Skip to Content

Department News

  Page 1 of 6  Next Page »
April 5, 2017

Meet the New Faculty: Mark Colas, Grant McDermott, & Woan Foong Wong

Mark Colas originally hails from San Francisco, California, and is excited to be returning to the West Coast and joining the faculty at the University of Oregon. Mark received his B.A. from UC Davis in 2009 and will be receiving his PhD in Economics from the University of Wisconsin this Spring. Before starting graduate school, Mark spent two and half years living in mainland China, where he studied Mandarin Chinese and conducted research on internal migration in China. Mark is a Labor and Urban Economist whose research interests include migration, sector and occupation choice, and the determinants of inequality.

 

 

Grant McDermott originally hails from the Cape Winelands of South Africa. He attended the University of Cape Town for his Bachelor studies, and graduated with double honours degrees in economics and business science in 2005. He specializes in environmental and natural resource economics. His applied skill set emphasizes econometrics, Bayesian analysis and data science tools. He’s presently employed at the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara, and will be joining the Department of Economics at the University of Oregon as an assistant professor later this year.

Woan Foong Wong is an international trade economist who is receiving her graduate degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research focuses on trade costs, specifically factors that impede and facilitate trade flow. These include transport costs, trade agreements, and resource misallocation. A Malaysian native, she attended high school in India and subsequently completed dual degrees in Economics and Music Composition at Oberlin College and Conservatory of Music. Prior to graduate school, she worked at the Peterson Institute for International Economics which cemented her interest in trade policy.

 

March 7, 2017

Rise of the Machines

Check out this new article by UO’s Cascade Magazine, highlighting UO Economics graduate Jeremy Garbellano and his analysis of the tools available to experts for predicting recessions.

Rise of the Machines: Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict Recessions- Is is Better than the Classic Methods?

July 5, 2016

States with the Best Economies

Two thousand fifteen was a banner year for the U.S. economy, thanks to a strong dollar, job gains, lower oil prices, increased consumer spending, and general improvements in the housing and business sectors. And the International Labour Organization expects steady growth ahead despite a slowing global economy.But within the U.S., state economies could still be either boom or bust. Illinois, for instance, is currently in a fiscal free fall, with no budget for the second year in a row — putting its schools and social programs in peril — and the highest unemployment rate in the Midwest. Meanwhile, California has blossomed into the seventh largest economy in the world, boasting a GDP of $2.3 trillion, which was comparable to Brazil’s $2.2 trillion, in 2014.

With such wide disparities in growth, WalletHub’s analysts compared the economic performance of the 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key dimensions: Economic Activity, Economic Health and Innovation Potential. Continue reading below for our findings, expert commentary and a full description of our methodology.

Main Findings

Overall Rank State Total Score ‘Economic Activity’ Rank ‘Economic Health’ Rank ‘Innovation Potential’ Rank
1 Utah 71.55 2 2 4
2 Washington 70.68 1 10 3
3 California 67.84 4 12 2
4 Massachusetts 65.58 8 15 1
5 Colorado 60.81 9 7 5
6 Delaware 59.85 5 18 14
7 District of Columbia 59.50 17 1 10
8 New York 58.82 6 27 11
9 Texas 58.74 3 34 20
10 Oregon 57.48 10 9 13
11 New Hampshire 57.30 20 3 6
12 Maryland 56.52 19 8 7
13 North Dakota 55.15 7 13 42
14 Connecticut 54.88 15 33 8
15 Virginia 53.13 18 4 21
16 Arizona 53.10 16 23 17
17 Georgia 52.41 11 29 26
18 North Carolina 51.50 22 22 16
19 Minnesota 51.34 33 6 18
20 Michigan 51.08 26 30 9
21 Vermont 51.00 25 16 19
22 New Jersey 49.20 24 38 12
23 Wyoming 48.92 12 28 48
24 Idaho 48.80 28 19 28
25 Alaska 48.76 27 25 23
26 Florida 48.33 14 37 34
27 South Carolina 47.58 13 41 36
28 Wisconsin 47.09 38 5 30
29 Illinois 46.41 21 40 25
30 Missouri 46.04 40 11 27
31 Pennsylvania 45.05 31 44 24
32 Montana 44.99 41 20 29
33 Tennessee 44.50 32 26 41
34 Iowa 44.19 37 24 38
35 Kansas 44.18 35 31 31
36 Nebraska 43.84 42 21 35
37 Indiana 43.82 36 32 32
38 Nevada 43.78 23 35 43
39 Ohio 42.12 34 43 33
40 South Dakota 41.13 46 14 40
41 Rhode Island 39.91 45 39 22
42 Hawaii 39.35 50 17 39
43 Oklahoma 38.50 39 42 46
44 Alabama 38.00 44 46 37
45 Kentucky 36.62 30 50 45
46 Louisiana 36.28 29 49 49
47 New Mexico 34.52 47 51 15
48 Maine 34.34 48 45 47
49 West Virginia 34.31 43 47 50
50 Arkansas 33.94 49 36 51
51 Mississippi 31.86 51 48 44

