Click for next page ( 95


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 94
4 Institutional Characteristics We have seen, in previous chapters, the growth in numbers of PhD's and something of their back- grounds, personal characteristics, educational and employment plans, and even a bit about the extent to which these plans have been realized. But what of the institutions from which these people come? How many institutions currently grant the PhD degree? How has this number changed over time? What is the geographic dis- tribution of these institutions and the corre- sponding changes in the numbers of PhD's from various parts of the country? Is it possible to present not only the numbers of persons who attain degrees from each of the schools but also some generalized institutional characteristics? This chapter will seek to answer these questions. The highlights of the chapter follow. HIGHLIGHTS • There were, in 1974, 307 institutions granting the doctorate—up from 61 in the 1920- 1924 period, 107 in 1940-1944, and 208 in 1960- 1964. This is an accelerating curve with no present evidence of leveling off. • More than half of the PhD degrees granted over the 55-year period since 1920 were granted by institutions in the business prior to 1920. Those institutions beginning PhD production in the 1920's account for another one-fifth of the total, leaving almost one-fourth for the insti- tutions beginning PhD output in 1930 or later. • The proportion of PhD's being granted annually by the older institutions has been dropping dramatically as the newer institutions pick up speed. Those beginning doctorate produc- tion in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's are now almost equal in output, and those begin- ning in the 1970's are rising rapidly. • In geographic terms, the Northeast is "oldest" in terms of doctorate origins and re- mains the dominant region, now nearly matched by the Midwest. The output of the western schools (the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain States) has risen very rapidly since World War II but has almost been overtaken by the even more rapid rise of output of the southern institutions, which had almost no PhD output in 1920. • Individual PhD-granting institutions are described by the characteristics of their gradu- ates, as well as by geographic location and numbers of doctorates produced. A set of insti- tutional descriptors is provided, together with statistical norms whereby each institution can compare itself with the generality of other PhD- granting institutions. • Sex ratios; field mix; percent of PhD's of foreign baccalaureate origin; percent with BA's from the same PhD institution (an in-breeding index); time lapse between baccalaureate and doc- torate, by field; and post-PhD plans for further study or employment are among the presently avail- able institutional descriptors. Additional descriptors could readily be derived from the data of the DRF. Analogous descriptors for insti- tutions of baccalaureate origin of PhD's could also be derived. • For convenient reference to the detailed tables of institutional characteristics, an alphabetical list of PhD institutions is provided in Table 44, with rank orders of institutional size in terms of numbers of graduates—male, fe- male, and total. These rank orders are the key to additional tables in which the schools are presented in the order of the numbers of their PhD graduates. • Baccalaureate origins of doctorate recip- ients are given in terms of the total number of PhD's from 1920 to 1974, with baccalaureate degrees from each institution and, for the larger BA sources, by field group and time period. Regional and state summaries of baccalaureate origins data are given. 94

OCR for page 94
TABLE 39 NUMBER OF DOCTORATE-GRANTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES BY 5-YEAR PERIODS, 1920-1974. BY FIELD OF DOCTORATE Time Period 1920- 1925- 1930- 1935- 1940- 1945- 1950- 1955- 1960- 1965- 1970- Field 1924 1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 Mathematics 22 33 43 45 47 49 71 74 91 127 159 Physics 28 37 46 55 55 54 74 84 114 150 167 Chemistry 43 47 66 76 74 84 100 112 143 171 1*4 Earth sciences 24 24 37 38 39 38 50 59 74 96 121 Engineering 19 24 32 37 37 49 63 75 97 127 151 Life sciences 42 57 65 70 74 81 99 122 144 178 224 Psychology 28 31 43 46 49 53 77 88 112 149 183 Social sciences 30 45 51 54 58 63 79 92 104 128 166 Humanities and professions 41 53 64 71 77 85 96 113 134 172 212 Education 34 44 53 58 60 67 86 99 116 138 173 TOTAL 61 75 87 102 107 126 142 171 208 244 307 SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources. GROWTH IN NUMBER OF PhD-GRANTING SCHOOLS1 Table 39 shows the number of institutions of higher education in the United States that have granted doctorate degrees in various fields, by 5-year time periods since 1924. The bottom line of Table 39 shows the total number of such insti- tutions granting doctorates in any field. The final number on this line is 307 institutions granting degrees in 1974. Because there were a few other institutions which have granted doctor- ates at some earlier time but which were not represented in the 1970-1974 period, a total of 315 institutions will be shown in other tables. Where there have been splits and mergers of in- stitutions, it is the current institutional arrangements (as of 1974) which determine the count. Thus Case-Western Reserve, for example, is shown as a single school, although for most of the 1920-1974 period it represented two sepa- rate institutions. The data of Table 39 are shown graphically in 'The number of doctorate-granting institutions to be in- cluded in any list is in part a matter of definition. Separate campuses exist for many of the larger institu- tions. In some cases they are administratively indepen- dent; in other cases they are part of a single administration. In addition, there are many medical schools that grant PhD degrees as well as MD degrees. In some cases these are an integral part of the university administration; in some cases they are independent or quasi-independent. The prob- lem of setting up unambiguous criteria for determining which are independent institutions and which are integral parts of larger organizations has proved to be a refractory one. In the present case, the problem has been solved by including as separate all organizations, including medical schools, that maintain a separate relationship in the DRF. It is always possible to combine the several parts into a single whole; the reverse is not possible once the tabula- tions have been made. The reader may wish, for reasons of his own, to combine some of the institutions recorded sepa- rately in this book. The only significant changes in the tabulations would occur where rank orders according to num- bers of degrees granted are concerned: the inevitable result of combining would be to move an institution upward in the rank orders and to change the rank number of insti- tutions lower in the list, lowering the total number of institutional ranks. Figure 58 insofar as they lend themselves to graphic presentation. The top line in Figure 58 shows the total of all institutions, all fields combined. It is noteworthy that this curve bends upward—i.e., the slope increases as a function 350 300 250 cc O o 8 200 or O « 150 O K D K i ? 100 50 [The number of new doctorate-granting institution! continues to increase at an accelerating rate Chemiltrv Psychologv Earth Sciences I I I I 1920 1930 1940 1950 YEAR SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources 1960 1970 FIGURE 58 Growth in numbers of PhD granting institution*

OCR for page 94
96 of time rather than linearly. Presumably, a point will be reached where the entry of new in- stitutions into the doctorate-granting group will cease to increase so rapidly; the curve would then straighten out and bend over to show a de- creasing growth rate. But that time has not yet come. Curves for several of the science fields are shown separately, with the life science and chemistry curves crossing and recrossing each other. In the most recent period, however, it appears that the growth in number of institutions granting PhD's in chemistry has slackened some- what, while the number of schools granting doc- torates in the life sciences has continued to boom. The fourth curve in Figure 58 is that for schools granting psychology doctorates, and this curve, too, has a positive acceleration. The bottom curve in this set, depicting the earth sciences, also has a positive acceleration, al- though not as markedly as has psychology or the life science group. All of the other curves, representing institutions granting doctorates in other disciplines, would fall within the area between the life science curve and that for the earth sciences, and all show positive acceleration. This report does not attempt to assess the question of how many institutions should be in the doctorate-granting category. It is apparent, however, that institutional plans for a PhD pro- gram are developed on a long-term basis, and institutions which undertook such plans during the 1960's, when there was a "bull market" for PhD's, are showing results into the 1970's. A tapering off of such expansion plans would have a considerable time lag and could not be expected to show in the data of the DRF for some years to come. INSTITUTIONS GROUPED BY DECADE OF FIRST PhD The entry of new institutions into the doctorate- granting group is shown in Table 40 in terms of the number of doctorate degrees granted by 10- year periods by institutions in each successive group to enter this category. That is, the first column represents those schools that were grant- ing doctorates before 1920; the second column indicates those that began to grant doctorates in the 1920"s, and so on, to the next-to-last column, which represents those schools that granted their first doctorates in 1970 or later. The final column shows the total number of degrees granted in each 5-year period by all institutions, summing across the institutional categories. For each 5- year period, the percentage of all degrees granted by schools in each category is shown. Figure 59 shows the accumulative total of all doctorates granted over the entire 1920-1974 period, divided into proportions from each institutional group— the data from the bottom line in Table 40. It is apparent in both the table and the graph that the earliest institutional group (pre-1920's) is re- sponsible for the vast majority of the total, the 1920's group for a little over one-fifth, and all the other schools for the approximate one-fifth remaining. The growth rates of institutions in the several categories have not all been the same. Figure 60 shows the growth in number of doctor- ates granted by each of the institutional cate- gories defined in terms of the decade in which they first began granting doctorate degrees. This is a graph of the numerical data of Table 40. It should be noted that the vertical scale in Figure 60 is logarithmic; a straight line on this chart would represent a logarithmic growth rate, inasmuch as the time dimension, on the horizontal axis, is linear. The top curve, repre- senting the pre-1920 institutions, begins at about 4,000 degrees per 5-year period and climbs to over 70,000 in the 1970-1974 period. All of the other curves, of course, start from zero (which cannot be shown on a logarithmic scale), and each successive curve shows a higher growth rate. Thus the "1920's" group appears to be approaching the "pre-1920's" group, and the sub- sequent groups appear to be converging rapidly toward a level of about 15,000 per 5-year period or about 3,000 PhD's per year. 1960's 1970's Institutions that began granting doctorates in the 1920's Institutions that granted doctorates prior to 1920 The "early bird" institutions have granted most of the PhD's over the past half-century SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources FIGURE 59 Proportions of 1920-1974 PhD's granted by institutional groups.

OCR for page 94
97 100.000 50.000 g 10.000 > uS K o 5.000 1,000 500 200 The institutions more recently entering the PhD- granting category show high rates of increase in number of PhD's awarded 1920 1930 1940 1950 YEAR 1960 1970 SOURCE: NRC. Commission on Human Resources FIGURE 60 Doctorates granted by institutional groups. TABLE 40 PROPORTION OF TOTAL PhD's PRODUCED BY INSTITUTIONAL GROUP BY TIME PERIOD. 1920-1974 Year First PhD Granted Five-Y«ar Period Before 1920 1920's 1930's 1940 's 1950 's 1960 's 1970 ' s TOTAL 1920- N 4,077 122 4,199 1924 % 97.1 2.9 100.0 1925- N 7,222 510 7,732 1929 % 93.4 6.6 100.0 1930- N 10,640 1,283 51 11,974 1934 % 88.9 10.7 0.4 100.0 1935- N 11,290 2,037 367 13.694 1939 % 82.4 14.9 2.7 100.0 1940- N 11,610 2,342 745 24 14,721 1944 % 78.9 15.9 5.1 0.2 100.0 1945- N 21,852 2,758 1,105 184 25,899 1949 % 84.4 10.7 4.3 0.7 100.0 1950- N 26,037 7,818 3,422 1,199 193 38,669 1954 % 67.3 22.2 8.9 3.1 0.5 100.0 1955- N 27,144 9,759 4,323 2,118 894 44,238 1959 % 61.4 22.1 9.8 4.8 2.0 100.0 I960- " 35,390 13,882 5,738 3,374 2,468 413 61,265 1964 % 57.8 22.7 9.4 5.5 4.0 0.7 100.0 1965- N 53,615 25,974 10,775 7,795 6,737 3,975 109,071 1969 % 49.2 23.8 9.9 7.3 6.2 3.6 100.0 1970- N 70,887 38.696 16,031 13,469 12,357 11,979 1,889 165,308 1974 % 42.9 23.4 9.7 8.2 7.5 7.3 1.1 100.0 TOTAL, N 279,764 105,181 42,557 28,363 22,649 16,367 1,889 496,770 1920-1974 % 56.3 21.2 8.6 5.7 4.7 3.3 0.4 100.0 N = number of PhD's. Percentages may not total to 100.0 because of rounding. SOURCE: NSC, Commission on Human Resources.

