|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2010. 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 59
IV
Computer Science Programs
In this chapter 58 research-doctorate programs in computer
sciences are assessed. These programs, according to the information
supplied by their universities, have accounted for 1,154 doctoral
degrees awarded during the FY1976-80 period--approximately 86 percent
of the aggregate number of computer science and computer engineering
doctorates earned from U.S. universities in this five-year span.
Because computer sciences is a younger discipline than the other
. . . . . . .
five
mathematical and physical sciences covered in this assessment and
because computer science programs may be found in a variety of
settings within universities, the committee encountered some
difficulty in identifying research-doctorate programs that have
produced graduates in this discipline. On the average, 41 full-time
and part-time students intending to earn doctorates were enrolled in
program in December 1980, with an average faculty size of 16
members.2 Most of the 58 programs, listed in Table 4.1, are located
in computer science or computer and information science departments.
Approximately 20 percent are found in departments of electrical
engineering. Fifteen programs were initiated since 1970, and no two
programs are located in the same university. In addition to the 58
institutions represented in this discipline, another 7 were initially
identified as meeting the criteria' for inclusion in the assessment:
University of Chicago
George Washington University
Harvard University
Northeastern University
data from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 889
research doctorates in computer sciences and another 458 research
doctorates in computer engineering were awarded by U.S. universities
between FY1976 and FY1980.
2See the reported means for measures 03 and 01 in Table 4.2.
Has mentioned in Chapter I, the primary criterion for inclusion was
that a university had awarded at least 5 doctorates in computer
sciences during the FY1976-78 period.
59
OCR for page 60
60
Purdue University
University of Southwest Louisiana
University of Texas, Health Science
Center--Dallas
The latter two institutions chose not to participate in the assessment
in any discipline. Computer science programs at the other five
institutions have not bee. included in the evaluations in this
discipline, since in each case the study coordinator either indicated
that the institution did not at that time have a research-doctorate
program in computer sciences or failed to provide the information
requested by the committee.
Before examining individual program results presented in Table 4.1,
the reader is urged to refer to Chapter II, in which each of the 16
measures used in the assessment is discussed. Summary statistics
describing every measure are given in Table 4.2. For nine of the
measures, data are reported for at least 56 of the 58 computer science
programs. For measures 04-07, which pertain to characteristics of the
program graduates, data are presented for only approximately half of
the programs; the other half had too few graduates on which to base
statistics .4 For measure 12, a composite index of the size of a
university library, data are available for 49 programs; for measure
14, total university expenditures for research in this discipline,
data are available for 44 programs. The programs not evaluated on
measures 12 and 14 are typically smaller--in terms of faculty size and
graduate student enrollment--than other computer science programs.
Were data on these two measures available for all 58 programs, it is
likely that their reported means would be appreciably lower (and that
some of the correlations of these measures with others would be
higher). With respect to measure 13, the fraction of faculty with
research support from the National Science Foundation, the National
Institutes of Health, and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health
Administration, data are reported for 45 programs that had at least 10
faculty members.
Intercorrelations among the 16 measures (Pearson product-moment
coefficients) are given in Table 4.3. Of particular note are the high
positive correlations of the measures of program size (01-03) with
measures of publication records (15, 16) and reputational survey
ratings (08 and 09~. Figure 4.1 illustrates the relation between the
mean rating of the scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) and the
number of faculty members (measure 01) for each of 57 programs in
computer sciences. Figure 4.2 plots the mean rating of program
effectiveness (measure 09) against the total number of FY1976-80
program graduates (measure 021. Although in both figures there is a
significant positive correlation between program size and reputa
4As mentioned in Chapter II, data for measures 04-07 are not
reported if they are based on the survey responses of fewer than 10
FY1975-79 program graduates.
OCR for page 61
61
tional rating, it is quite apparent that some of the smaller programs
received high mean ratings and that some of the larger programs
received low mean ratings.