 

Artwork 2016 States with the Best Economies v2

Ask the Experts

Nearly a decade since the Great Recession, some states still struggle to rebound. We therefore consulted a panel of economic experts regarding growth strategies that state economies can adopt in order to improve or return to full capacity. Click on the experts’ profiles below to read their bios and responses to the following key questions:

  1. What are the most effective ways for state and local officials to boost their local economies?
  2. What can states do to prevent “brain drain” and develop, attract and retain highly skilled workers?
  3. States often compete for business investment by offering tax breaks and other incentives. Do such efforts more often result in a net positive or net negative impact on state economies? Do such efforts create a “race to the bottom” across states?
  4. What makes a state attractive to potential entrepreneurs?

Back to All Experts

John J. McGlennon

Chair and Professor of Government at the College of William & Mary
John J. McGlennon

What are the most effective ways for state and local officials to boost their local economies?

A lot depends on the state or locality. It’s a good idea for local officials to understand their area’s competitive advantages: geographic location can’t be changed, so recognizing what kind of jobs or industries fit your community is important. For a lot of cities and counties, encouraging expansion and diversification of existing businesses may be a better investment than the elusive pursuit of the magical “clean, high tech industry” that every community seems to seek.

Local officials really need to be careful about understanding the costs and benefits to them: what local tax revenues will they collect directly or indirectly vs. how much will they have to pay in new or improved services? Will a tax break really pay for itself when businesses are much more mobile?

Often, businesses that may be considering relocation are less interested in tax breaks than quality of life and presence of a well-trained/educated workforce.

What can states do to prevent “brain drain” and develop, attract and retain highly skilled workers?

Invest in education. Promote entrepreneurship: you are more likely to have success keeping people with attachments to your state than to attract newcomers if you are already losing population. A turnaround has to start with your own folks. But be open to immigration from outside the US.

States often compete for business investment by offering tax breaks and other incentives. Do such efforts more often result in a net positive or net negative impact on state economies? Do such efforts create a “race to the bottom” across states?

If tax breaks are your first weapon, they probably won’t work out so well. They can be an effective deal closer, but if you can’t compete on location, quality of life, educated workforce and other things that should matter, you might not get such a great deal out of companies that can pick up and move or shut down overnight. If you have the attention of a company because of the desirability of your location, you should structure tax breaks which require deeper investment in the state or locality by the business (e.g., tied to hiring of locally trained workers, escalate the break as the company expands its workforce or plant size).

What makes a state attractive to potential entrepreneurs?

Depends on the entrepreneur, but usually, things like quality of life, access to markets, well maintained infrastructure and openness to new ideas.

Back to All Experts

Timothy Duy

Professor of Practice in the Department of Economics and Senior Director of the Oregon Economic Forum at University of Oregon
Timothy Duy

What are the most effective ways for state and local officials to boost their local economies?

Build off of their existing set of assets. In other words, don’t try to build something like a new “cluster” from scratch. Everyone wants a “biotechnology” cluster, but few regions have one and difficulty of building one from scratch means officials will spend vast amounts of time and money on a project that is not likely to succeed.

Instead, identify the clusters of firms already in your region and ask why they are successful. It will likely be some mix of workforce, proximity to customers or raw materials, and area infrastructure. Once you understand your asset base, local officials can work to protect that base and ensure that local firms can grow. And then, officials can begin the process of promoting your region to firms that need that same set of resources you have already developed.

