In accordance with the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) Institutional Quality Assurance Process (IQAP), this Final Assessment Report (FAR) provides a synthesis of the external evaluation and internal response and assessments of the undergraduate programs offered by the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities in Economics. This includes the following programs: Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts - Economics, Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts - Business Economics, Minor in Economics, and Certificate in Applied Economics. This report identifies the significant strengths of the programs, together with opportunities for 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 Program Review Process
The Program Self-Study Report was completed on 16 Sept, 2024. For the programs under review it contained the degree level expectations for the programs, an analytical assessment of the programs, course outlines, program-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. Dane Rowlands, Carleton University, and Dr. Ryan Compton, University of Manitoba) were selected from a list of possible reviewers and approved by the Deans of Sciences. An internal reviewer was not provided. They reviewed the self-study documentation and conducted a site visit to RMC from 14 - 15 Nov 2024. During the site visit, the ERC met with the VP Academic, the Director of Quality Assurance, the Dean of Social Science and Humanities, the VP Research, the Program Chair, faculty members, alumni, students registered in the program under study, and the Chief Librarian. The reviewers submitted their report on Dec 20, 2024. In their report, the ERC expresses the opinion that RMC’s economics programs have a similar breadth and depth of economics training to other economics programs from other Canadian Universities.
Significant Strengths and Weaknesses of the Program
The ERC identified a number of strengths of the economics programs:
- There is a very favourable instructor-student ratio in many classes;
- The faculty members are dedicated instructors committed to their students, and the support they provide seems genuinely appreciated by the students;
- The core faculty display high morale, and the department functions with a high degree of collegiality. These good relations seem to extend to their colleagues in the Political Science Department with which they are now associated;
- The program offers several innovative courses that are well-suited to RMC and its students. These include classes on the Economics of Defence, the Economics of National Security, along with exposure to game theory; and
- The Economics department operates four separate BA programs and supports a minor in economics for other programs and a certificate in applied economics. This is an extensive undertaking, but it seems to work well given the efficient way they are interconnected in terms of sharing courses. Each of these separate programs is appropriately structured and allows access to suitable courses.
The ERC identified a number of areas of concern for economics programs:
- There is an urgent need to renew the core faculty complement by proceeding with the planned hire. This is the most critical problem facing the department and restricting its capacity to continue to offer high quality programs;
- More support (primarily financial) and flexibility (on travel, for example) is required to encourage research by core faculty members and to foster collaborations and engagement with other economists. Fostering collaboration should include keeping MOUs with Queen’s University up-to-date, and possibly expanding formal connections to other universities and research groups;
- There is a need to review the core program for first year students to make sure the structure and content meets the needs of programs that start in the second year, while still meeting the overall objectives of RMC;
- A second related issue is that the overseeing of the transition of students from year-to-year occurs in an overly-centralized fashion at the registrar’s office, which means that students in programs such as economics do not always get to benefit from program knowledge located in each unit; and
- We noted a few minor anomalies in the course offerings. To avoid any potential misunderstanding of transcripts for students going on to graduate studies in economics, the ECE256: Modelling in Economics course should be renamed “Mathematical Economics” in keeping with the terminology used in other economics departments. Some consideration should be given to adding a course in Development Economics given the location of many CAF missions. Other courses, such as ECE 336 (International Financial Management), should be reviewed to make sure they remain fit for purpose.
The Program Chair, after consultation with faculty and staff in the programs, submitted a response to the ERC Report in May 2025. The Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities prepared this Final Assessment Report on 5 June 2025. Specific recommendations are discussed, and follow-up actions and timelines provided.
Summary of the Reviewers’ Recommendations with the Dean’s Responses
The ERC identified several areas of concern or issues that require attention. These issues are discussed in the order that they appear in the ERC Report:
Recommendation 1
The economics department needs to have its teaching position filled to renew its core faculty and maintain continuity.
Departmental Response
The Department fully agrees with this recommendation. In the 2023-2024 academic year, the department successfully conducted a comprehensive recruitment campaign, culminating in the selection of a highly qualified candidate for a critical open position. However, despite the successful completion of the hiring process, the position ultimately remained unfilled due to an unforeseen hiring freeze implemented across the organization as a direct consequence of broader budget cuts.
Dean’s Response
The renewal of core faculty through filling vacant positions contributes to the renewal of the programs while also ensuring that a healthy diversity of course offerings is maintained. Filling this position would also reduce the service burden on department members, bringing it to normal levels. While I support this recommendation for the Economics programs, the possibility of hiring is currently uncertain given the ongoing hiring freeze and that we do not yet have ministerial direction on the CMCRB recommendations, direction that could result in revisions to SSH programming across the disciplines.
Recommendation 2
The obstacles to research for the faculty need to be more clearly identified and addressed. These include administrative burdens, research funding levels, flexibility in travel administration, formal arrangements such as MOUs to encourage collaboration with outside institutions.
Departmental Response
The Department fully 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 heavy administrative burdens on most members of the department.
