines provided.
Summary of the Reviewers’ Recommendations with the Programme’s and Dean’s Responses
The ERC identified the following areas of concern or issues that require attention:
Recommendation 1:
The ERC Committee recommends an increase in human, physical and financial resources for the Economics program in order to ensure a learning environment for students that is comparable to Economics programs at civilian universities. This includes more tenure track and sessional instructors, and more general support personnel, more physical facilities and greater financial resources to support faculty development, research and student activities.
Departmental Response:
The Department wholeheartedly agrees with this recommendation. We agree with the sentiment of the ERC, that based on current human resource levels, the Department is currently very limited in its ability to offer a larger array of course offerings, which is one of the main concerns that has been raised by current and past students in the program. An additional position would also increase contribution to the graduate programmes including the MBA, MPA and MA (War Studies) along with UG distance courses. Given limited resources, faculty rarely get to service these programmes. Finally, when one or more members of the Economics faculty are away on sabbatical, there are only five faculty members remaining to cover an entire slate of courses in both languages.
The potential for an additional military faculty position would be a great improvement, and the Department is hopeful that someone with the right qualifications can be found. Indeed, one military faculty position is currently allocated to Economics and the department is actively looking to fill the position.
A permanent administrative assistant with institutional and departmental memory would also generate a marked improvement in the overall efficiency of the Department and the Economics program.
With respect to physical space, the Department is generally satisfied with the new renovated space in Girouard. Additional office space would have to accompany an increase in human resources, but the Economics program is currently well served by the current available classroom spaces. There was some discussion about the need for additional large classrooms to accommodate courses with larger enrollments, however the current practice of splitting large courses like ECE 104 into 2 sections means that these courses can still be accommodated in a number of existing classrooms. The recent tooling of some classrooms with technology allowing for simultaneous on-site and remote teaching is a welcome improvement.
Finally, the Department concurs with the ERC’s view about the need for an increase in financial resources to support the Economics program. More financial resources will help to support increased course offerings for students in the program, student travel opportunities, up-to-date computer software, access to academic literature and datasets, as well as research related activities for faculty, all of which will lead to a stronger program and a better learning environment for students.
Student travel has been supported with RFF funds and the department is overall satisfied with.
Computer software, such as Stata and EViews, is required for upper-year students in the programme and should be budgeted for on a permanent bases at the College level.
Access to academic journals remains a challenge that could be resolved by an MOU with Queen’s University Libraries, so that faculty and students have online access to Queen’s library resources.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean agrees with the recommendation regarding faculty, conditional on the program becoming more viable in the long-term from the perspective of registrations at the program and course levels. It is noted that the ERC found “the level of student achievement and preparation is adequate to meet the educational objectives of the institution and of the Joint Economics & Business Administration, and Joint Business Administration & Economics Programs,” recognizing that they are staffed to meet the current need. As noted in the self-study package, due to the restriction on filling a vacant position as part of work force adjustment in 2012, enrollment in the Major and Honours in Economics was ceased after 2013 in favour of a joint program with Business Administration. After three years of no enrollments, in 2016 the Dean of Arts approved the reopening of the Major in Economics after confirming that the program could be run within existing resources. As also noted, the Honours in Economics would only be reopened should an additional position be approved for staffing, and while this position was not staffed, the Dean of Arts nonetheless approved the reopening of the Honours, again with available resources. The department has been able to manage the workload within resources to date, however growth is not possible at the present.
Economics shares an administrative assistant as part of the Department of Political Science and Economics. The position is indeterminate but has seen high turnover.
The 2017 Report 6 of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG) found that some degree programs produced very few graduates. Economics was singled out as one of five programs graduating fewer than 10 undergraduate students on average per year. RMC senior leadership will be required to identify to the OAG measures taken to address the observations that (1) there were too many degree programs for the size of the student body and (2) delivering programs that graduated such small numbers of students was not cost-effective. This is being tracked at two levels – program graduates for effectiveness and course enrollments for efficiency.