Note that this is never an easy process. Strengthening and expanding the local economy takes a lot of time and effort – and a broad coalition of private and public partners need to buy into the plan to make it effective. Achieving that buy is a critical part of that process.

What can states do to prevent “brain drain” and develop, attract and retain highly skilled workers?

Work to promote the amenities those workers desire – schools, housing, recreational opportunities, etc., while at the same time supporting the firms that employ those workers. You are most likely to retain workers if they are both attached to the community and have an opportunity to grow their careers.

States often compete for business investment by offering tax breaks and other incentives. Do such efforts more often result in a net positive or net negative impact on state economies? Do such efforts create a “race to the bottom” across states?

I remain wary of tax breaks. The primary reason a firm moves into your region is because it fundamentally fits with the available resources. Tax incentives are just the icing on top of the cake – firms ask for them because they can, and local officials often oblige, but they are not the reason a firm comes to a region. Also, there are plenty of cases of firms receiving a hug tax credit only to leave a community a few years later, leaving behind a hole in the local economy. Such failures foster community resentment against economic development activity and may limit future opportunities.

That said, I also believe that tax incentives should remain in the developer’s tool kit. This may be particularly important for recruiting firms with high capital to labor ratios – firms that would pay multiples of taxes per worker over that paid by the average firm in the community. In such cases, there may be room to use incentives effectively. It still requires good judgment on the part of development officials to implement effectively.

My preference is to use incentives in such a way that they add to the stock of publicly available infrastructure. For instance, a firm may need access to better sewers or a new highway access to expand. Once these assets are created, other firms, both existing and new, can use them. They become public goods. Another example is that maybe an incoming firm needs a high speed internet cable to succeed. Once that cable is laid, other firms will be able to tap into it.

What makes a state attractive to potential entrepreneurs?

A presence of other entrepreneurs for networking, ease of doing business (permitting, etc.), access to capital (banks, venture capitalists), resources to grow (land, labor, infrastructure). And livability – that can be a driving factor in the decision making process. But even if they come for the lifestyle, they eventually will need those other factors if they want to grow.

Back to All Experts

Henry Sirgo

2016 McLeod Endowed Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at McNeese State University
Henry Sirgo

What are the most effective ways for state and local officials to boost their local economies?

State and local officials must commit resources to education and infrastructure. The Republic of Korea and Finland are about the size of the average U.S. state. These nations have high performing economies. Finland, which consistently ranks at or near the top in educational attainment of its elementary and secondary students, routinely requires that teachers have degrees in the disciplines which they teach. South Korea, which has surged in its economic ranking among the members of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, has among the world’s best rapid mass transit systems.

What can states do to prevent “brain drain” and develop, attract and retain highly skilled workers?

Place an emphasis on elements of the core curriculum when dedicating funds to elementary, secondary, and higher education. Examine detailed documents of the past including the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the exemplary document produced by the National Commission for Excellence in Education during the tenure of U.S. Secretary of Education, Terrell Bell. Highly skilled workers, when deciding whether to remain in a community consider whether public schools offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses in biology, calculus, economics, foreign languages, political science, and physics.

States often compete for business investment by offering tax breaks and other incentives. Do such efforts more often result in a net positive or net negative impact on state economies? Do such efforts create a “race to the bottom” across states?

Since predictability is paramount when choosing a business location, such efforts usually generate a negative impact on state economies and create a “race to the bottom”.

What makes a state attractive to potential entrepreneurs?

Entrepreneurship is inherently creative. Communities with cultural amenities and other elements which contribute to a high quality of life will attract and retain such individuals and foster civic engagement.

Methodology

In order to identify the best-performing state economies, WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key areas: 1) Economic Activity, 2) Economic Health and 3) Innovation Potential.

We first identified 23 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was given a value between 0 and 100, wherein 100 represents the most favorable economic conditions for a state and 0 the least.

Finally, we calculated the overall score for each state using the weighted average across all metrics and ranked the states accordingly.