OCR for page 94
CHANGES IN SHARES FOR INSTITUTIONAL GROUPS The same data, in percentage terms from Table 40, are shown graphically in Figure 61. Here we see the proportions of the total in each 5-year pe- riod granted by institutions in each decade group. While the pre-1920 group is clearly still domi- nate, its share has declined sharply and almost continuously since the early 1920's. The excep- tion, in the period immediately after World War II, is of particular interest. The institutions in this group had strong graduate departments with well-established doctorate programs and were not overwhelmed by the influx of large numbers of World War II veterans at the under- graduate level to the extent that the other insti- tutions were. Hence, for a brief period, their share in the total doctorate output went up, only to return shortly to its long-term decline. The obverse of this incident, the temporarily declin- ing share of the PhD output in the other insti- tutions, is shown by dips in the curves for the schools entering the PhD picture in the 1920's and 1930's. The later groups, 1940's and 1950's, by definition could not show such a decline, but do show a rapid spurt in the succeeding years. It is possibly of significance that the shares for the 1920's and 1930's groups declined very slightly in the most recent 5-year period, al- though the total number of their graduates, as for the pre-1920 schools, continued to grow. 100 90 80 70 i- en IS 60 50 O t- UJ U IT 40 30 Institutions Producing PhD's . Prior to 1920 Although still paramount, the "early bird" institutions provide a decreasing proportion of the new PhD's Institutions Beginning PhD Production in the 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources FIGURE 61 Varying institutional shares in doctorates granted.

OCR for page 94
THE GEOGRAPHY OF DOCTORATE OUTPUT Table 41 shows the PhD output data in geographic terms, the number and proportions of the total granted in each 5-year period, by institutions in each of the nine census regions of the country. For purposes of graphical simplification, these nine regions have been grouped, in Figure 62, into four general areas: the Northeast, the Midwest, the West, and the South. The Northeast, as defined here, includes the East Coast from Maine to the Potomac River, thus including the District of Columbia at its southern extreme. The Midwest includes both the East North Central and West North Central regions, principally the Great Lakes area and the Great Plains. The South includes all of the area below the Potomac and Ohio rivers, and as far west as Texas. The West includes the Rocky Mountains, Pacific Coast, and outlying areas. Here again we see a conver- gence of the curves similar to that represented by the institutions grouped in terms of date of entry into the PhD-granting set. The correspond- ence, of course, is not merely incidental. In the earlier days, the PhD-granting schools were highly concentrated in the North and Northeast; the growth in numbers of doctorate-granting schools has come largely in the South and the West. The same data have been shown in a differ- ent fashion in Figure 63, in which the area of each graph is proportional to the total number of degrees granted in that area, in each decade 60.000 10.000 5.000 £ 1,000 1940 1950 YEAR 1970 SOURCE NRC. Committion on Human RMOIMCM FIGURE 62 Doctorates granted in four geographic areas. TABLE 41 DOCTORATE OUTPUT BY CENSUS REGION BY 5-YEAR PERIODS, 1920-1974 Region 1920- 1924 1925- 1929 1930- 1934 1935- 1939 1940- 1944 1945- 1949 1950- 1954 1955- 1959 1960- 1964 1965- 1969 1970- 1974 Total New England N 741 1,116 1,742 1,973 1,849 2,127 4,322 4,625 6,207 9,704 13,611 48,017 % 17.6 14.4 14.5 14.4 12.6 13.4 11.2 10.5 10.1 8.9 8.2 9.9 Middle N 1,182 2,106 3,293 3,718 3,950 4,167 9,576 10,433 13,008 20,312 29,627 101,372 Atlantic 1 28.1 27.2 27.5 27.1 26.8 26.2 24.8 23.6 21.2 18.6 17.9 20.8 East North N 1,191 2,199 3,237 3,557 4,124 4,363 10,549 11,559 15,941 25,455 37,855 120,030 Central % 28.4 28.4 27.0 26.0 28.0 27.4 27.3 26.1 26.0 23.3 22.8 24.6 West North N 314 749 1,244 1,501 1,588 1,525 3,841 4,041 5,556 9,343 13,743 43,445 Central % 7.5 9.7 10.4 11.0 10.8 9.6 9.9 9.1 9.1 8.6 8.3 8.9 South • 458 791 1,139 1,202 1,280 1,216 2,932 3,830 5,501 11,502 . 19,480 49,331 Atlantic 1 10.9 10.2 9.5 8.8 8.7 7.6 7.6 8.7 9.0 10.5 11.8 10.1 East South N 20 66 154 171 167 131 597 897 1,455 3,343 5,965 12,966 Central % 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.6 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.1 3.6 2.7 West South 9 46 147 254 333 402 1,404 2,164 3,394 7,715 12,383 28,251 Central % 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.3 2.S 3.6 4.9 5.5 7.1 7.5 5.8 Mountain 10 21 54 89 121 194 856 1,189 2,232 5,875 10,065 20,706 1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.2 2.2 2.7 3.6 5.4 6.1 4.2 Pacific N 274 642 967 1,233 1,312 1,779 4,594 5,502 7,972 16,024 23,018 63,317 % 6.5 8.3 8.1 9.0 8.9 11.2 11.9 12.4 13.0 14.7 13.9 13.0 U.S. TOTAL H 4,199 7,736 11,977 13,698 14,724 15,904 38,671 44,240 61,266 109,273 165,747 487,435 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Summary into Four Areas Northeast N 2,347 3,888 5,885 6,454 6,645 7,021 15,451 16,864 21,387 34,088 49,501 169,531 % 55.9 50.3 49.1 47.1 45.1 44.2 40.0 36.1 34.9 31.2 29.9 34.8 Midwest H 1,505 2,948 4,481 5,058 5,712 5,888 14,390 15,600 21,497 34,798 51,598 163,475 % 35.6 38.1 37.4 36.9 38.8 37.0 37.2 35.3 35.1 31.8 31.1 33.5 South N 63 237 590 864 934 1,022 3,380 5,085 8,178 18,488 31,565 70,400 - 1.S 3.1 4.9 6.3 6.3 6.4 8.7 11.5 13.4 16.9 19.0 14.4 West 284 663 1,021 1,322 1,433 1,973 5,450 6,691 10,204 21,899 33,083 84,023 1 6.6 8.6 8.5 9.7 9.7 12.4 14.1 15.1 16.7 20.0 20.0 17.2 For definitions of areas, see pages 100-101. N * number. SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources.

OCR for page 94
100 The 1920's The Decade of the 1960's / North- Mid east west r The 1930'! / Northeast Midwest The West The Midwest The Northeast (Pecific (East North Central (New England end Middle *nd end Atlantic States plus Mountain West North Central Delaware. Maryland, and Sum) States) the District of Columbia) The South (East and West South Central and Southern South Atlantic) The 1940's The Half Decade of Ihe 1970 s / Midwest Northeast The 1950's The West The The Northeast Midwest The South The Northeast SOURCE: NRC, Commmion on Human Resources FIGURE 63 Diagrams of PhD growth in four geographic areas. interval. The four general geographic areas are arranged to correspond roughly to their actual geographic position as shown on a typical map. Thus the South is at the bottom, the West at the left, the Northeast at the right and above, and the Midwest in a middle position. The growth in doctorate output, both for the country as a whole and for each of the general areas, is shown for each decade, except, of course, for the 1970's, where only a half-decade of output has yet oc- curred. Throughout this period, as shown in both Figures 62 and 63, the growth of institutions in the South is most spectacular and that of those in the West only slightly less so. The West, which produced only about 300 PhD's in the early 1920's, increased in each half-decade, al- though not always at the same pace, being slowed, as was each section, by the 1930's depression and then by World War II. The West gained rather steadily on the northeastern and midwestern sec- tions , until in the most recent period it pro- duced about two-thirds as many as the leading sections of the country. Dramatic as these gains have been, however, they are out-paced by the growth rate of the South, especially in the period since the end of World War II. From a beginning of fewer than 100 doctorates in the early 1920's, the South has increased its contri- bution to 20 percent of the total in the most recent 5-year period—almost equaling the West. The growth suggests that the South will overtake the West soon. THE STATES IN EACH AREA The census regions represented in each of the four general areas are noted in Figure 63. The individual states within each census region, and hence within each of the four general areas, are given below: Northeast Region 1 New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. Region 2 Middle Atlantic States: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Region 5 Northern half of South Atlantic region: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia.