Statistics for the last 12 graduating classes in all variations of Economics degrees (Honours and Majors in Economics, Business Administration & Economics, and Economics & Business) are provided below. It can be seen that there was a low point for the program following the elimination of the Major and Honours in favour of the joint degree (graduating years of 2016 and 2017), but that program enrollment has increased by offering both disciplinary and joint Economics programs (with graduates from both starting in 2018). This trend has not been reflected in French, however, which has seen the French program suspended for certain years due to low enrollments.
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Mean | |
| E | 5 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 7.2 |
| F | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1.0 |
Examining the 300 and 400 level courses, it can be seen that Economics is increasing its efficiency on the English side and is running a minimum viable program on the French side (when there are students enrolled). Recommended maximum course size for 300 level is 24 and for 400 level is 18. The average class size for courses are provided below and their trend towards larger class sizes is reflecting the Chair’s efforts to realize economies.
| 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |
| E | 7.2 | 6.8 | 9.1 | 7.9 | 6.0 | 8.6 | 6.6 | 5.9 | 9.4 | 8.5 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 10.8 |
| F | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 |
Comparatively, the 300 and 400 level business electives in the program have higher registrations, reflecting the higher enrollments in the core Business Administration program. However, Business Economics students benefit from classes being drawn from both sides of the program.
| AY | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
| E | 20.0 | 15.6 | 18.1 | 14.3 | 9.7 | 14.5 | 20.2 | 18.5 | 15.0 | 28.3 | 26.2 | 22.0 | 14.5 |
| F | 6.3 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 5.0 | 5.9 | 7.2 | 5.3 | 6.3 | 9.4 | 9.8 |
While the viability of the program is improving due to the dedicated efforts of the Chair, it is still a low-enrollment program with small senior-level course enrollments. Therefore, pending Economics programs attracting sufficient students on a continual basis at both program and course levels necessitating multiple sections, particularly in French, investment of additional permanent resources through indeterminate hiring would be premature.
Regarding financial resources, Political Science & Economics has seen the same decrease in discretionary funds supporting student activities over the last decade as other departments. This decrease has only been partly offset by funding from the RMC Alumni Association, with some years seeing full funding and others seeing partial. Including sufficient funding to support student programming would be beneficial. In addition, there has been a year-to-year struggle to ensure funding of software supporting the Business Economics program. This funding needs to be baselined at the department, faculty or academic wing level.
Recommendation 2:
The ERC Committee recommends an increase in resources for library services, in particular to support subscriptions to academic journals at the College. The ERC also recommends an increase in resources to support College Information Services in order to improve the quality standards of the campus information system in line with other universities. Finally, the ERC recommends increased financial support for research.
Departmental Response:
The Department agrees with this recommendation. Better access to academic journals provides a better learning environment for students working on research projects, and provides vital support for research activities by faculty. One potential step forward would be to create a priority list of journals, so that any increase in resources for library services could be used to maximum effectiveness.
The College Information system is vital to every aspect of the Economics program. Email, website access and online information services are required 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Even brief disruptions can cause major difficulties for both students and faculty. The Department believes that investments in more support and improved reliability of the College Information system would enhance productivity and the academic learning environment across all programs, and certainly in the Economics program.
Finally, more financial support for research will help to increase research output from faculty which will in turn improve the academic learning environment for students in the Economics program.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean agrees with this recommendation. The 2017 Special Staff Assistance Visit (SSAV) put in motion some institutional changes that will result in increased resources being provided to the library, including ensuring that standard digital resources being available to students on a more consistent basis. While the SSAV process has not and will not fully resolve the library resource issue, it has provided some momentum and resources towards addressing this problem that were not foreseen when the ERC undertook its review. Furthermore, a review of current limitations on the Chief Librarian’s delegated authority for the purchase of electronic journals (e-journals) is currently underway. Improved access to consortia pricing for e-journals will improve the experience for faculty and students.
IT support is an important issue in ensuring that students are able to undertake their courses as required. The Dean has addressed concerns with the level of IT support to the Cmdt, Director of Support Services (DSS) and Principal. An IT service review was conducted in 2015 by DSS that may inform this work. Interruptions of LMS that affect our students will be reported in order to ensure improved service in the future. Effective April 2020, CIS support transitioned from RMC to CDA, so ensuring service levels are maintained will require additional effort.
