|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 R1
An Assessment of
Research-Doctorabe
Programs in the
United Saws:
Mathematwal
physics Scopes
Committee on an Assessment of Quality-Related Characteristics
of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States
Lyle V. Jones, Gardner Lindsey, and
Porter E. Coggeshall, Editors
Sponsored by
The Conference Board of Associated Research Councils
American Council of Learned Societies
American Council on Education
National Research Council
Social Science Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1982
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved
by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, whose members
are drawn from the American Council of Learned Societies, the American
Council on Education, the National Research Council, and the Social
Science Research Council. The members of the committee responsible
for the report were chosen for their special competences and with
regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors
and editors according to procedures approved by each of the four
member Councils of the Conference Board.
The Conference Board of Associated Research Councils was created
to foster discussion of issues of mutual interest; to determine the
extent to which a common viewpoint on such issues prevails within the
academic community of the United States; to foster specific
investigations when so desired; and, when the Conference Board finds
joint, common, or other action desirable, to make recommendations to
the appropriate Councils.
Blue page insert duplicates page 15 and may be used as a portable
guide to program measures by placing it beside the tables under
examination.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-61277
International Standard Book Number 0-309-03299-7
Available from
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Copyright ~ 1982 by the National Academy of Sciences
First Printing, October 1982
Second Pr inting, November 198 4
2~_E~t gt his publication may be reproduced without permission of
the National Academy of Sciences except for official use by the United
States Government.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Aclmowledgments
1
In conducting this assessment the committee has benefited from the
support and advice of many individuals and organizations. The
assessment was conducted under the aegis of the Conference Board of
Associated Research Councils, and special thanks go to Roger Heyns,
Robert M. Lumiansky, Jack W. Peltason, Frank Press, Kenneth Prewitt,
Eleanor Sheldon, John William Ward, and the late Philip Handler for
their efforts in overseeing the planning and execution of this
project. Financial support was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the
National Institutes of Health {NIH), the National Science Foundation
(NSF), and the National Academy of Sciences. Without the combined
support from these organizations the project would not have been
undertaken. The committee appreciates the excellent cooperation it
received from the staff officers at these organizations--including
John Sawyer and James Morris at Mellon; Mariam Chamberlain, Gladys
Chang Hardy, and Sheila Biddle at Ford; Albert Rees and James Koerner
at Sloan; Helen Gee at NIH; and Bernard Stein at NSF. Some
supplemental funds to enhance the study were furnished by the
Association of American Geographers, the American Psychological
Association, and the American Psychological Foundation. .
The committee is most appreciative of the cooperation it received
from individuals in the 228 universities participating in the
assessment. In particular we thank the university presidents and
chancellors who agreed to participate and offered the assistance of
staff members at their institutions; the graduate deans, department
chairmen, and many other university personnel who helped to compile
information about the research-doctorate programs at their own
institutions; and the nearly 5,000 faculty members who took the time
to complete and return reputational survey forms.
This assessment
would not have been feasible without the participation of these
individuals. Nor would it have been complete without the suggestions
from many individuals within and outside the academic community who
reviewed the study plans and committee reports.
The committee also acknowledges the contributions of Francis Narin
and Paul R. McAllister, whose innovative work in the area of
publication productivity in science and engineering fields has been a
valuable resource. We thank H. Roberts Coward and his colleagues at
iii
OCR for page R4
the Institute for Scientific Information for their help in compiling
publications data as well as William Batchelor and John James at NIH
and David Staudt at NSF for their help in acquiring data on individual
research grant awards.
Within the National Research Council many individuals have
assisted in the planning and completion of this project. Robert A.
Alberty, Harrison Shull, and W. K. Estes, former chairmen of the
Commission on Human Resources, and William C. Kelly, Executive
Director of the commission (now the Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel), offered assistance and helpful
all phases of the study. Lindsey R. Harmon and C. Alan Boneau
counsel during
contributed greatly to the planning of the assessment.
To Porter E. Coggeshall, Study Director, the committee expresses
thanks for a job extremely well done. His ability to translate the
committee's directions into compiled data and analyses must be given a
large share of the credit for the completion of this project. He has
been ably assisted by Prudence W. Brown, who supervised the data
collection activities; Dorothy G. Cooper, who provided excellent
secretarial support; and George A. Boyce, whose programming expertise
was invaluable.