Economic Activity – Total Points: 40

  • GDP Growth: Full Weight (~8.00 Points)
  • Exports per Capita: Full Weight (~8.00 Points)
  • Percentage of Fast-Growing Firms: Full Weight (~8.00 Points)
    Notes: This metric measures the number of firms in each state that are included on the “Technology Fast 500” list (Deloitte report) as a share of total firms in each state.
  • Business-Startup Activity: Full Weight (~8.00 Points)
  • Quality of State Legal System: Full Weight (~8.00 Points)

Economic Health – Total Points: 40

  • Unemployment Rate: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Nonfarm Payrolls Change: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Civilian Labor-Force Change: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Median Annual Household Income: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • State-Government Surplus/Deficit per Capita: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Unfunded Liability (Public Pension Plans) per Capita: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Percentage of Population Lacking Health Insurance: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Percentage of Residents Living Below Poverty Level: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Foreclosure Rate: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Immigration of U.S. Knowledge Workers (Average Educational Attainment of Recent Migrants from Abroad): Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
    Notes: The educational attainment of recent immigrants aged 25 and older from abroad (“moved from a different country”) is classified as having either no high school diploma, a high school diploma (or equivalency), some college experience or an associate’s degree, a bachelor’s degree, or a graduate or professional degree. Each degree class was assigned a weight based on the equivalent average years of schooling the U.S. education system would require for the level of educational attainment:

    • 0 for no high school diploma,
    • 12 for high school diploma,
    • 14 for some college experience or an associate’s degree,
    • 16 for a bachelor’s degree, and
    • 18.95 for a graduate or professional degree (the average number of years of schooling of the U.S. population of graduate, professional, and doctorate degree holders)

    The number of recent immigrants in each education class was multiplied by its respective weight then divided by the total number of recent immigrants aged 25 and older for the final score.

  • Migration of U.S. Knowledge Workers (Average Educational Attainment of Recent Migrants from Other U.S. States): Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
    Notes: The educational attainment of recent migrants aged 25 and older from other states within the U.S. (“moved from a different state”) is classified as having either no high school diploma, a high school diploma (or equivalency), some college experience or an associate’s degree, a bachelor’s degree, or a graduate or professional degree. Each degree class was assigned a weight based on the equivalent average years of schooling the U.S. education system would require for the level of educational attainment:

    • 0 for no high school diploma,
    • 12 for high school diploma,
    • 14 for some college experience or an associate’s degree,
    • 16 for a bachelor’s degree, and
    • 18.95 for a graduate or professional degree (the average number of years of schooling of the U.S. population of graduate, professional, and doctorate degree holders)

    The number of recent immigrants in each education class was multiplied by its respective weight then divided by the total number of recent immigrants aged 25 and older for the final score.

Innovation Potential – Total Points: 20

  • Percentage of Jobs in High-Tech Industries: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Percentage of Jobs Held by Scientists and Engineers: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Number of Independent-Inventor Patents per 1,000 Working-Age Residents: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Industry R&D Investment Amount per Total Civilian Employed Population: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Nonindustry R&D Investment Amount as a Percentage of GDP): Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Venture-Capital Funding per Capita: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Entrepreneurial Activity: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)

 

Sources: Data used to create these rankings were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, Deloitte, U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, State Budget Solutions, CoreLogic, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, The National Science Foundation, National Venture Capital Association and Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

June 9, 2016

Evans and Evans and Economics

Father-son team keeps study of the “macroeconomy” in the family

Economics professor George Evans now sees a familiar face in weekly meetings with colleagues: his son, David Evans, a new assistant professor in the department.

The younger Evans joined the university last year, bringing expertise in macroeconomics, taxation, and computational economics.

“It’s notp21_Geo_Evans-200x228 often that sons or daughters follow as academics in the same field as one of their parents,” said Bruce Blonigen, associate dean of social sciences and an economics professor. “It would be even more unusual that you’d have them in the same department.”

In fact, there will be overlap for the Evans and Evans wing of UO economics. Both merge macroeconomics—which deals with the economy as a whole—and microeconomics, which is the study of individual behaviors such as spending and saving. Father and son are already working on a joint research project with Bruce McGough, an associate professor; the trio is looking at how people decide whether to accept a job offer, particularly if they are unemployed.

Those who are employed, meanwhile, often become the subject of George Evans’ work. The John Hamacher Chair in Economics studies a question shared by everyone from low-wage earners to captains of industry: how much to save.