Regarding research funding, faculty members in Economics have access to the same research resources as all faculty members. The Canadian Defence Academy Research Program (CDARP) promotes and maintains a base of high quality research capability at RMC to ensure staff expertise in the programs of undergraduate and postgraduate curricula, fosters research excellence to sustain the quality of intellectual pursuits at RMC, and enables faculty members to support the mission of the CF and DND through defence related research. Funds available for CDARP are currently at historic lows and faculty research would benefit from reinvestment in this strategic fund. In addition, faculty members have access both to Defence Research and Development Canada research contracts and partnerships and are eligible for funding through national granting councils, particularly from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).
Recommendation 3:
The ERC Committee recommends that faculty members should be encouraged to stay active in research so that they remain current in their area of specialization. The ERC also supports recommendations for more funding for research activities and for an exemption for faculty conducting research related travel from the Events Policy.
Departmental Response:
The Department agrees with this recommendation, and with the importance of the link between research output and financial resources to help support research. While the Department agrees with the need for a higher level of funding, one of the biggest ongoing challenges is the bureaucratic hurdles and restrictions to using current funding, such as the Events Policy. There have been many instances over the last few years where faculty have curtailed research related travel because of these restrictions, which in turn limits research activities and output from the Department.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean agrees with this recommendation. As public servants, faculty members at RMC must adhere to the National Joint Council Travel Directive and to the Financial Administration Act. Many of the bureaucratic hurdles are linked to these guidance documents, the latter of which has standing in law. There are, however, many occasions where the levels of delegated authority for travel have changed and with those levels, the procedures for gaining approval. There is much to be said for encouraging delegation of authority to lowest practical level and ensuring processes are reasonable, known by being fully promulgated and kept as stable as policy. For example, since the ERC visit, an exemption to the event policy has been granted for research-related travel. Travel policies do require faculty to plan ahead – often months – and would benefit from an increase in flexibility to allow quicker approvals at a lower level.
Recommendation 4:
The ERC committee recommends that the College level services offering writing assistance and especially math assistance, be more widely advertised so that both faculty and students are aware of that this help exists. The ERC also recommends that more resources be devoted to these assistance services, particularly to address the reduction in resources for the writing centre over the last 5 years.
Departmental Response:
The Department agrees with this recommendation, and faculty will make note to encourage use of both the writing and math assistance services in their classes and in discussion with individual students. Feedback on the math assistance service should be sought from both faculty and students in the Economics program to ensure that the new service is as effective as possible.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean agrees with this recommendation. Following one of the recommendations of the SSAV, RMC has established a College Success Centre with the mandate to provide learning support to students. The standing up of the College Success Centre has both the RMC Writing Centre and the Math Assistance Centre have been made available also to students. In peak periods of demand – around final exams – both centres have been been run with extended hours. A permanent Director of the Writing Centre was hired in 2021. The business model of the centre is a combination of contract support, volunteer support and faculty workload assignment.
Recommendation 5:
The ERC Committee recommends that the Arts core be reviewed to find ways of changing, removing or modifying courses so that students will have more choice in upper years.
Departmental Response:
The Department supports this recommendation. The program is part of the Faculty of Arts and therefore subject to requirements of the core courses pertaining to all programs within the Arts. The core is foundational to developing the broad subject matter knowledge unique to RMC graduates although a review of these courses and their value is merited. The program continues to encourage a review of the "Arts core" with a view to better meet the DLEs.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean supports the review of the Arts core, but not necessarily with the stated intent of increasing upper year choice. Since the ERC visit, two major committees have examined core curriculum, either in its entirety or key elements. In September 2018, the RMC Faculty Board established the Core Curriculum Committee to review the “Core Curriculum used at the Canadian Military Colleges in order to ensure that it continues to support the educational needs of the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) Regular Officer Training Programme” and to make recommendations based on this assessment. The committee delivered its report in July 2020, with nine recommendations. The first two were that (1) Faculty Board and Senate should adopt the Core Curriculum Learning Outcomes proposed in Part Two of this report, and thereafter include them in the IQAP manual and (2) the existing CMC Core Curriculum meets all of the Proposed Learning Outcomes and thus should be preserved. As this report was supported by Faculty Board, Faculty Council and the Senate, this would suggest that the common core will remain stable until the next review.