OCR for page 94
101 Midwest Region 3 East North Central States: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. Region 4 West North Central States: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas. West Region 8 Rocky Mountain States: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada. Region 9 Pacific and Insular States: Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico. South Region 5 Southern portion of South Atlantic region: Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida. Region 6 East South Central States: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. Region 7 West South Central States: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas. INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The existence of a wide range of individual characteristics within the PhD population is well known and has been described in Chapter 2. What- ever the characteristic being considered, even within field or sex groups, individuals differ greatly. Age at doctorate, time spent in graduate school, migration from baccalaureate to doctorate institution, career plans, career realizations— all of these vary tremendously. However wide these individual variations, the question is open as to whether there are substantial institutional differences. It is conceivable that even a wide range of individual differences would average out for institutions, so that school averages would vary but slightly. To check on this possi- bility, institutional averages and percentages were computed for a number of characteristics, and these are the data of the remainder of this chapter. It is recognized that these character- istics represent but a very limited and partial set from the possible array of human characteris- tics. This set, however, makes a start at using individual characteristics to describe institu- tions. An array of institutional statistics, percentages in the case of some variables, means for others, provides a kind of profile of the institution. When these profiles are examined, a rich variety of patterns becomes apparent. Table 42 presents the profiles. what Characteristics Describe the Institution? One of the simplest descriptors is the number of PhD's granted, or the percentage of all U.S. PhD's granted by a given institution. For the purpose of the present profiles, all data have been limited to the degrees that were granted during the period from 1958 (when the Doctorate Survey was instituted) to 1974. The sole exception is the date of the earliest doctorate for that in- stitution in the DRF (1920 for the pre-1920 insti- tutions and those which began in 1920). (Only the last two digits of the year are printed; thus 20 indicates 1920, etc.) The rank order of the school among all U.S. institutions, in terms of the total number of 1958-1974 PhD's, is the second descriptor, followed by the total number itself. The fourth profile point is percentage of women among the school's PhD graduates. The fifth is percent of its graduates whose baccalau- reate degrees were earned in foreign countries. The sixth point is the percent of the institu- tions "s PhD's who took their baccalaureates from the PhD institution itself—a measure of in- breeding. The field mix of the PhD's granted by the individual institution is the basis for the next series of profile points. Percentages are given for five general field groups: (1) EMP fields, (2) bio-behavioral sciences, (3) humanities, (4) professions, and (5) education. The next set of profile points indicates the mean time lapse from baccalaureate to doctorate, for the insti- tution's graduates, by sex and field. The break- out by sex is important because there are quite distinct sex differences. The women take longer to graduate, although they are, on the average, younger at the time of baccalaureate and, as shown earlier, have come from better-educated family backgrounds and have earned higher marks in high school and on scholastic aptitude tests. Whatever the reasons for the sex differences, they are given for each of the field groups. The fields are grouped in accordance with a finding of rather similar BA-PhD time lapses. They are the same set as given above to show the propor- tions of field mix: EMP fields, bio-behavioral sciences, humanities, professions, and education. The final set of institutional indices concern the plans of the graduates for post-PhD careers. They show (1) the proportion planning postdoc- toral training, either as fellows, trainees, or research associates; (2) the proportion planning academic employment in the year following gradu- ation; (3) the proportion planning to enter non- academic employment; and (4) the percentage with uncertain plans. Table 42 shows the institutional profiles for the leading 90 doctorate-granting institutions. Profiles for the remaining institutions with sufficient numbers of graduates to warrant com- putation of such profiles are given in Appendix A. A list of the variables in the profile, with their names as given in Table 42 and a brief description, follows: 1. Year of first PhD: the date of the earliest DRF record for the institution. 2. Rank among PhD schools: rank among the entire 315, based on N in column 3. 3. Total PhD's, 1958-1974: the PhD degrees in all fields, 1958-1974. 4. Per 1,000 U.S. Total 1958-1974. 5. Percentage of women: percentage of 1958-1974 PhD's for this school who were women.

OCR for page 94
102 0 II .*4 -ft !§ •L*0^ trt 2S''SS S2SS2 O o -* m o* O 0* * CM — i eg r- o rM rg * m 0l (^ co 222 = 2 2*222 ** X — ', .. .ercentage D .lans at .hD O 05 r- -o .0 rg —. -< « IM T* f.j ". rg :-, cr o .» — ' r- * * * in * rC m ^ co (M • o in mo • • • • • r** * rC a* *^ *«*»•• C- i - - - i ri r- 0* M m *< 4 o m o* r- -0-- 0 •T m ui r7" o p- * in ^ o • • • • • M K o (^ IM 0 **rfr*te a r- in « o a m •4 m * O r« » n. • -H rf 4J *inrn*m • • • • t .O * 0* m m m 0 m r- er» - o - -c- = -—:.- n S .x 1 £ «», O S ** • ^ . . , *!••'?* "l^tt° 9 o jn -H « **A/ - — -H — i 1*s •* 11 i! Han m 99> *O f frty~ •4 - " &j K«K co« ^»o,-* !J B *8^ 3£ '*^ § -^152 eg rg r\j -- S- - -. m "°*^-~ *x « ~°.£j^cr* c;;r,7^ -"•*R u, ^O.y ^rf A CM O fM O *"^SS M *H * m * O * 4 o* rg S*S~M RS5 S S5SS2 (M — — ^ OCR for page 94
103 c -«. « * j- - , f* O * *X ^ «*•4*- 4 10 00 — O* 1*1 ~ o ~« 0" O *• to m 1*1 I M co r- M rg m * m — -O 9 'ftf~ o — 4- r. SM 'i a m a* r\j * O « O K K f- Ift CO O 3" — 'N ,M o- m O r- m me 5 -r ir* -00 -m » UN 0« * c o -- — * — i. — -r r- j-. -:?- r* * -*- — co 4 c fM m r-j IN, , •« m I M .*- f M m - «--*•«« ^ OC 0- — 0 « O CO O O (T m * o m ! 3S co * 0 ??53 0 J- « * * m «n m r\ — — JCi O m o* * fM o* CO -.- - 00 *- * -** ft Kt m **i IM fM •4 ff- CP -.- --— 55558 -- rj ^ * ^ «KS o* o £2 • a- o s»cs 1C -c r- a? 0- C' CO CO CO CO CO 0 K 00 O O c o CO 00 a o* -O * ,O ,0 « « r* tt o o o m SS? s* rM * ff- O ' . £-- 1. - -— - J CO O I M ^ 0 IM O O O m O «n IM IM 1*1 IM r^ O- O m *r* r^ o *n * rg « m * * « -. > r, f -, r*4 fM rNJ IM I M IM IM m m UJ Z X ut 1 K6 >5 So%g O3 >3 n. > Z u, HX > X OXu. - 3 So o u. J w > O x > » 25sr 1^ 0C O — X o z > - K. JT > - h* 3 _, MO W UJ 0t O O > *rt vt a 4 r t at 3 X Z UJ M Z >• UJ -« > UJ > I 0£ D — Z < "i*|5 Z5 UJK -« a, u. < «/) > K 2*_ JJ it Ki-3 zrt< 5 I ;ss.r> ^z > UJ u. I5§2 5-^5» — * 4 OB — z • « < s « 1 t- O 0 O .- O - r o 3 M X O UJ p D UJ — Z Z > Z D — S«"«K ?? . z 5 r* a " o D v* o UJ t_* Z Z Z -!-<-« -D « « I UJ wi < i « r O — u. -** 0 — — OC _J SM M sl| 0 I -< 0 j 0 *C M X K O O VI z r vi z « K vo < O -— H- -' O M UJ >• > 0. .2528 fcO of Z ifl O «J «/) Z Z Z ZQ M > 0 * O uj O uj oc O Z V) flC < 0 3 0 J Z O — O uj < X « tv O > a — .« U < oo< « « - C _. 3 i _* •- u O ** 0 Z ?X «» u. *« « 52235 ;g;;s III ^ I M •* ^ O OJ ^ J?S2 $ ?«?!*? — * Co 0 0 JJ^JJ * * sss * in m * * a- m

OCR for page 94
104 6. Percent with foreign BA's: percent whose baccalaureate degrees were non-U.S. 7. Percent with BA's from school of PhD: a measure of institutional in-breeding. Variables 8-12 provide a percentage distribution of PhD's among five field groups: 8. Percent in EMP fields: fields of engi- neering, mathematics, and physical sciences. 9. Percent in bio-behavioral fields: life sciences, psychology, and social sciences. 10. Percent in humanities: all humanities fields combined. 11. Percent in professions: miscellaneous business and professional fields. 12. Percent in education: EdD's and PhD's in education. Variables 13-22 provide baccalaureate-to- doctorate time lapse in years, by field group and sex: 13. 14. Males and females in EMP fields. 15, 16. Males and females in bio-behavioral fields. 17, 18. Males and females in humanities fields. 19, 20. Males an,d females in professional fields. 21, 22. Males and females in education. Variables 23-26 provide a percentage distribu- tion of plans at PhD graduation as given on the Doctorate Survey—percentage with each type of plan for postgraduation year: 23. Postdoctoral training: those planning on fellowships, traineeships, associateships. 24. Academic employment: those expecting to be employed by colleges and universities. 25. Nonacademic employment: those expecting all other categories of employment. 26. Plans uncertain: those who did not know, when they completed the Survey of Earned Doctorates, what they would be doing in the coming year. To use Table 42, one may begin with the lead- ing institution and consider what the data say about it. The condensed statistical description which the table provides may thus be translated into a verbal description that carries more imme- diate meaning. A similar translation can, of course, be provided in a similar manner for all of the other institutions in the list. The "translation" for the University of Wisconsin at Madison follows. The University of Wisconsin was graduating PhD's before 1920, and over the past 17 years has produced more PhD's (10,587) than any other institution in the country, ranking it first among PhD schools. This 10,587 is equal to 29.9 per thousand (2.99 percent) of the total U.S. production during the 1958-1974 period. Of this total, 12.5 percent were women, and 17.1 had their undergraduate training in foreign coun- tries. About one in seven (14.2 percent) took their undergraduate as well as graduate training in Madison. Of the total, 26.1 percent took doctorates in the EMP fields; 38.1 percent in the life or behavioral science fields; 19.6 per- cent in the humanities; 3.5 percent in the pro- fessions; and 12.6 percent in education. Data on baccalaureate-to-doctorate time lapse shows that in the EMP fields the men took, on the average, 7.2 years, and the women, 7.1 years. In the bio-behavioral fields the corresponding time lapses were 8.0 years for the men and 8.6 years for the women. In the humanities it was 9.4 years for the men and 11.0 years for the women; in the professions it was 9.7 years and 14.3 years, while in education it was 12.1 years for the men and 14.3 for the women. Of the total of all 1958-1974 PhD's, 14.1 percent planned at the time of graduation to take postdoctoral training; 49.3 percent planned on entering aca- demic employment; 24.6 percent planned on enter- ing nonacademic employment, and 12.0 percent were uncertain of their plans at the time they completed the Survey of Earned Doctorates form.

