|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2010‒02‒20
two papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Francine D. Blau; Janet M. Currie; Rachel T.A. Croson; Donna K. Ginther |
| Abstract: | While much has been written about the potential benefits of mentoring in academia, very little research documents its effectiveness. We present data from a randomized controlled trial of a mentoring program for female economists organized by the Committee for the Status of Women in the Economics Profession and sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the American Economics Association. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial of a mentoring program in academia. We evaluate the performance of three cohorts of participants and randomly-assigned controls from 2004, 2006, and 2008. This paper presents an interim assessment of the program’s effects. Our results suggest that mentoring works. After five years the 2004 treatment group averaged .4 more NSF or NIH grants and 3 additional publications, and were 25 percentage points more likely to have a top-tier publication. There are significant but smaller effects at three years post-treatment for the 2004 and 2006 cohorts combined. While it is too early to assess the ultimate effects of mentoring on the academic careers of program participants, the results suggest that this type of mentoring may be one way to help women advance in the Economics profession and, by extension, in other male-dominated academic fields. |
| JEL: | A11 C93 I2 J16 J24 J44 |
| Date: | 2010–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:15707&r=sog |
| By: | Orkodashvili, Mariam |
| Abstract: | The paper discusses the major issues connected with the accreditation procedures in higher education system in the U.S. The questions raised are as follows: what are the reliable and credible indicators of quality instruction that could be measured in the process of accreditation of higher education institutions? How does greater transparency in the accreditation process serve students and the public? What is the role that accreditors on federal and state levels can play in improving institutional accountability or changing institutional behaviour; and hence, what are the standards and implications of federal vs. state involvement in the accreditation process? What is accreditation’s role in addressing problems raised by arbitrary denial of transfer of credit? And what role does accreditation play in assessing distance education? The paper supports the idea that high quality instruction, academic freedom, accountability and transparency should go hand in hand. Agreement should be reached between different parties involved on what to consider as reliable and credible indicators of quality instruction and how to best measure them for the purposes of accreditation. The evaluation data should be made a public knowledge to increase transparency and serve student interests. And finally, preserving the unique balanced relationship and golden medium that exists between peer review and appropriate levels of government involvement in the process of accreditation would be the best option for further development of higher education in the U.S. |
| Keywords: | accreditation; autonomy; accountability; regional and national standards of quality; federal and state funding of higher education; economic development; invetsment in human capital; economic growth; transparency; power struggles. |
| JEL: | D63 A23 I21 Z13 I22 A22 A13 H75 A12 I28 D61 H52 A14 |
| Date: | 2009–10–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:20394&r=sog |