Notes on typesetting a thesis in Scientific Workplace

Unlike LateX where help and examples are readily available on the internet, the same cannot be said for Scientific Workplace (Sci WP). I started out with Latex and made the switch to Scientific Workplace as one of my papers is co-authored using Scientific Workplace. I use Sci WP and Latex interchangeably now, depending on the occasion. It can get confusing when you have some papers in Sci WP, others in Latex, and your CV/cover letters in Latex as well.

Here are some stuffs you might want to take note if you are compiling your thesis in Sci WP.

For those who are interested, I have attached a master file (in a zip file) for Sci WP that links all the chapters together in a thesis. It was difficult to find any examples out there in Sci WP. So, this might be useful for anyone who needs to use Sci WP. I have not included the various links for the Chapters. However, if you compile the document as usual, you would still be able to do so with some errors. The end product gives you an idea how to typeset a thesis in Sci WP.


1. File type

Remember to save your master document as a portable TeX file and not a Sci WP file. Well, I usually save all my Sci WP documents as portable TeX files, as I use TeX fields in all of them, due to the limitations in Sci WP.


2. Sidewayfigures and captions

As my thesis deals with quite a bit of impulse responses, I have a few sideway figures. This is imposed in the Sci WP document by using the following Tex fields:

Problem: For captions to appear, you require floating figures. But, if you have a sideway figure, you won’t be able to make it a floating one as well. You will basically run into the error “not in outer par mode”.

Solution: From what I understand, the float needs to be outside of the sideway figure. So, use an inline sideway figure instead. Do not use the caption box that comes with the properties of the figure. Instead, define a separate TeX field (\caption) for captions. That way, your captions would appear in the List of Figures.

Basically, this is how your TeX commands should look like when you impose sideway figures and want captions to appear after the figure, and on the List of Figures.

Before the figure
\begin{sidewaysfigure}[htbp] \centering

After the figure

[Short form of caption that will appear in List of Figures] {Caption}


3. BibTex/citation

The “insert->typeset object -> citation” is typically the equivalent of a “\citeasnoun” in Latex. It works well and produces citations that looks like “Diamond and Dvigby (1983)” when you are just compiling a paper.

Problem: However, when you start adding subdocuments into a master document and compile the master document, using that method gives you “(Diamond and Dvigby, 1983)”. I have no idea why it does that.

Solution: To solve the problem, convert all my references citations into TeX fields and use “\citeN{key}” instead. It works well in individual papers as well. So, perhaps you are already using this.


4. Labelling, spacings

To start labelling only from sections, excluding chapters, include “\setcounter{secnumdepth}{1}” in your Preamble. Every sub levels increases the number by 1. So, if you want to label your sub-sub section, you should use “\setcounter{secnumdepth{3}”.

If you want the sub-sub sections to appear in the Contents, include “\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}” in your Preamble.

Use “\captionsetup[table]{belowskip=1pt,aboveskip=1pt}” to control the spacing between your captions and the table. Basically, if you have used TeX commands for captions in Sci WP, you would definitely have to set the space between the caption and the table. Otherwise, you are going to end up with captions that are way too far away from your tables.


5. Don’t trust the spell check

The spell check often doesn’t seem to pick up some errors in words. It is in my view not updated, with some words that are obviously in the dictionary that are not available within the spell check.


6. Bibliography

I use Endnote as my reference manager, Bibtex and Chicago Style in Sci WP. So, basically I use the Endnote (label version) filter to import my references from Endnote into a text file, and converting it into a .bib file.

Problem: I have done an extensive search online on why the capitalisation in the titles of journal articles disappear in the bibliography. At the end of the day, it is basically a problem of exporting references out of Endnote into .bib files.

Solution: As I simply do not have the time to spare, the best way to ensure the capitalisation appears in your titles is to add a {} around each capital letter in your titles. This tells Bibtex to keep those capitalisation.

In the longer term, I would suggest anyone who is deciding on a reference manager and using Latex/Bibtex to switch to reference managers like JabRef. There are some easy one click solutions that tells Bibtex to keep the capitalisation of your titles when exporting it to .bib files. I do not suggest using Endnote. It has corrupted on me way too many times.