OCR for page 94
106 tional parameters might be developed in a similar manner, i.e., based on the characteristics or experiences or aspirations of the graduates. Still other parameters would require very differ- ent approaches. It is with a full recognition of the limited range of data available here that the following comments are offered. The wide disparity in the percentage of women among the doctorate-granting institutions is apparent from the first entry in Table 43. On the average, the institutions have 14.5 percent female PhD graduates, but one-fourth of the insti- tutions have fewer than 10 percent, while another fourth have over 18 percent women PhD graduates. An even wider difference is apparent with respect to the non-U.S. undergraduate origins of the PhD's. One-fourth of the schools have fewer than 6.5 percent PhD's of foreign origin, while at the other extreme, one-fourth have over 17 percent. The "in-breeding index," the seventh characteris- tic in the norm table, varies from just under 10 percent for the lower quartile to 18.5 percent for the upper quartile point. Similar differ- ences are apparent in the percentages in the sev- eral field groups. In the EMP fields, the first and third institutional quartile points are 17.7 percent and 37.5 percent; in the bio-behavioral fields, 24.7 percent and 41.8 percent; in the humanities, 7.2 percent and 21.2 percent; in the professions, 2 percent and 7.9 percent; and in education, 13.6 percent and 34.2 percent. Even with this limited range of variables, a highly varied mosaic of institutional differences begins to emerge. When we turn to the baccalaureate-to-doctorate time lapse figures, here presented by sex within field groups that are relatively homogeneous with respect to time lapse data, we see another but less variable set of institutional norms. The controls on field and sex obviously moderate institutional variability but do not abolish it by any means. In the EMP fields the institu- tional mean for men is slightly higher than that for women—the only case in which the difference goes in that direction. In all fields, the stan- dard deviations are greater for women. This means that, with respect to the BA-to-PhD time lapse, institutional variations are greater for women than for men. As seen earlier with respect to the individual data, the BA-to-PhD time lapse is more variable for women and generally longer; here the institutional variations are seen also to be greater in the case of the rate of women's progress through graduate education. The final set of norms refers to plans at PhD, as shown by the Survey of Earned Doctorates. Here again, wide differences among the institu- tions appear. Some of this variation is based on the fact that institutions vary in field mix, as described above. Fields vary tremendously in the extent to which their PhD's seek postdoctoral training or employment in academic versus non- academic jobs. And yet, even granting » influ- ence of field mix, the attitude or orio tion in the graduate schools with respect to post-PhD careers must vary greatly in order to produce such widely varying norms as those shown here. AN ALPHABETICAL LIST From statistical data about institutional charac- teristics to numerical data about individual institutions is but a step. The data in Table 42 were presented with the institutions in rank order, in terms of the total number of PhD's produced. For many purposes of comparison, this is advantageous. However, to locate a given in- stitution in an extensive table, it is frequently easier if the order is alphabetical rather than given in terms of rank orders. Just such an alphabetical listing is given in Table 44. The data given for each institution include the num- ber of men, number of women, and total number of both sexes to whom the institution has awarded doctorates over the entire 1920-1974 period. With each of these numbers is given the rank of the institution, by sex and by total number, for this period. By reference to these rank orders, the institutions may readily be located in other tables.

OCR for page 94
107 TABLE 44 ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF PhD GRANTING INSTITUTIONS, WITH NUMBERS OF PhD's AND RANK ORDERS,* BY SEX AND TOTAL, 1920-1974 Male Female Both Sexes Male Female Both Sexes ? } f / 3 / $ j i, * £ O / ' / / o -v « $ *? * *? * ' / 4 ADELPHI UNIV/NY 222 157 88 114 310 151 DRAKE UNIV/IA 6 290 3 239 9 287 AIR FORCE I TECH/OH 21 252 21 260 DREW UNIVERSITY/NJ 237 154 11 194 248 162 AKRON, U OF/OH 218 158 27 162 245 163 DREXEL UNIVERSITY/PA 164 172 4 233 168 178 ALABAMA, UNIVER OF 1259 82 303 59 1562 79 DROPSIE UNIV/PA 200 164 5 223 205 170 StASAM A, U- BIRMINGHAM 59 211 16 179 75 209 DUKE UNIVERSITY/NC 31*8 39 453 41 3601 40 ALABAMA.U-HUNTSVULE 3 299 3 302 DUOUESNE UNIV/PA 151 175 22 169 173 176 ALASKA, UNIV OF 73 202 2 248 75 209 EAST TENN STATE UNIV 10 280 1 262 11 283 ALFRED UNIVERSITY/NY 56 215 56 221 EAST TEXAS STATE U 309 143 74 125 383 137 AMERICAN UNIV/DC 121* 85 182 84 1396 85 EMORY UNIV/GA 703 108 189 83 892 103 AQUINAS INST/IA 43 222 2 248 *5 232 FA1RLEIGH DICKN U/NJ 18 258 2 248 20 263 ARIZONA STATE UNIV 1230 84 234 74 1*6* 82 FLORIDA, UNIV OF 3332 35 427 44 3759 37 ARIZONA, UNIV OF 1931 62 237 70 2168 62 FLORIDA ATLANTIC U 19 255 10 199 29 250 ARKANSAS.U-FAYETTVLE 1130 90 125 93 1255 91 FLORIDA STATE UNIV 2698 46 611 32 3309 43 ARK U-MED SCIENCES 15 264 8 205 23 258 SOUTH FLORIDA, U OF 22 249 5 223 27 253 ARKANSAS, U-LTLE ROCK 2 302 2 306 FORDHAM UNIV/NY 1657 72 939 24 2596 54 ATLANTA UNIV/GA 11 275 5 223 16 270 FULLER THEOL SEM/CA ** 220 1 262 *5 232 AUBURN UNIVERSITY/AL 755 104 119 96 874 105 GEO PEABOOY COLL/TN 1292 81 230 77 1522 81 BALL STATE UNIV/IN 389 130 82 119 471 131 GEO WASHINGTON U/DC 1*31 77 344 50 1775 75 BAYLOR COLL MED/TX 35 233 11 194 46 231 GEORGETOWN UNIV/DC 11*1 88 199 81 1340 88 BAYLOR UNIV/TX 317 142 57 134 374 139 GEORGIA INST TECH 794 101 5 223 799 111 BOSTON COLLEGE/MA 338 136 193 82 531 127 GEORGIA STATE UNIV 20* 163 78 124 282 156 BOSTON UNIVERSITY/MA 2708 45 848 25 3556 41 GEORGIA, UNIV OF 1911 64 377 48 2288 61 BOWLING GREEN S U/OH 231 155 31 156 262 158 GLON GT BAPT THEO/CA 2 302 2 3O6 BRANDEIS UNIV/MA 736 105 211 79 947 99 GRAD THEOL UNION/CA 88 196 3 239 91 203 BRIGHAM YOUNG U/UT 675 113 58 133 733 114 HAHNEMANN MED C/PA 71 203 8 205 79 207 BROWN UNIVERSITY/RI 2094 58 299 60 2393 99 HARTFORD SEM FDN/CT 35 233 3 239 38 240 BRYN MAWR COLL/PA 120 182 588 35 708 119 HARVARD UNIV/MA 13436 3 2011 3 154*7 3 CAL INST TECHNOLOGY 2773 44 55 137 2828 50 HAWAII, UNIV OF 620 115 91 113 711 118 CALIF, U-BERKELEY 13535 2 1897 5 15*32 4 HLTH SCI U-CHI MD/IL 16 262 2 248 18 264 CALIF, U-DAVIS 1990 60 16* 85 2154 63 HEBREW UNION COLL/OH 111 187 2 248 113 193 CALIF.U-IRV1NE 279 148 68 130 347 144 HEBREW UNION COLL/CA 14 265 14 274 CALIF, U-LOS ANGELES 6297 20 1232 14 7529 19 HEBREW UNION COLL/NY 9 282 1 262 10 286 CALIF, U-R1VERSIDE 781 103 79 123 860 107 HOFSTRA UNIV/NY 92 193 38 151 130 185 CALIF, U-SAN DIEGO 786 102 106 107 892 103 HOUSTON, U OF/TX 1035 95 236 71 1271 90 CAL, U-SAN FRANCISCO 243 153 83 118 326 147 HOWARD UNIVERSITY/DC 206 162 45 144 251 161 CALIF.U-SANTA BARB 689 110 71 126 760 113 IDAHO STATE UNIV 25 243 11 194 36 244 CALIF.U-SANTA CRUZ 68 206 24 167 92 202 IDAHO, UNIV OF 38* 131 33 152 *17 134 CARNEGIE-MELLON U/PA 1923 63 67 131 1990 69 ILLINOIS INST TECH 1118 91 86 116 120* 92 CASE WESTRN RSRVE/OH 3299 36 59* 34 3893 36 ILLINOIS ST U-NORMAL 127 178 12 192 139 180 CATHOLIC U AMER/DC 3068 40 1133 17 *201 34 ILL, U, URBANA-CHAMP 13357 4 1539 9 1*896 5 CHICAGO, UNIV OF/IL 10170 8 1891 6 12061 g ILL, ii-r.nu MEDICINE 138 177 46 142 184 173 CINCINNATI, U OF/OH 1729 68 265 67 199* 68 ILLINOIS, U-CHIGO CIR 90 195 13 190 103 197 CUNY-GRAD SCHtU CTR 552 120 275 65 827 108 INDIANA STATE UNIV 77 201 20 173 97 200 CLAREMNT GRAD SCH/CA 818 100 133 92 951 98 INDIANA U BLOOMNGTON 7245 17 13*2 12 8587 14 CLARK UNIVERSITY/MA 692 109 121 94 813 109 INDIANA UNIV OF PA 13 266 1 262 1* 274 CLARKSON C TECH/NY 124 180 5 223 129 187 INST PAPER CHEM/WI 325 140 325 148 CLEMSON UNIV/SC 345 135 14 186 359 143 IOWA STATE UNIV 5407 24 319 53 5726 26 COLORADO SCH MINES 26* 151 1 262 265 157 IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF 6681 18 1015 20 7696 18 COLORADO STATE UNIV 1138 89 52 138 1190 93 JEWISH THEO SEM AMER 127 178 6 218 133 182 COLORADO.U-BOULDER 3174 38 529 38 3703 38 JOHNS HOPKINS U/MD 4659 29 761 27 5420 29 COLUMBIA UNIV/NY 12193 5 3*09 1 15602 2 JULLIARO SCHOOL/NY 12 270 2 248 1* 274 COLUMBIA-TCHRS C/NY *187 30 1839 7 6026 25 KANSAS STATE UNIV 1430 78 118 99 1548 80 CONNECTICUT, UNIV OF 1676 71 268 66 194* 71 KANSAS, UNIV OF 3057 41 434 43 3491 42 COOPER UNION/NY 11 275 1 262 12 280 KENT STATE UNIV/CH 513 123 116 102 629 123 CORNELL UNIV/NY 9691 10 1262 13 10953 10 KENTUCKY, UNIV OF 1527 75 232 75 1759 76 CORNELL U MED C/NY 21 252 26 163 47 229 LAMAR UNIVERSITY/TX 3 299 3 302 CREIGHTON UN1V/NE 9 296 1 262 6 297 LEHIGH UNIVERSITY/PA 1099 94 80 120 1179 94 DALLAS THEOL SEM/TX 18 258 18 264 LOMA LINDA UNIV/CA 24 244 4 233 28 251 DALLAS, UNIV OF/TX 6 290 6 297 LIU-BROOKLYN CTR/NY 11 275 7 209 18 264 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE/NH 158 173 11 194 169 177 LA ST UNIV C AIM C 2538 50 315 56 2853 49 OAYTON, U OF/OH 6 290 1 262 7 292 LA ST U, S MEO-N ORL 18 258 7 209 25 254 DELAWARE, UNIV OF 900 97 70 127 970 97 LSU, SCH MED-SHRVPRT 1 308 1 310 DENVER, UNIV OF/CO 1197 86 232 75 1*29 84 LOUISIANA TECH UNIV 20 25* 1 262 21 260 DEPAUL UNIVERSITY/IL 23 246 2 248 25 254 LOUISVILLE, U OF/KY 272 149 40 149 312 150 DETROIT, U OF/MI 93 192 8 205 101 199 LOYOLA U CHICAGO/IL 676 112 218 78 894 102