Committee on an Assessment of Quality-Related
Characteristics of Research-Doctorate Programs
in the United States
iv
OCR for page R5
Preface
The genius of American higher education is often said to be in the
close association of training and research--that is, in the nation's
research-doctorate programs. Consequently, we are not surprised at
the amount of worried talk about the quality of the research
doctorate, for deterioration at that level will inevitably spread to
wherever research skills are needed--and that indeed is a far-flung
network of laboratories, institutes, firms, agencies, bureaus, and
departments. What might surprise us, however, is the imbalance
between the putative national importance of research-doctorate
programs and the amount of sustained evaluative attention they
themselves receive.
The present assessment, sponsored by the Conference Board of
Associated Research Councils--comprised of the American Council of
Learned Societies, the American Council on Education, the National
Research Council (NRC), and the Social Science Research Council--seeks
to correct the imbalance between worried talk and systematic study.
In this effort the Conference Board continues a tradition pioneered by
the American Council on Education, which in 1966 published An
Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education, the report of a study
conducted by Allan M. Cartter, and in 1970 published A Rating of
Graduate Proarams. bv Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen. The
Cartter and Roose-Andersen reports have been widely used and
frequently cited.
Some years after the release of the Roose-Andersen report, it was
decided that the effort to assess the quality of research-doctorate
programs should be renewed, and the Conference Board of Associated
Research Councils agreed to sponsor an assessment. The Board of
Directors of the American Council on Education concurred with the
notion that the next study should be issued under these broader
auspices. The NRC agreed to serve as secretariat for a new study.
The responsible staff of the NRC earned the appreciation of the
Conference Board for the skill and dedication shown during the course
of securing funding and implementing the study. Special mention
should also be made of the financial contribution of the National
Academy of Sciences which, by supplementing funds available from
external sources, made it possible for the study to get under way.
To sponsor a study comparing the quality of programs in 32
or
OCR for page R6
disciplines and from more than 200 doctorate-granting universities is
to invite critics, friendly and otherwise. Such was the fate of the
previous studies; such has been the fate of the present study.
Scholarship, fortunately, can put criticism to creative use and has
done so in this project. The study committee appointed by the
Conference Board reviewed the criticisms of earlier efforts to assess
research-doctorate programs, and it actively solicited criticisms and
suggestions for improvements of its own design. Although constrained
by limited funds, the committee applied state-of-the-art methodology
in a design that incorporated the lessons learned from previous
studies as well as attending to many critics of the present effort.
Not all criticism has thus been stilled; nor could it ever be.
Additional criticisms will be voiced by as many persons as begin to
use the results of this of fort in ways not anticipated by its
authors. These criticisms will be welcome. The Conference Board
believes that the present study, building on earlier criticisms and
adopting a multidimensional approach to the assessment of research-
doctorate programs, represents a substantial improvement over past
reports. Nevertheless, each of the diverse measures used here has its
own limitations, and none provides a precise index of the quality of a
program for educating students for careers in research. No doubt a
future study, taking into account the weaknesses as well as strengths
of this effort, will represent still further improvement. One mark of
success for the present study would be for it to take its place in a
continuing series, thereby contributing to the indicator base
necessary for informed policies that will maintain and perhaps enhance
the quality of the nation's research-doctorate programs.
For the more immediate future the purposes of this assessment are
to assist students and student advisers seeking the best match
possible between individual career goals and the choice of an advanced
degree program; to serve scholars whose study site is higher education
and the nation's research enterprise; and to inform the practical
judgment of the administrators, fenders, and policymakers responsible
for protecting the quality of scholarly education in the United States
A remarkably hard-working and competent group, whose names appear
on p. vii, oversaw the long process by which this study moved from the
planning stage to the completion of these reports. The Conference
Board expresses its warmest thanks to the members of its committee and
especially to their co-chairmen, Lyle V. Jones and Gardner Lindzey.