Well, very often, you just learn things the harder way!


7. PDF bookmarks

I have read through many theses that just don’t have bookmarks that allows me to skip from Chapter to Chapter, sections to sections. It is really not user friendly. Using the package “hyperref” allows all your Chapters, sections, every single figure and table in your List of Figures/Tables, citations and so on to be linked up. It really makes PDF reading easier.





Time to revamp the way economics education is delivered.

According to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (now dissolved), labour market demand for qualified economists in Australia is forecasted to nearly double from 2012 until 2017. To ensure that economic graduates in Australia graduate with sufficient skills required in the workforce, the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) endorsed a set of new academic standards for degrees in economics in December 2013. These economic learning standards are separate from the qualification standards set by the Australian Qualifications Frame (AQF), where the latter are the standards universities have to adhere to under Australian legislation.

The endorsed new learning standards imply that future graduates in economics should be able to predict interest rate movements and its impact on the economy, evaluate a proposal to completely deregulate the energy industry in Australia, and to be able to identify the trends and outliers in electricity prices using economic intuition and relevant datasets. According to the communication standards set, future graduates in economics are expected to be able to “present a clear and coherent exposition of economic knowledge, ideas and empirical evidence both orally and in writing, individually or in collaborative contexts”.

A group of economists from various Australian universities was set up to construct the new learning standards. This project was mainly funded by the Australian Government for Learning and Teaching, gaining the support of the Economics Society of Australia as well. The learning standards were drafted after a thorough consultation process with academics and professionals and employers in the industry. The group also had the support of an expert advisory panel, consisting of prominent economists such as Professor Allan Layton of University of Southern Queensland.

These endorsed standards cover five learning domains: knowledge, application, data analysis, communication and reflection. The tasks that economists in the industry work on often draw on these learning domains. For example, it is not uncommon for an economist to be asked to investigate the causes behind high inflation or deflation in Australia or to come up with an economic model to identify price outliers in the commodity market.

In an interview with The Australian, Professor Guest recognised that both international and domestic students would find the communication standards to be demanding. This doesn’t come as a surprise since academics who have been in the industry for many years continue to struggle to present the economic ideas in their papers clearly and simply.

Do these newly endorsed learning standards for economics graduates sound like an insurmountable challenge? It is indeed a challenge, for many reasons that are not just limited to the high communication standard that is expected of future economics graduates.

One may be inclined to think economics graduates from ANU would certainly be well equipped with this endorsed set of skills, given how well regarded the economics degree and the university are in national and worldwide surveys of universities. However, this isn’t necessary true, as these surveys typically reflect the quality and quantity of international research output, an indicator that is perhaps more important to academics and potential PhD candidates in economics, rather than undergraduate economics students. These surveys tell us nothing about the content taught in economics courses or the quality of these courses. As a tutor for several economics courses over the last few years, there are at least two ways in which I suggest the delivery of economics courses in ANU (or more broadly, Australia) can be changed to help economics graduates meet the ABDC’s endorsed set of minimum learning outcomes.


1. Tutorials

Currently, economics tutorials are still mainly delivered using the conventional “chalk and talk” process. This means that tutors go through the tutorials on the whiteboard each week, with students often coming in without much preparation done. There is generally a lack of engagement between the tutors and students, as students, particularly the shy or weaker ones, do not actively participate much in these tutorials. As a result, students often go away not learning much from tutorials, apart from copying down the answers. After all, we all know from experience that the amount of learning you get from tutorials is highly correlated with the amount of participation.

Delivery of tutorials via group work discussions may just be the way to go for some economics courses. There are several studies that suggest that group work is a more conducive way of learning compared to the “chalk and talk” delivery. It isn’t hard to see why. When students work in groups with their peers, they often feel more at ease discussing their ideas and answers.   When group work discussions are successfully facilitated by tutors, the discussion among peers is likely to lead to “deep learning”, where students really understand the economic concepts and are able to apply them in different situations.