George Evans (above) has long examined how people make this decision, based on what they have seen from markets in the past and what they expect in the future. He has juxtaposed such decision-making with that by policymakers attempting to steer the economy.

In a recent paper, Evans found that people trying to balance expected returns and risk can actually trigger booms and busts of the stock market. “It’s hard to decide on a level of savings,” George Evans said, “not to mention how to invest the savings in different assets. And collective decisions about savings can have major effects on the economy.”

In a similar vein, David Evans (below) studies entrepreneurs and how they pick their investments, given market risks.

p21_DavidEvans-200x324 The younger Evans comes by way of the PhD program at New York University, where he trained with one the world’s leading economists—Thomas Sargent, regularly cited on macroeconomics and other topics. Sargent, who has also worked with George Evans, won a 2011 Nobel Prize for his research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.

Sargent served as David Evans’ advisor and held a weekly reading group that was invaluable for the aspiring academic. Each week, Evans and his peers summarized a research paper in concise presentations to Sargent and the rest of the group.

“Tom has produced some incredibly influential pieces of research that changed the field of economics,” David Evans (right) said. “But he is also an incredibly influential mentor. Most prominent universities have professors who have been one of Tom’s students; being one of Tom’s students myself puts me in contact with this network of brilliant researchers.”

David Evans also brings talent in using supercomputers to solve economic problems. Currently, he is exploring how the economy is affected by governments that suspend debt repayment.

“We’ve hit a wonderful point in time,” David Evans said, “when our tool set is getting better.”

George Evans has another son, but he’s not on a track to join his dad and brother in economics at Oregon. Marc Evans is a graduate student in music composition at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

“He has a good intuitive sense about economics so I have occasionally said, ‘You know, as a fallback, you might consider economics,’” George Evans said, laughing. “He hasn’t shown any interest in that.”

—Dylan Darling

May 24, 2016

Economics Office is Green Certified

Nine UO offices are joining 34 others with Green Office  certification from the UO Office of Sustainability.

President Michael H. Schill recently presented the UO Department of Sociology its certificate and thanked staff for earning the highest score this year. The Department of Sgreen_sociology_schillociology sought additional funding to get new motion sensor lights installed in its common areas.

The School of Architecture and Allied Arts dean’s office and College of Arts and Sciences’ Department of Geography also earned platinum certificates. The Department of Geography invites people to check out its new recycling and composting system due to arrive soon.

The office developed the Green Office Certification Program to promote decentralized environmental initiatives under a common framework and reward campus units for participating. The program was updated last fall to include resiliency and was rebranded as the Green Resilient Office Certification Program.

The scorecard now includes a section on disaster preparedness and awards points for having staff attend emergency preparedness training, sign up for UO Alert and complete CPR certification. The GRO certification is valid for four years.

Offices receiving certification are:

Platinum: Department of Sociology, School of Architecture and Allied Arts dean’s office and Department of Geography.

Gold: Mills International Center, campus planning, UO Zero Waste Program and Holden Center for Leadership and Community Engagement.

Bronze: Athletics business office and Department of Economics.

The certification process includes attending a lunch orientation, completing a scorecard based on the department’s practices, and completing a thorough certification process. Certification is a significant achievement and has helped promote sustainability best practices across campus.

April 21, 2016

Tax compression is a minus for teaching math in Oregon

joe_stone2016Oregon’s complex property tax system sometimes adds up to problems for eighth-graders who rely heavily on teachers for shaping their skills as they enter advanced math courses.

A study led by two University of Oregon undergraduate economics students has found that math scores go down by 5 percent in the first year of Oregon’s two-year budget cycle when tax-compression rules are triggered in local school districts. The problem is the unpredictability of funding that disrupts planning and teacher assignments.

“I was stunned,” said co-author Joe Stone, professor emeritus in the Department of Economics, who supervised the research of Matthew Davis and Andrea Vedder in an honors economics course. “Because there is so much going on, how could you pull out this one thing from something that can barely be explained — tax compression? It is about timing of knowing how much money you have to work with.”

Their paper in the winter 2016 issue of the Journal of Education Finance emerged from research based mostly on data collected from 2006 to 2012 by the Oregon Department of Education.