Dean’s Response
Departmental identification of the specific obstacles to research it faces in the areas of research funding levels and travel administration will help me to work on addressing them with the VPR and principal’s office. The administrative burdens on department members, which the department identifies as the most significant challenge to research productivity, should be reduced to normal levels. This reduction could be achieved through the filling of the vacant UT position. If the eventual SSH programming changes in response to ministerial direction regarding the CMCRB recommendations prevent us from filling the vacant Economics position, the administrative burdens on faculty members should be scaled back in other, explicitly identified, ways.
Recommendation 3
Restrictions imposed by the first-year common core program structure need to be addressed and revised to impart more mathematics skills for downstream programs, and to ease the transition from the general core to second year in the different departments. This should extend to having more unit-level input into the overseeing of the process of students moving from one year to the next, and especially from the core first year to their second year.
Departmental Response
The Department fully agrees with this recommendation and would ideally like the core mathematics requirements to impart more advanced mathematics skills for downstream programmes. However, a recent review of the core mathematics courses revealed that all departments, with the sole exception of Economics, advocated for lower mathematics requirements. Were Economics to unilaterally impose higher requirements, it would inevitably create a higher entry barrier into its programmes, potentially leading to a negative impact on programme uptake. Furthermore, as of the 2024-2025 academic year, the mathematics standards for admission into RMC have been lowered, which means that the overall pool of incoming students possesses even lower mathematics skills than in previous years. In response to these challenges, the department has proactively adapted its programme core mathematics course (ECE/F256 Modelling in Economics) to effectively bring students up to the necessary mathematics standards required for success in Economics programmes
Dean’s Response
I agree with the department’s assessment of the difficulties in imposing departmental standards on the math courses that form part of the core curriculum and approve the department’s proactive approach of revising ECE/F256 to bring students to the necessary math standards for success in Economics programmes. The future of the core curriculum itself is unknown, given the CMCRB’s recommendation to eliminate it and the necessity of waiting for the ministerial response to this recommendation. Potential future revisions to the core curriculum might provide an opportunity to address the Economics programmes’ math requirements within it. In the event of the elimination of the core curriculum, the Economics department could work with the Mathematics department to integrate tailored math courses into the Economics programmes.
Recommendation 4
The relatively small size of the program and the need for both French and English courses for the program seems to offer some scope for finding efficiencies in course offerings. Economics does well to offer its programs in full and in both official languages, and it has instituted processes to ensure the availability of suitable electives. That said, efforts to find innovative ways of saving resources without sacrificing program quality and student satisfaction need to be continued and may require support from senior administration in terms of permitting flexibility in program delivery.
Departmental Response
The Department fully agrees with this recommendation. The Department has made significant progress in attracting more students into the economics programmes. In fact, pre-registrations into the economics and business economics programmes for the 2025-26 academic year were at a healthy 19 students, 8 of whom were francophones. Unfortunately, both programmes were subsequently put on pause for the 2025-2026 academic year, which is likely to have negative consequences for future registrations, particularly among francophone students. Some francophone students indicated that they would not have joined CAF and chose RMC for their undergraduate studies had it not been the case that RMC offers an Honours in Economics degree. This situation, coupled with the low francophone intake at RMC since the re-opening of RMC St Jean as a university, makes offering courses in French a high-cost option. To address this issue, the department has been offering courses in English with French language assistance to francophone students. The department believes that a more strategic allocation of francophone students between the Kingston and St. Jean campuses would significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of offering courses in both official languages.
Dean’s Response
I concur with the department’s assessment of its progress in attracting more students despite the challenges posed by the opening of RMC St Jean, and of the detrimental impact the current programme pause will have on this progress. The CMCRB report also recommends saving resources by streamlining programme offerings between RMC and RMC St Jean, and I am in favour of pursuing this goal in a way that maintains a diversity of disciplines available to OCdts. A more strategic allocation of francophone students between the campuses could be a way to support ongoing disciplinary diversity.
VPA’s Response
RMC was tasked by higher headquarters to find efficiencies in its academic program deliveries. Furthermore, the recent recommendations by the Canadian Military Colleges Review Board highlight the need to streamline our academic offerings in that the number of programs offered at RMC is high compared to the overall number of students. This is leading to some programs being financially unsustainable. A preliminary analysis was completed in the past few months to identify low-enrolment programs based on enrolment statistics from the past 6 years, and unfortunately the Economics program was identified as a low-enrolment program to be paused for new enrolments in academic year 25-26, pending further analysis and direction from higher headquarters. This enrolment pause is in no way related to the quality of the Economics program.
Recommendation 5
While the economics programs and courses are fit for purpose, some changes should be considered. These include a review and possible revision of courses such as ECE 336 (International Financial Management), a renaming of ECE256 (Modelling in Economics) to “Mathematical Economics” as is the standard in economics departments elsewhere, and the inclusion of a course on development economics. The program would also likely benefit from making ECE 442 (Applied Econometrics) a program requirement rather than an option, expanding the technical skills for students and increasing the opportunities for more practical and applied coursework.
