Meanwhile, this is the ‘deliverable‘ (boldface mine, emphasis original):
In line with previous research, what we found supported the Grinch stereotype. About 5 percent of economics majors donated to WashPIRG in a given quarter, compared with 8 percent for other arts and sciences majors. A similar divide — 10 percent versus almost 15 percent — occurred with respect to donations to ATN.
We also found evidence that the giving behavior of students who became economics majors was driven by nature, not nurture: taking economics classes did not have a significant negative effect on later giving by economics majors.
But taking economics classes did have a significant negative effect on later giving by students who did not become economics majors. One interpretation of these results is that students who were not economics majors suffered a “loss of innocence” after taking an economics class, presumably because of exposure to certain ideas (like the invisible hand) or certain people (like economics teachers).
I read a lot of articles talking about how administrative salaries that have increased 30 – 40% are driving up tuition costs. Well, what about those disciplines that are teaching students–and many don’t go on to become economics majors–how to be selfish and whose salaries are skyrocketing? Given that much of the economics profession missed the greatest economic collapse in nearly a century, is the expense worth it?
Might want to consider cuts there too.