Table 4.4 describes the 108 faculty members who participated in
the evaluation of computer science programs. These individuals con-
stituted 62 percent of those asked to respond to the survey in this
discipline and 12 percent of the faculty population in the 58
research-doctorate programs being evaluated.S A majority of the
survey participants had earned their highest degree since 1970, and
almost one-third held the rank of assistant professor. Two exception
should be noted with regard to the survey evaluations in this disci-
pline. Regretably, ratings are unavailable for the program in the
Department of Computer and Communications Sciences at the University
of Michigan since an entirely inaccurate list of its faculty members
was included on the survey form. Also, it has been called to the
attention of the committee that the faculty list (used in the survey)
for the Department of Computer Science at Columbia University was
missing the names of four members. The committee has decided to
report the survey results for this program but cautions that the
reputational ratings may have been influenced by the omission of these
names.
To assist the reader in interpreting results of the survey
evaluations, estimated standard errors have been computed for mean
ratings of the scholarly quality of faculty in 57 computer science
programs (and are given in Table 4.1~. For each program the mean
rating and an associated "confidence interval" of 1.5 standard errors
are illustrated in Figure 4.3 (listed in order of highest to lowest
mean rating). In comparing two programs, if their confidence
intervals do not overlap, one may conclude that there is a significant
difference in their mean ratings at a .05 level of significance.6
From this figure it is also apparent that one should have somewhat
more confidence in the accuracy of the mean ratings of higher-rated
programs than lower-rated programs. This generalization results
primarily from the fact that evaluators are not as likely to be
familiar with the less prestigious programs, and consequently the mean
ratings of these programs are usually based on fewer survey responses.
5 See Table 2.3 in Chapter II.
6 See pp. 29-31 for a discussion of the interpretation of mean
ratings and associated confidence intervals.
s
OCR for page 62
62
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Computer Sciences
Prog
No. University - Department/Academic Unit
001. Arizona, University of-Tucson
Computer Sciences
002. Brown University
Computer Science*
003. California Institute of Technology
Computer Science*
004. California, University of-Berkeley
Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences
005. California, University of-Irvine
Information and Computer Science
006. California, University of-Los Angeles
Computer Science
007. California, University of-San Diego
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
008. California, University of-Santa Barbara
Electrical and Computer Engineering
009. Carnegie-Mellon University
Computer Science
010. Case Western Reserve University
Computer Engin/Computing & Information Sci
011. Columbia University
Computer Science*
012. Connecticut, University of-Storrs
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
013. Cornell University-Ithaca
Computer Science
014. Duke University
Computer Science*
Georgia Institute of Technology
Information and Computer Science
016. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign
Computer Science
017. Indiana University-Bloomington
Computer Science*
018. Iowa State University-Ames
Computer Science
019. Iowa, University of-Iowa City
Computer Science
020. Kansas State University-Manhattan
Computer Science*
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
Program Size
(01) (02) (03)
7 4
40 42
8 4
42 42
5 5
37 42
30 43
66 62
12 15
45 47
36 55
73 68
9 7
42 43
8 10
41 45
31 41
68 61
7 9
40 44
11 2
44 41
11 8
44 44
14 34
48 57
13 10
47 45
11 8
44 44
30 112
66 97
15 NA
49
15 18
49 49
12 11
45 45
8 7
41 43
13
43
21
45
22
45
53
53
46
51
103
65
17
44
9
42
83
60
10
42
17
44
12
43
48 .27
52 58
29 NA
47
30
47
125
71
16
44
17 .07
44 41
20 .36
45 67
12 NA
43
Characteristics of
Program Graduates
(04) (05) (06) (07)
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