OCR for page 94
108 TABLE 44 Continued Male Female Both Sexes Male Female Both Sexes 1 f / ? £ y f/ ?/ '/ / f ^ 1 LOYOLA UNIVERSITY/LA 2 302 2 306 OREGON, UNIV OF 2776 43 468 ' 3244 45 MAINE, U-ORONO 212 159 16 179 228 165 OREGON U-SCH MED 31 236 4 233 35 245 MARQUETTE UNIV/WI 305 145 103 109 408 136 OREGON STATE UNIV 2234 56 142 91 2376 60 MARYLAND, UNIV OF 4040 31 704 29 4744 31 PORTLAND STATE U/OR 4 297 3 239 7 292 MARYLAND, U, SCH MED 13 266 3 239 16 270 PACIFIC, U OF/CA 172 169 32 193 204 171 MASS COLL PHARMACY 33 235 5 223 38 240 PEABODY I OF BALT/MD 9 282 3 239 12 280 MASS INST TECHNOLOGY 7819 14 293 63 8112 16 PENN STATE UNIV 5774 22 684 30 6458 23 LOWELL, UNIV OF/MA 27 241 1 262 28 251 PENNSYLVANIA, U OF 6307 19 1185 16 7492 20 MASS, U OF-AMHERST 1790 65 317 55 2107 64 PHILA C PHARMESCI/PA 83 198 4 233 87 204 MCNEESE STATE U/LA 31 236 10 199 41 236 PHILLIPS UNIV/OK 8 285 8 291 MEDICAL COLL GEORGIA 38 232 6 218 44 234 PITTSBURGH, UNIV OF 4672 28 942 23 5614 28 MED COLL PENSYLVANIA 10 280 7 209 17 267 POLYTECHNIC INST NY 1548 74 42 148 1590 78 MED COLL WISCONSIN 6 290 1 262 7 292 PORTLAND, UNIV OF/OR 165 171 28 159 193 172 MEO UNIV SO CAROLINA 41 225 3 239 44 234 PRINCETN THEO SEM/NJ 92 193 2 248 94 201 MED N J-N J MED SCH 12 270 1 262 13 277 PRINCETON UNIV/NJ 5197 26 112 105 5309 3O MEMPHIS STATE U/TN 106 188 26 163 132 183 PROVIDENCE COLL/RI 11 275 11 283 MIAMI UNIVERSITY/OH 146 176 16 179 162 179 PUERTO RICO, UNIV OF 19 255 14 186 33 246 MIAMI, UNIV OF/FL 579 118 150 90 729 115 PURDUE UNIVERSITY/IN 7734 19 611 32 8345 15 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV 7266 16 818 26 8084 17 REOLANOS, U OF/CA 8 285 1 262 9 287 MICHIGAN TECH UNIV 41 225 41 236 RENSSELAER POLY I/NY 1393 80 44 146 1437 83 MICHIGAN, UNIV OF 11532 6 1787 8 13319 6 RHODE ISLAND, U OF 347 134 26 163 373 140 MIDDLE TENN STATE U 9 282 6 218 15 272 RICE UNIVERSITY/TX 1235 83 121 94 1356 87 MIODLEBURY COLL/VT 41 225 28 159 69 213 ROCHESTER, UNIV OF/NY 2517 51 398 45 2915 47 MIOWST BAPT T SEM/MO 6 290 6 297 ROCKEFELLER UNIV/NY 223 156 32 153 255 159 MINNESOTA.U-MINNEAPL 9705 9 1226 15 10931 11 RUTGERS UNIV/NJ 3347 34 573 36 3920 35 MISSISSIPPI STATE U 524 121 57 134 581 126 RUTGERS U-NEWARK/NJ 4 297 2 248 * 297 MISSISSIPPI, UNIV OF 593 117 104 108 697 120 ST BONAVENTURE U/NY 46 219 12 192 58 219 MISSISSIPPI U-MED CT 53 216 7 209 60 218 ST JOHNS UNIV/NY 518 122 163 86 681 122 MISSOURI, U-COLUM8IA 3972 32 387 47 4359 33 ST LOUIS UNIV/MO 1446 76 530 37 1976 70 MISSOURI, U-KANS CITY 177 168 45 144 222 166 ST MARYS COLLEGE/IN 1 308 69 128 70 212 MISSOURI, U-ROLLA 359 133 4 233 363 141 ST MARYS SEM 6 U/MD 17 261 17 267 MONTANA STATE UNIV 412 128 25 166 437 133 ST STEPHEN'S COLL/MA 1 308 1 310 MONTANA, UNIV OF 266 150 21 170 287 155 SAM HOUSTON ST U/TX 7 289 7 292 NAVAL POSTGRAD S/CA 69 205 69 213 SANTA CLARA, U OF/CA 28 240 2 248 30 249 NEBRASKA, U-LINCOLN 2948 42 312 57 3260 44 SETON HALL UNIV/NJ 61 210 5 223 66 215 NEVADA, UNIV OF 114 186 16 179 130 185 SMITH COLLEGE/MA 24 244 32 153 56 221 NEW HAMPSHIRE, U OF 335 137 40 149 375 138 SOUTH CAROLINA, U OF 607 116 116 102 723 116 NEW JERSEY INST TECH 58 213 58 219 S DAKOTA S MINEITECH 12 270 12 280 N MEXICO HIGHLANDS U 3 299 3 302 SOUTH DAKOTA STATE U 118 184 3 239 121 191 N MEX I MININGtTECH 39 230 2 248 41 236 SOUTH DAKOTA, U OF 307 144 30 157 337 146 NEW MEXICO STATE U 331 139 29 198 360 142 SO BAPT THEOL SEM/KY 52 217 1 262 53 223 NEW MEXICO, UNIV OF 1158 87 236 71 1394 86 SOUTHERN CALIF, U OF 5347 25 996 21 6343 24 N ORLN BAPT T SEM/LA 170 170 5 223 175 174 SOUTHERN ILL UNIV 1110 92 162 87 1272 89 NEW SCH SOC RSCH/NY 362 132 99 110 461 132 STHRN METHODIST U/TX 286 147 16 179 302 153 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL 31 236 1 262 32 248 SOUTHERN MISS. U OF 510 124 118 99 628 124 NEW YORK MEDICAL COL 43 222 6 218 49 226 SW BAPT THEOL SEM/TX 122 181 1 262 123 189 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY 9311 11 2472 2 11783 9 SOWESTERN LA, U OF 23 246 1 262 24 256 NC, U OF-CHAPEL HILL 3914 33 728 28 4642 32 SPRINGFIELD COLL/MA 83 198 20 173 103 197 NC CENTRAL UNIV 2 302 2 248 4 301 STANFORD UNIV/CA 8392 12 1095 18 9487 12 NC STATE U-RALEIGH 1975 61 108 106 2083 65 SUNY AT ALBANY 422 127 80 120 502 130 NC, U OF-GREENSBORO 48 218 80 120 128 188 SUNY AT BINGHAMTON 83 198 21 170 104 195 NORTH DAKOTA ST UNIV 209 160 6 218 215 169 SUNY AT BUFFALO 2271 55 338 51 2609 53 NORTH DAKOTA, U OF 635 114 59 132 694 121 SUNY AT STONY BROOK 439 126 69 128 508 128 N TEXAS STATE UNIV 736 105 162 87 898 101 SUNY OOWNSTAT HO CTR 85 197 19 176 104 195 NE LOUISIANA UNIV 27 241 10 199 37 242 SUNY UPSTATE MED CTR 64 208 14 186 78 208 NORTHEASTERN U/MA 196 165 23 168 219 167 STEVENS INST TECH/NJ 300 146 7 209 307 152 NORTHERN ARIZONA U 0 285 1 262 9 287 SYRACUSE UNIV/NY 3201 37 438 42 3639 39 NTHRN BAPT THEOL/IL 120 182 2 248 122 190 SUNY ENVR SCI FSTRY 334 138 7 209 341 145 NORTHERN COLORADO, U 1759 67 280 64 2039 66 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY/PA 1713 69 294 62 2007 67 NORTHERN ILL UNIV 324 141 87 115 411 135 TENNESSEE TECH U 2 302 1 262 3 302 NORWESTRN ST UNIV LA 22 249 15 185 37 242 TENN, U-KNOXVILLE 2442 93 330 52 2772 52 NORTHWESTERN UNIV/IL 5624 23 944 22 6568 22 TENN.U CTR HTH SCI 59 211 4 233 63 217 NOTRE DAME, U OF/IN 1694 70 240 69 1934 72 TEXAS AIM UNIVERSITY 2457 52 86 116 2543 57 NOVA UNIVERSITY/FL 13 266 2 248 15 272 TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIV 253 152 46 142 299 154 OCCIDENTAL COLL/CA 19 255 14 186 33 246 TEXAS TECH UNIV 711 107 96 111 807 110 OHIO STATE UNIV 10681 7 1486 10 12167 7 TEXAS, U-AUSTIN 6258 21 1019 19 7277 21 OHIO UNIVERSITY 682 111 93 112 775 112 TEXAS, U-ARLINGTON 23 246 1 262 24 256 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIV 2328 54 235 73 2563 56 TEXAS, U-DALLAS 8 285 1 262 9 287 OKLAHOMA, U OF 2588 48 398 45 2986 46 TEX U MED BR-GALVSTN 39 230 10 199 49 226 OLD DOMINION UNIV/VA 1 308 1 310 TEXAS, U-HOUSTON 64 208 16 179 80 20*