Departmental Response
The Department agrees with this recommendation and intends to partially implement it during the upcoming cycle. First, ECE 336 (International Financial Management) was introduced back in 2016 for students in all Economics and Business Administration programs. The purpose of this course is to bring together economics and finance instructors in teaching, allowing learners to encounter various concepts and financial dilemmas on a global scale. Second, renaming of ECE256 (Modelling in Economics) to “Mathematical Economics” is not without challenge. All courses with ‘Mathematics’ in the title are assumed to be instructed by the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science (MCS). An attempt to name ECE256 as “Mathematical Economics” failed when the course was first introduced. The department will again consult with the MCS department before submitting a request to the Syllabus Committee in the fall.
Third, requiring all students to take Applied Econometrics (ECE442) poses significant challenges for most students. Most high-achieving students who complete ECE342 (the prerequisite course to ECE442) are, however, continuing their studies with the more advanced Applied Econometrics course. The Department is considering adding defence-related empirical content to this course.
Fourth, the Department is considering introducing a course titled Applications of Game Theory to Military Decisions to complement its already very popular game theory course (ECE454). The Department considers this to be a critical addition to cadets’ training in strategic analysis in conjunction with their military training.
Dean’s Response
I fully support the departmental response. The proposed new courses explicitly highlight the Economics programmes’ relevance for future CAF officers.
Recommendation 6
The structure of the economics programs meet discipline standards, as does the delivery of its courses. We recommend that course delivery innovations be considered that will increase the perception of links between course skills and assessments and subsequent employment. We think there is room to increase the use of group work, experiential learning exercises, and applied assignments that more closely resemble the work that students will do after graduation. These skills should also reflect those necessary for a wider range of military trades, and be acknowledged as suitable qualifications for them.
Departmental Response
The Department fully concurs with this recommendation. While experiential learning exercises, group work, and policy analysis are already integrated into certain courses, such as ECE103, ECE342 and ECE442, the Department plans to review its current course delivery methods and introduce similar innovative approaches across its other courses in the upcoming cycles.
Dean’s Response
I support the department’s plans to review its current course delivery methods to expand on the innovative approaches it has already used in some courses. The exploration of further course delivery innovations might present an opportunity to collaborate or form partnerships with other disciplines, especially political science and business administration, where there might be some overlap in the application of knowledge and skills to the military trades.
| Recommendation | Proposed Follow-up and Resource Implications | Responsibility for Leading Follow-up | Timeline for Addressing Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. The economics department needs to have its teaching position filled to renew its core faculty and maintain continuity. |
Discussion with the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities and the Vice-Principal – Academic to work on filling the vacant position in Economics. |
Programme Chair and the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities |
Dependent upon lifting of hiring freeze and minister’s decisions on CMCRB recommendations |
| 2. The obstacles to research for the faculty need to be more clearly identified and addressed. |
Discussion with the Dean of Social Sciences, and Humanities, the Vice-Principal Research and Vice-Principal Academic to address the issue. |
Programme Chair |
Sept-Dec 2025. |
| 3. Restrictions imposed by the first-year common core program structure need to be addressed and revised. |
The Department is addressing the issue of mathematics skills required in Economics by adapting the content of the ECE256 Modelling in Economics course. |
Programme Chair and faculty members | To be reviewed in June 2026 (annual implementation update) |
|
4. Efforts to find innovative ways of saving resources without sacrificing program quality and student satisfaction need to be continued. |
a) Discussion with the Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities and Vice-Principal - Academic to get support for faculty to continue to offer courses in bilingual format and b) work towards a better allocation of francophone students between Kingston and St. Jean campuses. |
Programme Chair |
a) Sept-Dec 2025 b) AY 2025-2026 and beyond (this effort could be impacted by changes to programming at RMC and RMC St Jean once the minister has given direction on CMCRB recommendations) |
| 5. Review and possible revision of ECE 336, ECE256 and ECE 442 | A proposal for the Syllabus Committee will be drafted for the next cycle (As needed). | Programme Chair, Syllabus committee rep, and faculty members | June-Dec 2025 |
| 6. Course delivery innovations be considered that will increase the perception of links between course skills and assessments and subsequent employment. | Discussions with faculty members. | Programme Chair and faculty members |
To be reviewed in June 2026 (annual implementation update) |
Conclusion:
The ERC Report provided positive feedback on the outcomes of the undergraduate economics programs and confirmed that these programs align well with RMC's mission and academic plans and that an RMC student with an undergraduate degree in economics would be as well-prepared for a graduate program in economics as students in most other institutions. However, the ERC did identify areas that had room for improvement, and RMC is, or has already taken, taking steps to address the issues raised. RMC will continue to work toward program enhancement and improve student success in the undergraduate economics programs.
The Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities, in consultation with the Program Chair for Economics, is responsible for monitoring the Implementation Plan.