Abstract
There are many regional and national academic competitions that allow teams of students from colleges and universities to compete against one another. We examine the benefits to students, instructors, and schools of participating in a college-level academic competition conducted in conjunction with enrollment in a class geared toward preparing students for the competition. We use our experience of teaching such a course as an example. Anecdotal evidence suggests worthwhile results: motivated, engaged students working to achieve a common objective, a student centered learning environment, external validation of the quality of the school’s students, positive external publicity, and a rewarding experience for instructors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
Our University runs a day-long case-based internal competition each spring called the Business Bowl. It attracts about 400 students per year (out of a total of around 4,000). A few other schools, such as Gallaudet University, also offer competitions by this same name.
See Brusentsev and Miller [2011] and Toomey and Telg [2009] for a review of the modest literature on the benefits of participating in academic competitions.
It is unlikely that a material number of students would enroll in a school based on the presence/absence of the opportunity to participate in Fed Challenge. In fact, we have had two students on our Fed Challenge teams who competed in high school, but neither chose to attend our school for the chance to participate at the college level. However, our enrollment management team has created a brochure and video highlighting the accomplishments of our team over the years and distributes these to potential freshman. Even here, the intent is to highlight the opportunities available to students and the success that they can enjoy should they enroll, rather than to attract students with the Fed Challenge per se.
Anecdotal evidence from discussions over the years with former Fed Challenge participants has frequently shown that at the very least, participation in the competition is often a topic of discussion with interviewers. While we are certain that the CFC students at our school have done quite well post-graduation, they are among the top students at our school and would be expected to do well in any event.
See Johnson and Johnson [2002] and Ventigmiglia [1994] for discussions of cooperative learning.
There are clearly many other methods to motivate and encourage learning than through participation in academic competitions. With regard to experiential learning, see Moon [2004].
The five regions are Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Richmond.
See Appendix II for detailed information on the content of the presentation and the judging criteria.
Appendix I reproduces the class syllabus.
Students must fully grasp a whole host of issues including, for example, how Fed actions affect the economy and financial markets, the limits of the Fed’s abilities, how the Fed interacts with other government and international institutions, and so forth.
On the lighter side, and to help create an esprit de corps, we created a team logo incorporating the school mascot, which is similar in style to the Federal Reserve logo and even have custom T-shirts made for the students to foster team unity. This initiative is a big hit with students and helps invest them in a team approach to the course and competition.
See Clinton and Smith [2009] for a discussion of peer evaluation contracts and Oakley et al. [2007] for a discussion of the benefits to students of working in teams.
See Griffiths [2010] for a detailed discussion of the value of student reflection.
In our district competition, of the nine different schools to reach the afternoon (second) round of the competition, three have CFC-based courses.
Each of us co-teaches the course as an overload.
We set up a Web page to advertise details about the CFC, the course, and the application process. We also sent out several mass e-mails to students to drum up interest and hold a multimedia informational session for prospective team members.
As a consequence, the applicants are not a random selection of the school’s students. They tend to have much higher overall GPAs and are generally more involved in school activities. In speaking to students who did not make the team, we have learned that it is often one of the first times that they have been rejected for something to which they have applied. Repeat applications are usually successful, we should note. The willingness to go through the application process again after being turned down signals resilience and perseverance on the part of the applicant.
Informal discussions with CFC students indicate that they accept lower grades in other classes (lower being a relative term, given that these are generally “A” level students) as the opportunity cost to participate in the competition and the CFC class. In the application process, we make clear the time commitment involved so that students can make a fully informed choice.
It was not until the third year of teaching the Fed Challenge course (when the peer evaluation procedures were put into place) that we were able to genuinely see no real divide between presenters and alternates.
We keep the students up to date on policy issues during the summer by e-mailing links to relevant articles in the popular press. Doing so often gets debate/questions/discussion going among students and faculty advisors.
Brusentsev and Miller [2011] surveyed students who had participated in the Fed Challenge at the University of Delaware, organized as an extracurricular activity, and also found that the students get a great deal out of participation.
We are in the process of designing an experimental course that will be targeted at underclassmen and is something of a “Fed Challenge Lite” class where three or four teams of students will prepare for a Fed Challenge-like within-class competition.
References
Attle, Simon, and Bob Baker . 2007. Cooperative Learning in a Competitive Environment: Classroom Applications. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19 (1): 77–83.
Bansak, Cynthia, and Julie K. Smith . 2011. The College Fed Challenge: An Innovation in Cooperative Learning. Unpublished Manuscript. http://blogs.vassar.edu/macroworkshop/files/2010/11/Cooperative-Learning-and-the-Fed-Challenge_JEE_submission_2011.pdf.
Brusentsev, Vera, and Jeffrey Bernard Miller . 2011. The Educational Value of the College Fed Challenge. University of Delaware Department of Economics Working Paper Series, 2011-7. http://www.lerner.udel.edu/departments/economics/educational-value-college-fed-challenge.
Cerny, Tomas, and Bozena Mannova . 2011. Competitive and Collaborative Approach Towards a More Effective Education in Computer Science. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2 (2): 163–173.