In fall 2020, a math review committee was formed by the Dean of Science. The principal purpose of this committee was to perform review of the content and general delivery of MAE/F103, 106, and 113 to ensure that they meet the objectives of students in SSH programs. A secondary purpose of the committee was to explore the potential for future decoupling of mathematics requirements for Humanities and Social Sciences programs, e.g. development of different core mathematics requirements for different disciplines in SSH. The committee delivered its report in summer 2021, recommending a new three-course stream for math in SSH, but not recommending program-specific math requirements.
Recommendation 6:
The ERC Committee recommends that scheduling for the Joint Business Administration/Economics programs be prioritized in order to ensure conflict-free timetabling. The ERC also recommends clear communication to prospective students that course choices are limited because of the nature of these joint programs.
Departmental Response:
The Department agrees with this recommendation. There has been strong student demand for these joint programs over the last few years, and if this demand continues even with the return of the stand-alone Economics program, then efforts should be made not only to continue to offer these joint programs, but also to ensure that they are work from a scheduling perspective. The Department also commits to better up front communication with prospective students that the joint programs offer few course electives than either the Business Administration or Economics stand-alone programs.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean agrees with this recommendation. Business Economics has drawn students into the Economics discipline who may have otherwise chosen Business Administration, strengthening the Economics programs by increasing their student base. Ensuring that the program functions effectively through proper scheduling is a significant contribution to its success and, therefore, should be prioritized. The Business Economics program is designed to provide a strong grounding in both disciplines and hence there are limited electives available. Students should be made aware that the program is both rigorous and highly structured.
Recommendation 7:
The ERC recommends a review of the feasibility of requiring the Economics seminar course ECE 492 as a component of the Joint Business Administration-Economics program, when students are not required to take either ECE 342 or ECE 442 as supporting preparatory courses.
Departmental Response:
The Department agrees that students without ECE 342 are likely to be unprepared for the Economics seminar course ECE 492. The Department commits to discussing potential modifications to the Joint Business Administration-Economics program to address this concern. The issue has been resolved, as now only students in the Economics stream have to take ECE/F492 and for these students ECE/F342 is mandatory.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean supports this recommendation. If there are critical learning objectives not being met that prevent a student from participating in a capstone course, then the program needs to be adjusted to allow participation. The Departments of Political Science & Economics and of Management are encouraged to discuss this recommended program change.
Recommendation 8:
The ERC Committee recommends that the Department explore the benefits and costs of offloading the introductory statistics requirement to the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, by exploring the potential equivalence between ECE 242 and MAE 102.
Departmental Response:
The Department has investigated this possibility and through discussions with the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science has concluded that ECE 242 is substantially different from MAE 102. However, we remain open to other options where courses could be shared or offloaded to other departments.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean is open to considering this recommendation once the math review committee recommendations are implemented. Following the delivery of the report of the math review committee, there may be scope to identify changes to ECE 242, once the learning objectives of the three new math courses for SSH are determined. One of those options may be to include Economics students in an existing math course. It should also be noted that ECE 242 is currently offered jointly with BAE 242 (cross-listed with a single instructor) and so part of the evaluation would necessarily be if the two courses should remain cross-listed or if they are separated and move in different directions.
Recommendation 9:
The ERC Committee recommends that the benefits and costs of the current merged Department of Management and Economics be weighed against other structural alternatives, and that this discussion involve all members of the Department.
Departmental Response:
The Department agrees with this recommendation. Both the current structure and alternatives have been discussed and explored at length. Based on support from both the Management faculty and the Economics faculty, the department structure will change as of July 1, 2018, with the Economics faculty rejoining the Politics Department to form the Politics and Economics Department, while the Management faculty will form the Department of Management.
Dean’s Response:
The Dean agrees with this recommendation. Several structural alternatives were evaluated, from status quo, to Economics as a standalone department, to rejoining Political Science. The latter was preferred almost unanimously by members of the three disciplines and so there is now a Department of Management and a Department of Political Science & Economics.