OCR for page 94
109 TABLE 44 Continued Male Female Both Sexes Male Female Both Sexes TEX U HLTH SCI-S ANT 12 Z70 5 223 17 267 WASHINGTON STATE U 1787 66 119 96 1906 73 TEX U HTH SCI-DALLAS 29 239 11 194 40 239 WASHINGTON UNIV/MO 2046 59 375 49 2421 58 TEXAS WOMANS UNIV 2 302 319 93 321 149 WASHINGTON, U OF 5055 27 648 31 5703 27 THOMAS JEFFRSON U/PA 40 228 7 209 47 229 WAYNE STATE UNIV/MI 2105 57 479 39 2584 55 T JEF U-JEF MED C/PA 96 191 18 178 114 192 WESLEYAN UNIV/CT 57 214 9 204 66 215 TOLEDO, UNIV OF/OH 208 161 44 146 252 160 WEST VIRGINIA UNIV 971 96 115 104 1086 96 TUFTS UNIVERSITY/MA 492 125 119 96 611 125 WSTRN CONS BAPT S/OR 1 308 1 310 TULANE U OF LA 1406 79' 299 60 1705 77 WESTERN MICHIGAN U 155 174 20 173 175 174 TULSA, UNIV OF/OK 189 167 51 140 240 164 WESTMINSTR THEO S/PA 13 266 13 277 UNION THEOL SEM/NY 71 203 10 199 81 205 WICHITA ST UNIV/KS 6 290 1 262 7 292 UNION THEOL SEM/VA 11 275 11 283 WILLIAM I MARY, C/VA 67 207 8 209 75 209 UNION UNIVERSITY/NY 44 220 7 209 51 225 WISCONSIN,U- MADISON 14971 1 1958 4 16929 1 UNION-ALBANY MED/NY 12 270 1 262 13 277 WISCONSIN,U-MILWAUKE 117 185 19 176 136 181 U S INTERNATL U/CA 390 129 117 101 507 129 WOODSTOCK COLL/NY 22 249 22 259 UTAH, UNIV OF 2571 49 248 68 2819 51 WORCESTER POLY I/MA 103 190 3 239 1O6 194 UTAH STATE UNIV 827 99 47 141 874 105 WYOMING, UNIV OF 851 98 57 134 908 100 VANOERBILT UNIV/TN 1643 73 201 80 1844 74 YALE UNIVERSITY/CT 8037 13 1423 11 9460 13 VERMONT, U OF 195 166 21 170 216 168 YESHIVA UNIV/NY 562 119 154 89 716 117 VILLANOVA UNIV/PA 16 262 5 223 21 260 YESHIVA-EINST MED/NY 40 228 13 190 93 223 VA COMMONWEALTH UNIV 1 308 1 262 2 306 VA COMONWLTH U MED C 104 189 28 199 132 183 VA POLY INSTCSTATE U 1105 93 92 138 1157 95 VIRGINIA, UNIV OF 2593 47 309 98 2902 48 WAKE FOREST UNIV/NC 42 224 7 209 49 226 WAKE F-B GRAY MED/NC 1 308 1 310 •The word "rank," where used in this report, is used in the statistical sense of "order according to a statistical characteristic" (e.g., the number of doctorates granted); its use is not intended to imply degree of eminence or excellence. SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources.

OCR for page 94
110 TABLE 45A ONE HUNDRED PhD-GRANTING INSTITUTIONS, LARGEST IN NUMBER OF 1920-1974 PhD's: NATURAL SCIENCES, SUBTOTALS, AND GRAND TOTAL OF ALL FIELDS f / j V ,?/ / * ." t : »/ / ^ // r y f JLy .-? A, 9 ff M , * / »* » ^ * &ff ?*? -V f £ff - » > > £-«? «j » ^f -y // f/ , f/ / ** f / */ f A| / ^c? fj.SI /'ff .?/ WISCONSIN.!)- MADISON 1 16929 643 171* 421 2778 601 1097 4476 1539 1379 2918 464 1378 16 4777 COLUMBIA UNIV/NY 2 15602 708 1189 *t& 3 2380 316 833 3529 534 4*0 974 166 3 1143 HARVARD UNIV/MA 3 15447 1107 974 384 2465 639 336 3440 570 736 1306 176 9 1 1502 CALIF, U-BERKELEY ILL, U.URBANA -CHAMP 4 15432 1*896 1397 790 1406 2309 333 289 3136 3388 794 1840 2147 5770 6143 1082 972 1*01 81* ?483 1786 143 179 324 885 12 2962 2853 5 608 3 MICHIGAN. UNIV OF 6 13319 686 887 292 1865 563 1781 4209 571 918 1489 334 243 37 2103 OHIO STATE UNIV 7 12167 522 1412 2 OS 2137 234 1155 1526 595 768 1363 228 603 1 2195 CHICAGO, UNIV OF/IL NEW YORK UNIVERSITY a 12061 11783 1060 586 363 126 2204 1126 m 2771 2230 748 696 1444 696 225 117 i 1670 820 9 414 579 385 311 3 4 CORNELL UNIV/NY 10 10953 838 989 126 1953 362 1049 3364 767 1370 2137 142 1335 12 3626 MINNESOTA.U-MINNEAPL 11 10931 298 859 147 1304 273 891 2468 986 814 1800 604 924 5 3333 STANFORD UN1V/CA 12 9487 520 562 393 1475 476 2081 4052 352 345 697 40 14 1 752 YALE UNIVERSITY/CT 9460 6587 723 293 861 518 227 122 1IW 254 170 489 2554 1103 513 436 329 949 679 177 63 143 1269 742 INDIANA U BLODMINGTON 350 PURDUE UNIVERSITY/IN 15 8345 364 1414 16 1794 342 1772 3908 626 484 1110 377 672 7 2166 MASS INST TeCHNOLOGY 16 8112 1183 1499 420 3102 520 3278 6900 2R3 79 362 14 15 391 MICHIGAN STATE JNIV 17 8084 197 535 74 806 201 468 1475 518 418 936 65 1065 6 2072 IOWA, UNIVERSITY OF CALIF, U-LOS ANGELES PENNSYLVANIA, U OF 1! 7696 7529 7492 199 412 399 702 492 670 147 272 10 104B 1 176 1079 196 357 243 390 743 726 1634 2276 2048 346 515 549 374 450 255 720 974 221 223 2 1 I 944 49 loll 804 4 TEXAS, U-AUST1N 21 7277 410 714 161 1285 305 854 2444 402 434 836 33 1 870 NORTHWESTERN UNIV/IL 22 6568 200 745 82 1027 176 961 2164 344 142 99 2 587 PENN STATE UNIV 23 6458 393 871 382 1646 154 687 2487 364 211 575 3 381 3 962 SOUTHERN CALIF, U OF COIUM81A-TCHRS C/NY \\ 6343 6026 95 198 57 350 •3 390 823 275 107 382 37 2 **! 2 IOWA STATE UNIV 26 5726 312 1008 33 1353 248 891 2492 553 716 1269 71 941 2 2283 WASHINGTON, U OF 27 5703 301 645 244 1190 226 505 1921 347 286 633 151 189 4 977 PITTSBURGH, UNIV OF JOHNS HOPKINS U/MD PRINCETON UNIV/NJ 28 29 30 5614 5420 5309 249 435 629 552 604 655 221 291 836 ii?! 177 472 372 548 1185 19SO 2667 301 583 123 220 396 521 979 226 161 436 2 4 686 1442 229 620 103 4 MARYLAND, UNIV OF NC. U OF-CHAPEL HILL MISSOURI, U-COLUMBIA ii 474* 497 11 1005 706 474 220 223 97 401 1626 345 205 268 299 ii 644 400 456 if 1137 677 1013 4642 4359 166 462 263 78 82 284- 952 855 428 506 CATHOLIC U AHFR/OC 4201 129 12 34 296 187 3 486 108 157 751 106 122 228 1 241 RUTGERS UNIV/NJ 35 3920 160 424 41 625 122 245 992 540 440 980 28 430 9 1**7 CASE WESTRN RSRVE/OH FLORIDA, UNIV OF 37 3893 3759 293 598 433 24 2 915 is; 6M 1792 1180 fl4 66 ii; ill 359 725 COLORADO, U-BOULDER 38 149 121 584 493 214 266 16 39 3703 319 405 845 131 264 1240 198 143 341 58 399 SYRACUSE UNIV/NY 3639 199 206 446 143 300 889 149 109 258 2 23 2S3 DUKE UNIVERSITY 40 3601 262 322 I 587 126 105 ill Hi 3113 645 22 121 788 BOSTON UNIVERSITY/MA KANSAS, UNIV OF FLORIDA STATE UNIV ii 3556 3491 99 s 37 287 220 39 259 614 178 81 41 340 660 182 43 3309 132 145 530 226 100 471 91 198 4 1034 573 304 310 90 2 1 2 * ii I! 98 88 NEBRASKA, U-LINCOIN OREGON, UNlV OF 73 94 338 149 443 264 70 142 55 568 133 165 234 367 233 28 10 .262 657 243 406 68 OKLAHOMA, U OF 46 2986 113 123 96 332 71 296 699 205 205 410 108 1 16 535 ROCHESTER, UNIV CF/NY 2915 421 379 27 827 79 144 1050 426 122 548 83 631 VIRGINIA, UNIV OF LA ST UNIV f. A(.M C CAL INST TECHNOLOGY 48 49 50 2902 2853 2828 348 133 711 330 279 551 5 683 524 1453 131 210 144 878 1024 767 2524 81 120 210 132 27? §39' 287 7 10 1 "1 2 223 664 294 112 191 99 193 UTAH, UNIV OF TENN, U-KNOXVHLE \\ 2819 2772 124 273 '7? m u 396 264 1007 823 169 187 149 318 63 1 SUNY AT BUFFALO 2609 206 239 4 154 216 403 43 127 1 574 91 281 591 288 42 330 96 1 42 r FORDHAM UNIV/NY WAYNE STATE UNIV/MI 54 it 2596 2584 58 70 237 382 4 452 ai 14 ft? 134 207 111 25 245 13 1 246 245 232 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIV TEXAS ACM UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON UNIV/MO l\ 146 2 175 55 Ikl 81 496 794 1038 892 117 193 166 246 363 497 374 T 31 35 235 449 6 605 979 420 58 119 201 182 63 480 334 304 208 i BROWN UNIVERSITY/RI OREGON STATE UNIV 11 2421 222 459 2393 2376 286 65 363 294 48 139 697 498 126 166 '«! 124 252 11 1 414 III 5 23 1 461 2*1 159 1153 GEORGIA, UNIV OF ARIZONA, UNIV OF SALIF, U-DAVIS ASS. U OF-AMHERST NC STATE U-RALEIGH l\ 2288 2168 2154 2107 2083 25 120 74 45 55 131 7 216 163 489 300 321 122 75 51 36 247 174 124 496 H! 145 128 415 202 347 29 153 1 6 1 530 468 1453 470 153 179 638 174 316 307 1053 341 437 10 115 145 284 126 434 Iff 16 12 5 510 486 738 26* 62 167 3 2 121 873 NORTHERN COLORADO, U TEMPLE UNIVERSITY/PA 61 2039 1 6 143 7 235 23 16 30 251 1 T 18 8 112 8 163 CINCINNATI, U OF/OH CARHEGIE-MELLCN U/PA ST LOUIS UNIV/MO 68 2007 92 351 n I 94 51 ?i 1994 1990 1976 116 287 107 520 235 914 837 1697 402 175 1 196 61 1 42 236 2 238 9* 26 1 10 345 264 318 135 76 !?S 177 8 CONNECTICUT, UNIV OF NOTRE DAME, U OF/IN WASHINGTON STATE U ?j 1944 89 196 3 22 m 23 173 217 484 1075 370 121 102 223 154 96 5 s 32} 2 339 163 VANDERBILT UNIV/TN GEO WASHINGTON U/DC 1934 1906 208 79 50* 155 256 !7$ 40 78 107 76 209 316 60 3 699 75 m 'U 196 61 29 350 117 37 62 95 74 482 253 164 60 14 224 309 56 65 4 1 294 221 2 377 KENTUCKY, UNIV OF TULANE U OF LA 1759 1705 77 14 211 m ii 37} 96 48 144 1*7 153 311 77 45 137 196 395 268 87 355 482 POLYTECHNIC INST NY 78 1590 153 6*7 800 63 723 1586 I I ALABAMA, UNIVER OF KANSAS STATE UNIV 79 80 1562 1548 56 59 In 4*0° 94 147 47 173 41 247 88 420 6 36 1 1 274 ,15 GEO PEA800Y COLL/TN HI 1522 A 1 5 59 A4 3 3 2 5 ARIZONA STATE UNIV 82 1464 42 U i 129 38 151 318 17 64 81 81 RENSSELAER POLY I/NY 83 1437 211 310 34 555 101 700 1356 24 4 28 g 36 DENVER, UNIV OF/CO AMERICAN UNIV/DC 84 85 1429 1396 21 42 9 47 33 6 16 94 133 110 89 t 6 2 8 2 2 U NEW MEXICO, UNIV OF RICE UNIVERSITY/TX GEORGETOWN UNIV/DC H 1394 59 279 95 "i 39 196 580 288 ill 13 162 312 430 23 36 36 59 96 7 i|| 87 88 1356 1340 193 109 1008 301 60 6 49 SOUTHERN ILL UNIV HOUSTON, U OF/TX 89 90 1272 1271 7 31 *5 91 Z 1255 1 153 188 22 210 1 14 49 69 324 45 *S8 61 14 106 72 1 109