14 6.3
47 51
09 5.3
43 60
00 7.9
35 37
NA NA
NA NA
22 6.8
54 47
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
10 NA
43
13 6.1
46 53
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
.79
50
.64
32
.65
34
NA
NA
.81
51
NA
NA
NA
5.5 .97
59 69
NA NA
.80
50
.85
56
NA
5.8 .73
56 43
5.3 .80
61 50
NA NA
NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported;
on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean - 50 and
standard deviation 3 LO- ANAL indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
NA
NA
NA
24
41
27
43
25
42
NA
NA
50
57
NA
NA
NA
63
65
NA
10
33
28
44
NA
33
47
70
69
NA
OCR for page 63
63
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Computer Sciences
University Research Published Survey Ratings
Prog Survev Results Librarv Support Articles Standard Error
No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)(16) (08) (09) (10) (11)
001. 2.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 NA 323 15 .11 .10 .11 .07
48 48 57 54 55 44 4446
002. 2.9 1.7 1.5 1.2 - 1.1 NA 417 25 .10 .09 .08 .06
54 53 63 57 35 45 4747
003. 2.5 1.5 0.8 0.9 NA NA 871 26 .17 .11 .12 .08
50 50 40 50 48 4847
004. 4.5 2.6 1.3 1.6 2.2 .60 NA 134 .08 .06 .07 .05
70 69 57 68 69 63 8382
005. 2.4 1.4 0.9 0.8 NA .17 98 12 .09 .09 .13 .07
49 47 42 50 40 43 4344
006. 3.8 2.2 1.3 1.3 2.0 .61 126 77 .08 .05 .08 .05
63 62 5 7 60 66 63 43 6461
007. 2.6 1.2 1.1 0.8 -0.0 NA 376 21 .13 .12 .11 .07
51 45 49 49 45 45 4648
008. 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.8 -0.1 NA 305 27 .11 .11 .12 .07
46 43 50 48 45 44 4849
009. 4.8 2.7 1.1 1.8 NA .26 3649 53 .05 .05 .07 .05
73 71 50 72 44 6 7 5661
010. 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.4 -1.3 NA NA 24 .11 .13 .10 .06
37 36 24 40 32 4744
011. 2.5 1.2 1.6 0.8 1.7 .36 NA 23 .12 .11 .08 .07
50 45 67 49 64 50 4746
012. 1.7 1.0 1.2 0.5 -0.5 .36 435 12 .13 .12 .09 .06
41 41 54 43 41 50 45 4343
013. 4.3 2.5 1.1 1.6 1.6 .57 987 52 .07 .06 .07 .05
68 68 49 67 62 61 49 5654
014. 2.4 1.5 1.3 0.7 0.3 .46 218 12 .10 .10 .10 .07
49 50 56 46 49 55 44 4343
015. 2.7 1.6 1.8 0.8 NA .27 4056 30 .10 .08 .06 .07
52 51 75 50 45 69 4948
016. 3.8 2.3 1.0 1.4 2.0 .53 3357 155 .09 .07 .07 .06
63 63 46 62 66 59 65 8983
017. 2.3 1.3 1.6 0.8 0.9 .53 67 20 .11 .12 .08 .07
48 46 66 49 55 59 43 4646
018. 1.7 1.2 1.2 0.4 - 0.5 .27 NA 14 .12 .13 .09 .06
42 45 51 40 40 45 4443
019. 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.3 .25 355 10 .12 .10 .11 .07
41 43 44 41 49 44 45 4242
020. 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.2 NA NA 153 13 .13 .11 .10 .04
33 33 41 34 43 4342
NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported;
on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean a 50 and
standard deviation ~ 10. GNAT indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
Since the scale used to compute measure (16) is entirely arbitrary, only values in
standardized form are reported for this measure.
OCR for page 64
64
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Computer Sciences
Characteristics of
Prog Program Size Program Graduates
No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
021. Kansas, University of 16 6 6 NA NA NA NA
Computer Science* 50 43 41
022. Maryland, University of-College Park 28 35 50 .08 8.0 .76 .24
Computer Science 64 58 52 42 37 46 41
023. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 34 62 135 .23 6.4 .77 .39
El ectrical Engineering and Computer Science 71 71 73 55 51 47 50
024. Massachusetts, University of-Amherst 16 16 70 .00 5.4 .82 .36
Computer and Information Sciences* 50 48 57 35 S9 52 49
025. Michigan State University-East Lansing 14 8 20 NA NA NA NA
Computer Science 48 44 45
026. Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor 10 18 38 .30 6.4 .79 .63
Computer and Communication Sciences 43 49 49 61 50 49 65
027. Minnesota, University of 21 13 28 .25 6.5 .81 .50
Computer Science 56 46 47 57 50 52 57
028. Missouri, University of-Rolla 11 9 11 NA NA NA NA
Computer Science* 44 4.4 42
029. New York University 13 19 63 .21 8.0 .80 .20
Computer Science 47 49 55 53 37 50 39
030. North Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill 8 17 23 .07 7.5 .88 .19
Computer Science 41 48 45 41 41 59 38