Tax compression is complicated. It is tied to voter-approved measures in the 1990s. Measure 5 put a cap of $5 per $1,000 on property taxes based on real market value for education. Measure 50 set a 3 percent annual limit on the growth rate of properties’ assessed values, which for many homes eventually created a gap between the taxable assessed value and true market value.

An example of a district facing tax compression, Stone said, is when voters approve a new tax levy for education. If local taxes are already at one of the caps, local schools do not receive full funding from the levy. In short, only tax revenue up to one-half of one percent of a property’s assessed value is collected and distributed to schools, no matter how high of a levy the voters approve or how much the property might be worth on the market.

“There are multiple limits that apply in different circumstances,” Stone said. “Basically, taxes are compressed when a local district is affected by one of those limits, revenues are curtailed and school districts receive less money than the public generally perceives.”

Davis and Vedder initially found a correlation between tax compression and math test scores. Districts with the most-compressed taxes had the lowest scores. Stone challenged his students to dig deeper and find out why, since the preliminary analysis had shown that compression, overall, didn’t affect district budgets over a whole cycle.

Davis and Vedder found the cause: School districts dealing with tax compression in the first year of a budget cycle don’t know how much funding they will receive from the state until the school year is well underway.

State budgets are approved usually in early summer. Districts dealing with compression receive updates from July to well into October, but they don’t know their funding totals until calculations are completed.

“This is not much help in planning your school year,” Stone said, because allocations of district resources are made before school begins. His students found examples of district decision-making tied to these notifications.

In one urban school district, uncertainty prompted the reassignment of hundreds of teachers to outside of their subject areas to meet other needs under an expected budget. When their allocation arrived, administrators learned they had a better budget than projected.

“In essence,” Stone said, “the students found that school districts that are confident are better able to move forward with their planning, but those that are not confident must make decisions based on what information they have been given. It’s the first year when this is important. By the second year, budgets are better settled.”

Davis and Vedder have graduated. Davis is director of civic engagement for the League of Conservation Voters in Washington, D.C., and Vedder is a contracts assistant for Writers House, a New York City-based literary agency.

—By Jim Barlow, University Communications
Around the O original post here

November 25, 2015

UO Econ Major Kevin Frazier Named Rhodes Scholar Finalist

Kevin Frazier PictureUniversity of Oregon senior economics major and honors student Kevin Frazier has been named a finalist for the renowned Rhodes Scholarship, awarded to students for exceptional academic achievements, strength of character and commitment to the common good.

Sixteen regions in the United States have each selected 12-16 applicants as finalists. Only two from each region will be chosen as Rhodes Scholars come Saturday, Nov. 21.

That’s when Frazier, a student in the Clark Honors College, and the other candidates for this region gather in Seattle for final interviews. The two scholars will be announced that evening.

The application process has been a couple years in the making for Frazier, a senior majoring in economics. It requires eight letters of recommendation — four from the UO and four from the community — along with a 1,000-word personal statement of interest and a professional resumé.

Of course, it’s all worth it if he gets the chance to study at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, pursuing a three-pronged degree of philosophy, politics and economics.

“I’m really excited about that because you get to hone your skills in three very different fields, and because I eventually want to be making policy that is not partisan-oriented, but pragmatic,” Frazier said. “Then you add the fact that you’re on a campus with some of the oldest libraries in history and it’s just a hub of really smart people that want to learn about the world.”

Since 1904, 32 Americans have been selected each year for the Rhodes, which provides a full-ride scholarship for the student to pursue one or more degrees at Oxford. Applicants come from all 50 states and represent more than 300 colleges and universities, joining other Rhodes recipients from around the world.

Frazier’s recognition as a Rhodes finalist has caused him to reflect back on his experiences at the UO, which include a host of academic achievements, being named a finalist for the Truman scholarship and his involvement with the Wayne Morse Scholars program and the UO College Democrats.

“It’s just a realization that I’ve been so fortunate to have so many people behind me and so many resources — it’s an affirmation of what it means to get to explore so many different policy areas here at the UO and the accumulation of all my experiences,” he said. “I feel like it’s all leading to this opportunity to become the transformational, pragmatic leader that Oxford is known for.”

Author: Around the O Website

  Page 1 of 6  Next Page »