OCR for page 94
111 TABLE 45A Continued ff ff f «4 & f & ' '* *f f ' *? ' ** °e? ' '* * -«? "f '"" ** ARKANSAS, U-FAYETTVLE ILLINOIS INST TECH 91 1255 28 144 177 19 67 263 490 907 y 34 69 7 24 100 92 120* 109 216 1 91 246 436 ll! 43 197 2 1 148 8 553 55 2 369 65 COLORADO STATE JNIV bEHIGH UNIVERSITY/PA A POLY 1NST6STATE U 93 94 95 lift % 58 166 93 361 36 89 113 *55 851 368 681 123 53 218 35 200 WEST VIRGINIA UNIV 96 97 108,6 39 MI s 1 US 4 35 238 691 »i* t! 192 42 70 2 15 304 105 DELAKARE, UNIV Of 4 88 28 CLAREfNT GRAD SCH/CA 98 95 1 4 i 27 28 BRANDEIS UNIV/MA WYOMING, UNIV OF 99 100 %: ii,? 177 169 66 21 I 244 lii 15 56 131 83 131 1 173 61 51 26 216 89 SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources. INSTITUTIONS ARRANGED IN ORDER OF SIZE Several tables from this point on are arranged in order of size, defined as the total number of PhD's granted over the 1920-1974 period. The first of these. Table 45 (A and B), provides de- tailed data regarding the leading 100 institu- tions. The fields of PhD of their graduates are here presented in considerable detail, correspond- ing to the fields shown in Table 2 (A and B) in Chapter 1—there given by year, with 5-year sum- maries, for the entire United States. In Table 45A, the institutions' graduates are shown for the natural science fields; in Table 45B, the same data are shown for the behavioral sciences; the total of all sciences; the several nonscience fields, with subtotals; and the total for all sciences combined. Most of the institutions have too few PhD graduates to warrant this degree of detail; for the remaining schools a condensed set of fields is provided in Appendix B. For those whose research may require the finer detail for all institutions, the data may be obtained from the Commission on Human Resources. For other research purposes, state and regional data may be required; these are given in Appendix C and Appendix D, with the same field sets as for the 100 leading schools. The states are arranged by census regions, and the regional summaries are given at the bottom of the table, followed by a row for the entire United States. Using the alphabetical listing in Table 44 as a guide, one may locate any given institution in Appendix E, which gives a much more detailed breakout of the data, by field group, by sex, and by time period. A grand total, combining all fields and both sexes, is given in the column at the far right, and rank orders based on these totals are given at the left, immediately follow- ing the institution name. The time periods for these totals, and ranks based on them, are 1920- 1959, 1960-1969, and 1970-1974. This division of time periods produces three data sets roughly equivalent in terms of numbers of PhD's and places greatest emphasis on the most recent period, where the least information has been available heretofore. Below the totals for the entire 1920-1974 period, for each field group by sex, are given percentage figures, showing the proportion of the U.S. total produced, in that column, by each given institution. Examining the first entry—Wisconsin again— we see that in the 1920-1959 period that insti- tution produced 7,044 PhD's, ranking it third in the nation. Of these 7,044, 6,356 were men and 687 were women. (In one case, field and sex are not available.) Of the men, 1,514 were in the physical sciences and mathematics, 310 in engi- neering, and so on across the page. During the 1960's, Wisconsin produced 5,403 PhD's, ranking it second in the nation, and in the 1970's it produced 4,482, ranking it first. Over the whole time period, it produced 16,929 PhD's, again a national first. In the physical sciences, Wisconsin's 3,245 male PhD's comprised 3.4 per- cent of the U.S. total; in engineering, 1,091 men comprised 2.4 percent of that field's male total, etc., across to the grand total, which includes 3.5 percent of the U.S. total for the 1920-1974 period. In a similar manner, each institution's production may be examined, by time period, by field, and by sex grouping. Going down the page in Appendix E, we find Columbia ranked second for the entire 1920-1974 period. In the earliest period, it had been first; in the 1960's, sixth; and in the 1970's, thirteenth in the nation. Harvard was third in the 1920-1959 period, fourth in the 1960's, and seventh in the 1970's, for an overall rank of third. The University of California at Berkeley was fifth, then first, then second, for an over- all rank of fourth, followed by the University of Illinois, Urbana, ranking respectively sixth, third, third, and fifth. Going on down the list, it will be apparent that the public institutions have grown in size more rapidly than have the private ones, thus generally tending to move up- ward in the rank order over time, while the pri- vate institutions tend to move downward. A constant output would thus lead to a declining proportion of the total. A state and regional summary of these data is provided in Appendix F.

OCR for page 94

OCR for page 94
113 TABLE 45B Continued $$ f f y i* Language and »/ * / // <$ T .? ^p Literature „• 1 5 '' / ) / t o i o */ 4 1 » • £ f 0 / ?o* ' * O fri ^ '-* J // / /t // ^ ~*c « jfj // / V / 4? / / "./ $ / V Sj S ARKANSAS tU-FAYETTVLE ILLINOIS INST TECH COLORADO STATE UNIV LEHIGH UNIVERSITY/PA VA POLY INSUSTATE U 20*5 82 19 6T % )fo 472 1182 1132 937 1120 1 18 69 25 8 10 8« 47 518 156 16 1 783 22 92 li 38 55 2 2 1 1 93 94 95 35 13 4 190 36 1 30 1 1 70 WEST VIRGINIA UNIV DELAyAREt UNIV OF CLAREMNT GR4D SCH/CA BRANOEIS UNIV/MA WYOMING, UNIV OF 92 23 15 '?? 756 37 1 2 330 99 447 *26 479 98 99 100 70 155 50 40 82 1 218 65 6 9 16 25 *72 1*6 40 871 50* 521 429 37 57 82 5 30 60 97 6 59 37 72 28} 191 474 74 138 SOURCE: NRC, Conuniasion on Human Resources. GRADUATE STUDENT RECRUITMENT PATTERNS An aspect of the graduate education process that has a considerable degree of inherent interest is the pattern of student recruitment for doc- toral education. Two aspects of this recruit- ment process were provided in the institutional profiles of Table 42—the extent to which each PhD-granting institution recruited its own bacca- laureate graduates and the percent from foreign BA sources. More detail on this same question is provided in Table 46. (Because of the exten- sive space requirements, only the first page of the table is shown here for illustrative purposes; the entire table is available from the Commission on Human Resources for researchers interested in this degree of detail.) The information provided is as follows for each of two time periods, 1920- 1959 and 1960-1974: (1) the number of the insti- tution's PhD's who graduated from the same institution at the baccalaureate level; (2) the number whose baccalaureates were from another institution in the same state; (3) the number whose BA's were from another state in the same census region; (4) the number whose BA's were from other regions in the United States; and (5) the number whose baccalaureates were awarded outside the United States. The data are given separately for each sex and for both sexes com- bined. Two types of percentage figures are given: (1) the percent by sex within each origin group and (2) the percentage each origin group is of the total. It is hoped that these data may be useful for institutions for self-study purposes. To provide something by way of a nor- mative framework, state and regional summaries, using the same format, are also available. A summary of the data regarding the graduate student recruitment patterns for the entire United States is given below and shown graphi- cally in Figure 64. Other Other Other Reqion PhD School State in Outside Insti- in Same in Same United United 1920-1959 tution State Region States States Males 20.7 14.8 11.5 44.5 8.7 Females 16.3 19.9 10.7 47.5 5.7 Total 20.1 15.4 11.4 44.8 8.3 1960-1974 Males 14.6 16.0 12.2 42.9 14.3 Females 13.0 21.1 11.5 44.0 10.4 Total 14.4 16.8 12.1 43.1 13.7 Examination of these data shows that there have been important changes over time, principally in the categories of foreign origins and of those earning baccalaureates and doctorates at the same institution. The proportions from the other sources have changed only marginally from the earlier to the more recent time period. The sex differences have maintained the same pattern, al- though changing somewhat over time. Fewer women, proportionately, take BA and PhD degrees at the same institution, but more of them come from other institutions in the same state. A smaller proportion of women than men move from one state to another in the same region, but more move to other regions for the doctorate. A smaller pro- portion come from foreign countries than is true for men. The data shown graphically in Figure 64 are for the total of both sexes combined. The area shown in each circle is drawn in proportion to the total number of PhD's granted in each time period, so that the entire area within the outer circle represents the total U.S. PhD production over the 55-year period.