Clinton, B. Douglas, and Pamela A. Smith . 2009. Instilling Student Responsibility with Team Contracts and Peer Evaluations. in Advances in Accounting Education. Volume 10 edited by Bill N. Schwartz, and Anthony H. Catanach. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 81–101.
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. 2014. College Fed Challenge Guidebook, https://www.richmondfed.org/education/for_teachers/academic_competitions/ college_fed_challenge/participants_resources/pdf/handbook.pdf (accessed March 3, 2015).
Griffiths, Elizabeth . 2010. Clearing the Misty Landscape: Teaching Students What They Didn’t Know Then, But Know Now. College Teaching, 58 (1): 32–37.
Johnson, Roger T., and David W. Johnson . 2002. An Overview of Cooperative Learning. in Creativity and Collaborative Learning: The Practical Guide to Empowering Students, Teachers, and Families. edited by J. Thousand, and R. Villa. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Moon, Jennifer A. 2004. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. USA: Routledge.
Oakley, Barbara A., Darrin M. Hanna, Zenon Kuzmyn, and Richard M. Felder . 2007. Best Practices Involving Teamwork in the Classroom: Results from a Survey of 6535 Engineering Student Respondents. IEEA Transactions on Education, 50 (3): 266–272.
Toomey, Angelina C., and Ricky Telg . 2009. Critiquing the Contest: Assessing the Benefits of a Collegiate Academic Competition. Unpublished Manuscript.
Ventigmiglia, Laura M. 1994. Cooperative Learning at the College Level. Thought and Action, 9 (2): 5–30.
Acknowledgements
We thank Vera Brusentsev and Maria T. Daversa for extremely helpful comments and Sharon Lin and Gabriella Williams for excellent research assistance. All errors are of course our responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix I
Course syllabus for CFC
Syllabus
The intent of EC402 is to expose selected students to a rigorous exploration of advanced macroeconomic and monetary economics concepts with a special emphasis on the conduct of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. During the semester, students will read chosen articles, write policy briefings and make policy oriented presentations. All aspects of the course will emphasize teamwork. The culminating experience of the course will be participation in the CFC. The CFC is a prestigious competition sponsored by the Boston Federal Reserve System. Teams from area colleges make presentations to a panel of judges made up of economists from the Boston Fed.
Prerequisites
Junior level standing, completion of EC111 and EC112, and permission of the instructors. Although not a requirement, if possible, students are encouraged to enroll in EC391, Monetary Economics.
Text
Mishkin, Frederic “The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets.” Mishkin will act as a basic reference text. However, the vast majority of readings will be from other sources, such as recent policy papers and financial news articles.
Attendance
Given the nature of the course, attendance is expected and mandatory. Absences other than for valid reasons (illness, college sponsored event, for example) will be penalized. Additional time for research and team preparation outside of the formal class meetings is expected. Time/day and location for classes will be determined.
Grading
Written policy briefings (20 percent)
Oral policy briefings (20 percent)
CFC presentation score (45 percent)
Final Reflection Paper (15 percent)
Written policy briefings
The intent of the written briefings is to have students research, analyze, and write up policy recommendations on a variety of monetary policy issues. Written briefings are limited to five pages in length. Tables, figures, and references are not counted against this limit. Subjects of briefings will be determined during the semester as dictated by current economic events relevant to monetary policy. For example, possible topics related to current policy issues may include:
-
Now that the federal funds rate is approximately 0 percent, how can the Fed influence the economy?
-
Should the Fed adopt an explicit inflation target?
-
What risks does the Fed face because of the changes in the size and composition of its balance sheet?
-
How can the Fed improve communication of its policy objectives?
-
How should the Fed respond to the possibility of deflation?
-
Under what circumstances should the Fed begin to scale back use of its newly developed policy tools?
-
What factors are affecting long term interest rates? How do these limit the Fed’s ability to impact the economy?
-
Is the Fed’s independence being compromised given it is now working arm in arm with the Treasury?
-
Has the Fed’s credibility been damaged in any way?
-
How have other central banks responded to the current economic and financial problems?
-
What are the major factors affecting GDP and inflation?
-
How have the new tools worked?
-
How are the transmission channels working? Or not working, as the case may be?
All briefings are graded on content and presentation, so proper grammar and professional looking work is expected.
Oral policy briefings
The intent of the oral briefings is to prepare students to discuss and defend their recommendations in front of a knowledgeable audience. On the basis of the written briefing, students will make 10minutes presentations that summarize their findings. Students will be graded based on the quality of the presentation as well as how they respond to unscripted questions from the instructors and classmates.
Final reflection paper
The intent of the Final Reflection Paper is to have the team members summarize as a group their experience in EC402. The paper should be no more than 15 pages in length and answer the following questions:
-
What have you learned from EC402 and from participating in the 2010 CFC?
-
What areas of your preparations and presentation went well?
-
What recommendations do you have for next year’s team members in terms of preparation and presentation?
-
What would you have done differently as far as your preparations and presentation are concerned?
-
Did you face any particular challenges as a team? How were these overcome?