031. Northwestern University 24 41 16 .08 6.5 .92 .33
Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 59 61 44 41 50 63 47
032. Ohio State University-Columbus 21 43 90 .09 6.3 .76 .48
Computer and Information Science 56 62 62 43 51 46 56
033. Oklahoma, University of-Norman 15 1 26 NA NA NA NA
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sci 49 40 46
034. Pennsylvania State University 16 10 32 .15 6.3 .77 .39
Computer Sciences 50 45 48 48 52 47 50
035. Pennsylvania, University of 29 25 54 .14 6.4 .79 .41
Computer and In formation Science 65 52 53 47 51 50 52
036. Pittsburgh, University of 12 10 20 NA NA NA NA
Computer Science* 45 45 45
037. Polytech Institute of New York 8 6 33 NA NA NA NA
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 41 43 48
038. Princeton University 9 21 26 .23 4.3 1.00 .60
El ectrical Engineering and Computer Science 42 50 46 55 69 72 63
039. Rice University 22 19 23 .29 4.9 .52 .14
Mathematical Sciences 5 7 49 45 60 63 20 35
040. Rochester, University of 11 5 36 NA NA NA NA
Computer Science* 44 42 49
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported;
on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and
standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
OCR for page 65
OCR for page 66
OCR for page 67
OCR for page 68
OCR for page 69
69
TABLE 4.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 58 Programs in Computer Sciences
Measure
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Program Size
01 .62 .67 -.11 -.03-.17-.26 .54 .54 .13 .45.28 .12.44.62.61
02 .52 .05 -.07.12-.05 .66 .68 -.02 .61.44 .34.59.85.84
03 .04- .05 - .06 - .07 .50 .49 .12 .4 6 .33 .13 .43 .51 . 52
Program Graduates
04 .12 .17 .43 .35 .34 -.07 .30 .23 .34 .22 .09 .20
05 .13.44 .14 .17 -.22 .10 -.17 .29 -.21 -.07 -.04
06 .41 .21 .26 -.11 .25 .23 .26 -.03 .10 .14
07 .17 .23 -.31 .23 .24 .26 -.16 -.08 -.01
Survey Results
08 .98.29 .97 .58 .59 .63 .70 .77
09 .26 .95 .54 .61 .61 .69 .75
10 .26 .16 .18 -.02 .04 .05
11 .56 .57 .64 .69 . 74
University Library
12 .49 .16 .52 .52
Research Suppor t
13
14
Publication Records
15
16
.10 .32 .35
.66 .73
.98
NOTE: Since in computing correlation coefficients program data must be available for both of the measures
being correlated, the actual number of programs on which each coefficient is based varies.
OCR for page 70
70
s ~ o++
+
4.0++
Measure +
3.0++
08 +
2.0++
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+ * 1
+ * * * *
+ *
+ * *
+ * * * * * * *
' O+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
0.0 +/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/
1 4 9 16 25 36 49
Measure 01 (square root ~cale)
FIGURE 4.1 Mean rating of ~cholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members
(measure 01)--57 programs in computer sciences.
OCR for page 71
71
3 . 0++
+
+
2. 0++
+
+
Messure +
* *
* *
09 + *. * *
+ *
1. 0++
+
+
+
O.O +/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/+++++++++/
1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 121
* *
*
* *
* * *
* * *
*, * *
*
*
*
* *
** *
*
* *
*
* *
*
*
: **
*
*
*
*
*
*
r ~ .71
Measure 02 (square root scale)
FIGURE 4.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09)
versus number of graduates in last f ive years (measure 02)--56 programs in computer sciences.
OCR for page 72
72
TABLE 4.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Computer Sciences
Respondents
N%
Field of Specialization
Computer Sciences9992
Other/Unknown98
Faculty Rank
Professor4138
Associate Professor3230
Assistant Professor3432
Other/Unknown11
Year of Highest Degree
Pre-195033
1950-591110
1960-693028
Post-19696358
Unknown11
Evaluator Selection
Nominated by Institution8175
Other2725
Survey Form
With Faculty Names9790
Without Names1110
Total Evaluators108100
l
OCR for page 73
73
X-
x
4.0 3.0 2.0
Mean Survey Rating (treasure 08)
FIGURE 4.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 57 programs in computer sciences.
1.0 o.o
NOTE: Programs are listed in sequence of mean rating, with the highest-rated program appearing at the
top of the page. The broken lines (---) indicate a confidence interval of +1.5 standard errors
around the reported mean (x) of each program.
OCR for page 74
Representative terms from entire chapter:
science programs
