Introduction to JEE symposium on “What should go into the only economics course students will ever take?”

The discipline of economics has a marketing problem. Most college students could get positive net benefits from learning some economics, but about 60–75 percent of U.S. college students never take any economics. Among students who do take introductory economics, for the vast majority, it will be the only economics course they ever take, and only 2 percent will go on to major in economics. It is surprising that the discipline economists since Alfred Marshall have considered to be the “queen of the social sciences” does not interest the vast majority of college students and can attract only about 2 percent of those exposed to economics into becoming majors. There is clearly an opportunity to do better, and evidence is growing that a new approach to teaching can help.

The economic literacy or literacy-targeted (LT) approach to teaching economics argues that it is far more valuable for students to learn and be able to apply a few core economic concepts well than to be exposed to a wide range of concepts, topics, and techniques that the majority of students are unlikely to use again. Just like “traditional” introductory economics instructors, those using the LT approach aim to create economically literate students who can “think like an economist.” One description of the distinctiveness of the LT approach is that it highlights “what should go into the only economics course most students will ever take.”

Authors of the articles in this symposium examine the potential to create a Pareto improvement by reworking introductory economics courses to attract more students who would otherwise never take economics, to address the needs of one-and-done students,¹ and to ensure that the small number of students who do become economics majors are not disadvantaged in the process. Because LT economics courses appeal to, and better serve, a broader audience than “traditional” economics courses, reworking introductory economics also aligns well with the discipline’s growing interest in improving diversity and inclusion.

Here is an overview of the articles in this symposium.

Wendy Stock’s article, “Who does (and does not) take introductory economics?,” uses the nationally representative Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) longitudinal survey, which is the most representative dataset to date for estimating who does and does not take introductory economics. Importantly, the BPS includes community college students, who account for about 50 percent of all enrollments and whose exclusion led previous studies to overestimate exposure to economics. The astounding upper bound estimate that 74 percent of college students never take economics comes from her study. She suggests that attracting more students from this group, especially the 88 percent of (primarily female) health-related majors without any economics, may be more impactful for diversifying economics than converting one-and-done students into economics majors.

In his article, “What do we want principles students to (know and) be able to do: Learning outcomes, competencies, and content,” Avi Cohen surveys and connects the literatures on economic competencies and literacy-targeted principles courses. He makes the case for why departments should offer LT principles courses, explains what students should be able to do after taking LT courses, and differentiates LT principles from existing “intro for non-majors” or “survey” courses. The article provides a starting point for anyone interested in exploring or assessing the LT approach and suggests options for departments ­thinking about integrating LT principles into their course offerings.

The article by Mark Maier and Phil Ruder, “Assessment to promote learning in a literacy-targeted (LT) economics course,” notes that the LT focus on fewer concepts allows more opportunities for formative assessments with feedback, building students’ ability to transfer knowledge of concepts to new situations. Mindful of concerns about increased instructor workload, Maier and Ruder present a wide range of assessments that can work in small or large classes, including low-stakes quizzes, “ill-structured” problems, small and scaffolded writing assignments, and the use of social learning pedagogy with peer evaluation. They cover a rich and useful educational literature on assessment that may be unfamiliar to most economists.

Bill Goffe and Scott Wolla’s article, “Cognitive science teaching strategies and literacy-targeted economics complementarities,” connects the cognitive science literature on effective teaching and learning to the economics education literature on best practices for teaching principles. Evidence from cognitive science indicates that repeatedly visiting a topic throughout the semester (“spacing”), as well as “interleaving” different types of practice problems rather than “blocking” problems together, enhance both deep understanding and long-term knowledge retention. Goffe and Wolla offer detailed applications of spacing and interleaving using models taught in most introductory economics courses—the circular flow model and the production possibilities frontier.

The article, “Curriculum lag challenges and strategies for LT principles: Lessons from closing the monetary policy curriculum gap,” by Jane Ihrig, Mary Clare Peate, and Scott Wolla, offers a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks that the significant and documented benefits of the LT approach will change either the way most introductory economics courses are taught or the textbooks most commonly used. They trace the resistance to change to the interlinkages among four key input areas—standards and assessment, textbooks, resources, and instructor knowledge. Ihrig, Peate, and Wolla suggest engaging the four input areas using a simultaneous, active, systematic approach. They offer the curriculum lag in monetary policy implementation as a case study to show how the approach can encourage change.

Finally, the title of Gary Hoover and Ebonya Washington’s article, “How LT principles can improve diversity, inclusiveness, and student interest,” is self-explanatory. Drawing on surveys and interviews with underrepresented minorities who had considered, but ultimately rejected, economics as a career path, Hoover and Washington describe potential reasons why most college students never take any economics and why most students who do take introductory economics are one-and-done students. They argue that time freed up in LT courses that focus on fewer concepts gives instructors more ability to employ discussion, data, media reports, experiments, and other activities that apply classroom content to issues of interest to students, including racism and discrimination. Indeed, Hoover and Washington (2024, 179) find that the lack of discussions and real-world applications “was precisely the impediment that so many interviewees stressed as a great limitation of introductory economics for attracting Black and Brown students to the field.”

Although the LT approach has tremendous potential to both improve students’ understanding of core economic concepts and to expose more college students to “the economic way of thinking,” empirical research on the impacts of the LT approach is sparse. More research is needed to assess the short- and long-term impacts of LT teaching on students’ understanding, performance in subsequent economics classes, and choices about continuing study in economics. Research on whether the LT approach impacts students’ attitudes toward economics or generates substantive changes in the share of college students exposed to economics would also be helpful for departments and faculty considering adopting the LT approach. However, research will be limited until more departments start experimenting with the ­promising LT approach to teaching economics.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, or the Federal Reserve System.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 We use the term one-and-done to refer to students who do not take any economics courses beyond a survey, principles, or other introductory economics course.