-
What do you think it takes to win the CFC?
-
Is there anything else that you wish to convey to your successors?
The paper will be graded based on content and presentation, so proper grammar and professional looking work is expected.
CFC presentation score
As the intent of the course is to prepare students for participation in the CFC, the culminating experience will be the presentation at the competition. During the semester, students will choose a presentation theme, do research on current economic and financial market issues, become “experts” in several areas relevant to current policy issues, prepare a PowerPoint presentation, conduct rehearsals, and answer practice questions. Below are guidelines from the Federal Reserve regarding the competition.
Presentations are limited to a maximum of 20minutes, during which time the team is expected to:
-
analyze current economic conditions as of the day of the competition;
-
provide a near-term forecast for economic and financial conditions (e.g., inflation, unemployment, real GDP, and other variables.) critical to the development of monetary policy;
-
explain timely issues and risks that should receive special attention in formulating monetary policy; and
-
make a real-time policy recommendation for the target fed funds rate. Include recommendations for other monetary policy tools and temporary liquidity measures, as warranted. Judges will expect the team to justify its recommendations.
The CFC presentation score is the score for the team as determined by the judges at the regional (Boston) competition. Thus, each student’s grade will be determined according to the five judging guidelines below. If the team advances to the second (afternoon) round, the higher of the two CFC scores will be used to determine the graded component. If the team advances to the national competition in Washington DC, then the average of the afternoon round score and the score from Washington DC will be used.
Appendix II
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond [2014] provides a detailed discussion what the Fed Challenge presentation must contain:
-
Analyze current economic conditions as of the day of the competition;
-
Provide the team’s projections for near-term conditions (economic, financial, and international) relevant to the formulation of monetary policy;
-
Explain timely issues and risks that should receive special attention in formulating monetary policy; and
-
Make and justify a team’s recommendation for Fed monetary policy, encompassing both traditional tools and newer tools as warranted
The criteria in judging each team, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond [2014] are spelled out as follows:
In comparing CFC teams, judges seek to answer the following question: Which team most convincingly demonstrates its understanding of US monetary policy? Components of this understanding include how and why the Federal Reserve establishes and implements monetary policy, how this policy affects the overall economy, and which issues are driving present-day policy debates. Answering this question involves a considerable degree of subjective evaluation. In the above question, “understanding” is a key to victory, but so is “convincingly demonstrates.” The scoring rubric requires our judges to compare teams on five dimensions:
-
Knowledge of monetary policy and of the Federal Reserve’s role in its implementation;
-
Responses to judges’ questions;
-
Quality of the presentation;
-
Quality of the research and analysis; and
-
Evidence of teamwork and cooperation
Appendix III
Here, we outline how an intermediate macroeconomics course could be organized around the principles of our CFC class.
In a class of 30 students, five teams of six people would be formed at the start of the semester. Teams would be chosen by the instructor with an eye toward making teams as diverse as possible. Note that the teams may tend to form natural study groups for the problem sets and midterm exam.
Grading would be divided into individual and team components:
Individual:
-
Midterm exam
-
Problem sets
-
Evaluation by teammates
Team:
-
Current events presentation (two presentations during the semester)
-
Written policy recommendation
-
Oral policy recommendation
The midterm and problems sets could be like those in a regular class. The evaluation by teammates could be based on the peer contract similar to the one we have provided. The current events presentations would serve to provide practice in preparing and presenting the oral policy recommendation. The written policy recommendation would be a comprehensive report that would comprise the following
-
A discussion of the non-policy factors affecting the four expenditure components of GDP, inflation, and unemployment.
-
A discussion of the policy factors, both monetary and fiscal, affecting the expenditure components of GDP, inflation, and unemployment.
-
A near term forecast for real GDP, inflation, and unemployment
-
A recommendation for appropriate fiscal and monetary policy
These would be accomplished using the various models discussed during the semester, such as aggregate demand–aggregate supply and optimal capital stock models, for example. This would stand in for a traditional final exam. As such, a high weight should be placed on this assignment. Moreover, given the team nature of the assignment, the instructor should communicate high expectations. To illustrate what is expected, the instructor might prepare an example of, say, the policy and non-policy factors affecting inflation during some interesting time period in the past. This example can act as a template and show the students what top quality work looks like.
The oral policy recommendation could take place during the scheduled final exam period as these are generally longer than a regular class period. Teams would present a 20minutes summary of the written recommendation, and would be followed by a 10minutes Q&A. This would be modeled along the lines of the Fed challenge presentation, except that it would also include recommendations for fiscal policy actions. Students should be directed to watch some of the national Fed Challenge videos posted on YouTube so that they would have an idea of what good, and not so good, presentations look like. Finally, to make the presentations more entertaining for both the audience and the presenters, teams should pick a presentation theme. For example, a theme might be a meeting between The Fed chair and the Treasury secretary. This would of course provide ample opportunity to discuss monetary and fiscal policies.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gulley, O., Jackson, A. Teaching a Class Dedicated to the College Fed Challenge Competition. Eastern Econ J 41, 484–503 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2015.11
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2015.11