Conference Board of Associated
Research Councils
vi
OCR for page R7
Committee on art Assessment of Quality-Related
Characteris~dcs of Research-Doctorate Programs
In Me United Sates
LYLE V. JONES (Co-Chairman), Director of the L. L. Thurstone
Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
GARDNER LINDSEY (Co-Chairman), Director, Center for Advanced Study
in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California
PAUL A. ALBRECHT, Vice-President and Dean, Claremont Graduate
School
MARCUS ALEXIS, Department of Economics, Northwestern University
ROBERT M. BOCK, Dean of the Graduate School, University of
Wisconsin at Madison
PHILIP E. CONVERSE, Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan
JAMES H. M. HENDERSON, Department of Plant Physiology, Tuskegee
Institute of Alabama
ERNEST S. KUH, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Sciences, University of California, Berkeley
WINFRED P. LEHMANN, Department of Linguistics, University of Texas
at Austin
SAUNDERS MAC LANE, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago
NANCY S. MILBURN, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Jackson College
for Women, Tufts University
LINCOLN E. MOSES, Department of Statistics, Stanford University
JAMES C. OLSON, President, University of Missouri
C. K. N. PATEL, Director, Physical Research Laboratory, Bell
Laboratories
MICHAEL J. PELCZAR, JR., President, The Council of Graduate Schools
in the United States
JEROME B. SCHNEEWIND, Department of Philosophy , Johns Hopkins
University
DUANE C. SPRIESTERSBACH, Vice-President, Educational Development
and Research, University of Iowa
HARRIET A. ZUCKERMAN, Sociology Department, Columbia University
Study Director
PORTER E. COGGESHALL, Office of Scientific and Engineering
Personnel, National Research Council
vii
OCR for page R8
Contents
I
IT
ELI
IV
V
V]
VII
VIII
IX
A
ORIGINS OF STUDY AND SELECTION OF PROGRAMS
Prior Attempts to Assess Quality in Graduate Education, 3
Development of Study Plans, 7
Selection of Disciplines and Programs to be Evaluated, 9
METHODOLOGY
Program Size, 16
Characteristics of Graduates, 17
Reputational Survey Results, 20
University Library Size, 25
Research Support, 26
Publication Records, 27
Analysis and Presentation of the Data, 29
CHEMISTRY PROGRAMS
COMPUTER SCIENCE PROGRAMS
GEOSCIENCE PROGRAMS
MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS
PHYSICS PROGRAMS
STATISTICS/BIOSTATISTICS PROGRAMS
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Summary of the Results, 160
Analysis of the Survey Response, 171
Interpretation of Reputational Survey Ratings, 183
Comparison with Results of the Roose-Andersen Study, 185
Future Studies, 191
MINORITY STATEMENT
APPENDIXES
Letter to Institutional Coordinators and Accompanying
Survey Form (Measures 01-03)
viii
1
13
33
59
75
95
117
141
159
193
195
197
OCR for page R9
B Survey of Earned Doctorates (Measures 04-07)
C Letter to Evaluators and Specimen of the Instrument
Used in the Reputational Survey (Measures 08-11}
D The ARL Library Index (Measure 12)
E Data on Faculty Research Support and R&D Expenditures
(Measures 13 and 14)
F Data on Publication Records (Measures 15 and 16)
G Conference on the Assessment of Quality of Graduate
Education Programs--Participants and Summary
H Planning Committee for the Study of the Quality of
Research-Doctorate Programs
I Region and State Codes for the United States and
Possessions
LIST OF FIGURES
3.3
6.3
7.1
204
207
213
215
220
238
242
243
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--14S programs
in chemistry, 54
Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research
scholars/scientists {measure 09) versus number of graduates
in last five years (measure 02~--144 programs in chemistry, 55
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 145 programs
in chemistry, 57
4.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--57 programs in
computer sciences, 70
Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research
scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates
in last five years (measure 02~--56 programs in computer
sciences, 71
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 57 programs in
computer sciences, 73
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--91 programs in
geosciences, 90
Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research
scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates
in last five years (measure 02~--91 programs in geosciences,
91
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 91 programs in
geosciences, 93
6.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty {measure 08)
versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--114 programs
in mathematics, 112
6.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research
schoIars/scientists {measure 09) versus number of graduates
in last five years measure 02~--114 programs in mathematics,
113
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 114 programs
in mathematics, 115
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
1X
OCR for page R10
versus number of faculty members {measure 01~--121 programs
in physics, 136
Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research
scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates
in last five years {measure 021--118 programs in physics, 137
Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 121 programs
in physics, 139
8.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
versus number of faculty members (measure 011--63 programs in
statistics/biostatistics, 154
8.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research
scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates
in last five years (measure 02~--60 programs in statistics/
biostatistics, 155
8.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 63 programs in
statistics/biostatistics, 157
9.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality
versus mean rating of faculty in
study--103 programs in chemistry
9.2 Mean rating of scholarly quality
versus mean rating of faculty in
programs in geosciences, 188
9.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--86
programs in mathematics, 189
9.4 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08)
versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--90
programs in physics, 190
LIST OF TABLES
3.3
of faculty (measure 08)
the Roose-Andersen
187
of faculty (measure 08)
the Roose-Andersen study--57
1.1 Number of Research Doctorates Awarded in the Mathematical and
Physical Science Disciplines, FY1976-78, 10
1.2 Number of Programs Evaluated in Each Discipline and the Total
FY1976-80 Doctoral Awards from These Programs, 12
2.1 Measures Compiled on Individual Research-Doctorate Programs,
15
2.2 Percentage of FY1975-79 Doctoral Recipients with Definite
Commitments for Employment Outside the Academic Sector, 20
2.3 Survey Response by Discipline and Characteristics of
Evaluator, 22
3.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Chemistry,
36
3.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program
Measure--Chemistry, S2
Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 145 Programs in
Chemistry, 53
3.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Chemistry, 56
4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Computer
Sciences, 62
4.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Computer
Sciences, 68
x
OCR for page R11
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
Tntercorrelations Among Program Measures on 58 Programs in
Computer Sciences, 69
Characteristics of Survey Participants in Computer Sciences,
72
Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in
Geosciences, 78
Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure-
Geosciences, 88
Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 91 Programs in
Geosciences, 89
Characteristics of Survey Participants in Geosciences, 92
Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in
Mathematics, 98
Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure-
Mathematics, 110
Tntercorrelations Among Program Measures on 115 Programs in
Mathematics, 111
Characteristics of Survey Participants in Mathematics, 114
Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Physics, 120
Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Physics,
134
Tntercorrelations Among Program Measures on 123 Programs in
Physics, 135
Characteristics of Survey Participants in Physics, 138
Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Statistics/
Biostatistics, 144
Summary Statistics Describing Each Program
Measure--Statistics/Biostatistics, 152
Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 64 Programs in
Statistics/Biostatistics, 153
Characteristics of Survey Participants in Statistics/
Biostatistics, 156
Mean Values for Each Program Measure, by Discipline, 161
Correlations of the Number of Program Graduates (Measure 02)
with Other Measures, by Discipline, 164
Correlations of the Survey Ratings of Scholarly Quality of
Program Faculty (Measure 08) with Other Measures, by
Discipline, 166
Correlations of the University Research Expenditures in a
Discipline (Measure 14) with Other Measures, by Discipline,
169
Correlations of the Influence-Weighted Number of Publications
(Measure 16) with Other Measures, by Discipline, 170
Distribution of Responses to Each Survey Item, by
Discipline, 172
Survey Item Response Rates, by Discipline and Mean Rating on
Measure (08), 173
Correlations Between Two Sets of Average Ratings from Two
Randomly Selected Groups of Evaluators in the Mathematical
and Physical Sciences, 17S
Comparison of Mean Ratings for 11 Mathematics Programs
Included in Two Separate Survey Administrations, 176
X1
OCR for page R12
9.10
9.11
9.12
9.13
9.14
9.15
Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by
Evaluator's Familiarity with Work of Faculty, 178
Item Response Rate on Measure 08, by Selected Characteristics
of Survey Evaluators in the Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, 179
Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Type
of Survey Form Provided to Evaluator, 180
Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by
Evaluator's Proximity to Region of Program, 181
Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by
Evaluator's Institution of Highest Degree, 182
Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by
Evaluator's Field of Specialty Within Physics or Statistics,
B iostatistics, 184
X11
/