In fact, such unconventional group-work-styled discussions are currently in place for ECON1102 Macroeconomics 1 tutorials this semester. In these tutorials, students are split into four groups, discussing each question for five to fifteen minutes, before embarking on a five to ten minute “talk back” session. As the name suggests, in the “talk back” sessions, students present or contribute to the discussion of the question at hand based on what they have discussed among themselves. As a tutor for this course, the first tutorial was certainly awkward, not just for the students but for myself. However, after some time, students become accustomed to the format of the tutorials, and are more confident and at ease with their peers when it comes to discussing the problem set. Students also start learning from one another, working and talking through the thought processes in economics, while the tutor facilitates the group discussions along the way. Of course, for a typically unconventional economics tutorial format like this to work, participation marks are awarded to incentivise students to participate in group work and class discussions.


2. Assessments

A glance through the course outlines of economics courses suggests that most assessments are commonly in the format of tutorial tests, as well as mid-semester and final examinations. Some courses may have an individual assignment or project as part of the assessment. However, group projects and oral presentations generally appear to be uncommon.

For most subjects, apart from highly technical economics courses, there are certainly no reasons why assessments should be the way they are. Economists in the workforce often find themselves working in groups. Having more group work assessments in university can help prepare students for such collaborations when they step out into the workforce. Moreover, even for economists who work individually, they are often required to present their recommendations to stakeholders. Oral presentations in economics courses can help students learn how to present economic recommendations and concepts coherently and logically. Through these presentations, students are probably also going to realise that presenting economic concepts in a coherent manner, particularly to a wider set of audience who may not be economists, is a lifelong skill to pick up and one that does not come naturally for most.

These new learning standards for economic graduates are more likely to be achieved if we break away from the conventional way of delivering economics education to students. However, as these economics learning standards are independent from the qualification standards, it will be interesting to see how much of these standards are actually adopted by each university in Australia in the future. Using these learning standards as a benchmark for structuring economics degrees and making changes to the way economics education is delivered can only be helpful for graduates as they step out to the workforce.

Economics is good for many things!

A few weeks ago, the NY Times recently published an article titled “What is economics good for?” The follow up comments to the article are available here.

I have read the article twice. The main argument in the article basically says that “the fact that the discipline of economics hasn’t helped us improve our predictive abilities suggests it is still far from being a science, and may never be.” I do not agree with the article for several reasons

1. Economics as a Social Science

Economics is commonly categorised as a social science. I definitely do not know who was the one who defined economics as a social science. I am certain that Economics definitely does not fit into the conventional definition of Science. But, the question here is: Does it matter?

Why are we arguing over whether Economics is a science?

2. Economists are never meant to predict anything! (I know there are many who agree and disagree with this.)

The article says that:

Economics has never been able to show the record of improvement in predictive successes that physical science has shown through its use of harmless idealizations. In fact, when it comes to economic theory’s track record, there isn’t much predictive success to speak of at all……What is economics up to if it isn’t interested enough in predictive success to adjust its theories the way a science does when its predictions go wrong?

The article compares how economics has fared with respect to physical science in terms of predictive successes.

I don’t know what happened over the years that led everyone to think that economists are people with crystal balls that could tell you about the future. We can’t! I think economists who are humble and with some humility will tell you that they can’t forecast the future with 100 percent probability of getting it right. But, we analyze the economy based on what has happened consistently in the past. Economists use the resources we have, make logical analysis and forewarn people about the possibility of an upcoming crisis, a possible “bubble” in the economy and so on. Forewarning people about an upcoming crisis is different from predicting what will happen definitely.

I believe economics as an area of study and profession is entering a new era, where people in the field are constantly trying to improve their skills, and to incorporate more characteristics of human behaviour into their models. In fact, to have a shot at “predicting the economy”, neuroeconomics/natural experiments might be the way to go. Even without our dismal predicting skills, I think economists have contributed a fair bit towards facilitating the understanding of the economy.

Let me end this post with something to ponder about:

If medicine hasn’t helped in certain areas, does it mean we stop trying?

(Well, I am really just trying to make people think about other disciplines. For example, a cure for HIV is not quite discovered yet, does that mean we should stop trying?)