Implementation Plan
| Recommendation | Proposed Follow-up and Resource Implications | Responsibility for Leading Follow-up | Timeline for Addressing Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The ERC Committee recommends an increase in human, physical and financial resources for the Economics program in order to ensure a learning environment for students that is comparable to Joint Business Administration/Economics programs at civilian universities. This includes more tenure track and sessional instructors, and more general support personnel, more physical facilities and greater financial resources to support faculty development, research and student activities. |
|
|
|
| 2. The ERC Committee recommends an increase in resources for library services, in particular to support subscriptions to academic journals at the College. The ERC also recommends an increase in resources to support College Information Services in order to improve the quality standards of the campus information system in line with other universities. Finally, the ERC recommends increased financial support for research. |
|
|
|
| 3. The ERC Committee recommends that faculty members should be encouraged to stay active in research so that they remain current in their area of specialization. The ERC also supports recommendations for more funding for research activities and for an exemption for faculty conducting research related travel from the Events Policy. |
|
|
|
| 4. The ERC committee recommends that the College level services offering writing assistance and especially math assistance, be more widely advertised so that both faculty and students are aware of that this help exists. The ERC also recommends that more resources be devoted to these assistance services, particularly to address the reduction in resources for the writing centre over the last five years. | Discussions with faculty members | Chair of Economics, Dean of SSH and VPA. | Completed. New structures are now offering these services to students. The Writing Centre and Success Center are fully operational and known to students and faculty. |
| 5. The ERC Committee recommends that the Arts core be reviewed to find ways of changing, removing or modifying courses so that students will have more choice in upper years. | Discussions with faculty members and with other programs within the SSH division. | Chair of Economics and Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities. | Completed. A review committee worked on the core curriculum, ultimately deciding to keep the current mandatory core curriculum courses. This did not change the courses required and hence did not increase upper year choices. |
| 6. The ERC recommends that scheduling for the Joint Business Administration/Economics programs be prioritized in order to ensure conflict-free timetabling. The ERC also recommends clear communication to prospective students that course choices are limited because of the nature of these joint programs. |
The Department commits to better up-front communication with prospective students. Pre-registration meetings are now part of the registration process and students now have access to up-to-date information about our programmes (Moodle). |
Chair of Economics | Completed. |
| 7. The ERC Committee recommends a review of the feasibility of requiring the Economics seminar course ECE 492 as a component of the Joint Business Administration-Economics program, when students are not required to take either ECE 342 or ECE 442 as supporting preparatory courses. | Discussions with faculty members | Chair of Economics | Completed. Number of modifications have been implemented, including reducing number of credits to 40 aligning the joint programmes with other SSH programmes. ECE342 is no longer a requirement for students in the Business Economics stream. |
| 8. The ERC Committee recommends that the Department explore the benefits and costs of offloading the introductory statistics requirement to the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, by exploring the potential equivalence between ECE 242 and MAE 102. | Economics has discussed this issue in the past with Math Dept. | Chair of Economics | Completed. This was discussed at length with the Head of MCS Dept and has concluded that ECE 242 is substantially different from MAE 102. However, we remain open to other options where courses could be shared or offloaded to other departments. This is currently the case with ECE/F242 and BAE/AAF242 shared offering with the Management Dept. |
| 9. The ERC recommends that the benefits and costs of the current merged Department of Management and Economics be weighed against other structural alternatives, and that this discussion involve all members of the Department. | Discussions with faculty members. | Head of MGE, Chair of Business Administration programme, Dean of SSH, Principal and Commandant of RMC. | Completed. Based on support from both the Management faculty and the Economics faculty, the department structure changed as of July 1, 2018, with the Economics faculty rejoining the Politics Department to form the Politics and Economics Department, while the Management faculty will form the Department of Management. |
Conclusion:
The External Review Committee (ERC) provided a thorough and fair review of the joint Business Economics programmes. According to the Report, the Department is doing the best it can with very limited resources in order to deliver the BA Program. The Report found that students who have graduated from the Business Economics Program consider it to be a high-quality program that has provided them with the skills they need in their first position in the military.
The Dean of SSH, in consultation with the Chair of Economics, is responsible for monitoring the Implementation Plan. The other recommendations have either already been considered or implemented, or involve College level action.