OCR for page 94
114 TABLE 46 GRADUATE STUDENT RECRUITING PATTERNS OF PhD GRANTING INSTITUTIONS IN TWO TIME PERIODS, 1920-1959 AND 1960-1974 1920-1959 *? 3 1960-1974 J *? *9 47 69 c- f c ^ *? *? /J £ / /*? —*? « J? » "* « *? « £ £ff // * / 3$ // ^ / °3 ^ it* / S$ ' s* /-/ / 3 / // /^ // / 3 // /? WISCONSIN, U- MADISON 1 H H MALE FEMALE N H VI 1473 *lll 356 1 33 1016 2781 350 705 11.1 6.1 6331 1232 624 7.3 1288 15.0 3875 1542 8561 57.2 3.0 79 .5 1.9 14971 3.4 14.4 3.0 45.3 18.0 N H V2 iS!2 *:« 125 4| 7.0 4. B 683 34.9 3.8 136 10.7 2.2 7.2 .9 243 19.2 4.4 631 165 13.0 3.3 1266 9 .5 1.4 1958 3.0 4.4 18.3 6.6 49.8 3.0 64.7 2.6 TOTAL N H V3 1600 22.8 5.3 389 1141 3131 753 10.7 6.0 7014 1368 13.9 2.9 715 7.3 1.3 1531 15.6 3.8 4506 45.9 3.1 1707 17.4 3.7 9827 88 III 16929 3.S COLUMBIA UN1V/NY 2 N H 44.6 4.7 58.0 3.0 MALE N V, 879 1496 22.5 7.7 3144 609 III ,H 21:I 420 1925 39.2 1.6 774 15.7 1.9 4915 40.3 1.7 631 12193 2.* 3:' s:o 1:1 il:l FEMALE N H V2 114 7.1 549 f'l 782 48.2 9.2 *!!? 112 609 37.2 2.9 169 1637 149 3409 f.I 4.0 4.1 5.2 1.* 9:1 ill 1:8 48.0 3.4 4.4 22.7 TOTAL N H V3 995 12.0 3.3 2045 24.7 8.9 7.4 3.6 3926 47.5 5.8 694 '0 693 10.6 1.5 1850 532 2534 943 14.4 2.1 6552 780 5.0 16.5 15602 3.2 HARVARD UN1V/MA 3 N H 8.4 5.6 2t:23 8.1 1.3 38.7 1.8 42.0 2.0 MALE N H VI 560 8.3 2.9 598 8.9 3503 51.9 6.0 743 6754 50.3 5.1 888 13.5 2.1 642 561 8.6 1.6 ?3?f 2.9 956 14.6 2.4 6555 48.8 2.3 127 3.'? 13436 3.2 4:9 i:« 'I:? 9.8 1.4 FEMALE N H V2 3 .4 .1 30 4.1 1.4 342 84 11.4 8.3 737 36.6 4.1 .i 406 46 3.T .• 537°3 3.2 129 10.3 2.6 1257 62.5 2.6 17 .8 2.6 2011 3.0 r'.» 46.4 4.0 .i TOTAL N H V3 1353 838 11.2 3.6 42> 3845 827 11.0 6.6 7491 48.5 5.0 894 11.4 1.9 1048 13.4 1.9 607 4178 53.5 2.9 1085 13.9 2.4 7812 50.6 2.3 144 15447 3.2 CALIFfU-BERKELEY 4 N H S:* 1:1 •3 MALE N H VI 1750 35.2 6.4 578 11.6 3.0 220 1935 4970 36.7 3.8 1475 1005 12.7 2.2 3435 43.3 2.8 1737 21.9 4.3 7933 13535 3.2 !:* 3!:? 9.1 4.2 18.6 3.6 it 58.6 2.8 15:5 FEMALE N H V2 185 31.8 6.3 65 32 256 44.0 3.0 44 T.6 4.4 582 30.7 3.3 253 20.7 4.1 159 13.0 1.6 4] 3.5 606 49.6 2.9 l}|] 1222 64.4 2.6 93 4.9 14.2 1897 2.9 li:2 ?:? .i TOTAL N H V3 1935 34.9 6.4 643 212 H?5 3.3 531 9.6 4.3 5552 324 3.5 *I li:8 !:! 1164 4041 44.1 2.8 1898 20.7 4.2 9155 59.3 2.8 15432 3.2 ILL.UtURBANA-CHAMP 9 H H 36.0 3.7 3^ l!:I 15^ MALE N 973 614 i!2i 2262 44.9 3.8 467 9.3 4.1 5039 1197 14.5 2.9 831 10.0 1.8 1151 13.9 3.3 3579 43.2 2.9 1523 18.4 3.7 8281 62.0 2.9 3 13357 3.2 H VI 4.8 FEMALE N H V2 76 84 10.2 2.4 206 46.5 2.4 443 130 11.9 2.1 144 13.2 1.4 145 13.3 2.6 501 4:1 1093 ;| 1539 2.3 V 2l:f 71.0 TOTAL N H V3 1049 698 12.7 3.0 768 14.0 4.5 2468 499 9.1 4.0 5482 1327 14.2 2.8 975 10.4 1.7 1296 1696 9374 62.9 2.8 40 .3 14896 3.1 MICHIGAN, UN1V OF 4 N H *!:? 13.8 3.2 2^ .6 MALE N H VI 2!:I 573 13.1 2.9 607 13.9 MT 9.1 3.3 4382 ll:l 865 12.2 1.9 1087 2951 986 13.9 2.4 7102 49 .4 1.2 11532 2.7 4.0 2:9 38.0 3.3 41.6 2.4 61.6 2.5 FEMALE a 104 19.4 3.6 93 9.9 1.9 *!3? 198 170 186 14.9 3.4 556 136 11.1 2.8 iiM :| 1787 2.7 V2 4^ 2.B 6:4 3^ l!:9 'I:? 44.6 2.6 2.6 TOTAL N H V3 1209 24.6 4.0 626 687 14.0 4.0 1934 39.3 2.9 4918 36.9 3.3 1411 16.9 3.0 1035 12.4 1.9 1273 3507 42.0 2.4 1124 8350 62.7 2.5 51 .* 1.1 13319 2.7 OHIO STATE UNIV T N H l!:? 3.1 15.2 3.2 13.5 2.5 MALE H H VI 883 1045 487 1744 39.4 3.0 26T 4426 1126 l!:I 679 11.0 2.0 2457 787 6198 57 .9 1.4 10681 2.5 4:S 18.2 2.7 FEMALE N H V2 106 24.3 3.6 23?i 2.8 3) tpl 183 • I.I 437 29.4 2.4 ill! zi!i '!:! *ni 7£i :i 1486 2.2 2.0 .i 2.6 2^ TOTAL N H V3 2II! 1146 526 1927 27S III 4863 H?? 1361 18.8 2.4 797 2904 885 12.2 1.9 7246 59.6 2.2 12167 2.1 23.6 5.0 2.7 4:8 1:2 N - number; H - horizontal percentage; VI - percent of total males; V2 = percent of total females; V3 - percent of grand total. SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources.

OCR for page 94
115 The growth ring ot PhD's granted since 1960 has come more largely from foreign baccalaureate sources, less Irom an institution's own BA's SOURCE: NRC, Commission on Human Resources FIGURE 64 Graduate student recruitment patterns in two time periods.

OCR for page 94
116 BACCALAUREATE ORIGINS OF PhD's Historically, a great deal of interest has cen- tered on the matter of the baccalaureate origins of PhD's and particularly on the institutions at which the PhD's earned their first degrees. The earliest publication in the series of which this book is seventh was entitled. Baccalaureate Ori- gins of the Science Doctorates Awarded in the United States 1936-1945. With the advent of the Survey of Earned Doctorates, and an increase in the amount of detailed information regarding PhD's, the emphasis shifted, and other aspects became more prominent. Yet the interest in the baccalaureate institutions remained and finds expression in the tables that follow. Largest Baccalaureate Origins Institutions The number of baccalaureate-granting institutions whose alumni receive PhD's has increased over time, as the number of doctorate holders has in- creased. As of the compilation of this book, there were almost 1,600 institutions in the United States in this category and many hundreds in other countries. In Appendix G the 633 U.S. institutions largest in number of PhD alumni are listed in rank order of total number of their doctorate-holding alumni (1920-1974 PhD's only). Included in the rank-ordered list of 633 are only the institutions that granted baccalaureates to more than 100 eventual PhD's. For each insti- tution the table provides the number of alumni and the rank of the institutions, based on this number. These data are given for males, for females, and for both sexes combined. Most of the leading schools in this list are also PhD-granting, as there are few large institutions that do not grant the doctorate. And yet, among the high-ranking institutions there are some which do not, such as Oberlin (thirty-second), Swarthmore (sixty-ninth), Amherst (eighty-third), DePauw (ninety-fourth), and San Jose State (ninety-sixth). Beyond this point, ties become so frequent, and the number of institutions tied at the same rank is so large, that ranking begins to lose its meaning. An Alphabetical List Essentially the same data as given in Appendix G are provided in Appendix H, but here the listing is alphabetical, to provide data on all the schools whose graduates eventually attained the doctorate degree. STATE AND REGIONAL DATA For comparison with PhD graduations, data pro- viding state and regional baccalaureate origins figures by time period and by sex, for seven fields and the total of all fields, is shown in Appendix I. Each state's and each region's con- tribution per 1,000 U.S. total is shown, to fur- nish a convenient frame of reference. Foreign Origins Foreign countries of baccalaureate origin are listed in Appendix J, with rank orders, by sex and for the two sexes combined. Some of the names of countries in this list afford problems. China is an example. All persons of known mainland origin are so listed, although most of them graduated from Chinese universities before the Communist revolution. Very few have come from the mainland since 1950. Taiwan has sent 5,843, as shown on the list. There are, in addi- tion, 841 Chinese whose precise origin could not be ascertained. They are listed under China (unspecified). It is obvious that the rank orders of the countries are affected by these ambiguities, and the use of rank data requires careful attention to this problem. Another such problem is Pakistan. Prior to the division of the country in 1971, there was no problem, but the state of Bangladesh means that the graduates of East Pakistan universities must be accounted for separately from Pakistan. They have, inso- far as possible, been credited to Bangladesh, even though they graduated before that state came into existence. Another example is Russia, here entered under the old name rather than under USSR. The reason is that most, if not all the PhD's from that area, either graduated before the Russian revolution in 1917, or came from the Baltic states of Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania during the period between World War I and World War II when those countries were independent. Few U.S. PhD's came from USSR universities. A regional summary of foreign origins, pro- viding data by geographic area, regardless of political changes that have intervened, is pro- vided in Appendix K. Here we have a time series, comparable to that provided for PhD's in Appendix E. The proportions which each region represents are expressed in the number per thousand among all foreign origin PhD's and the number per thousand grand total.