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 115
Am
Ling~iish~ ~o~
In this chapter 35 research-doctorate programs in linguistics are
assessed. These programs, according to the information supplied by
their universities, have accounted for 652 doctoral degrees awarded
during the FY1976-80 period--approximately 76 percent of the aggregate
number of linguistics doctorates earned from U.S. universities in this
five-year span. It should be noted that this aggregate number prob-
ably includes a significant number of doctorates in this discipline
earned outside departments of linguistics. On the average, 34 full-
time and part-time students intending to earn doctorates were enrolled
in a program in December 1980, with an average faculty size of 14
members.2 All but one of the 35 programs, listed in Table 8.1, are
located in linguistics departments. Only four of the programs were
initiated since 1970, and no two programs are located in the same uni
varsity. In addition to the 35 institutions represented in this dis-
cipline, another 4 were initially identified as meeting the criteria3
for inclusion in the assessment:
University of Arkansas--Fayetteville
Columbia Teachers College
Columbia University
Illinois Institute of Technology
-
Linguistics programs at these four institutions have not been included
in the evaluations in this discipline, since in each case the study
coordinator either indicated that the institution did not at that time
iData from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 854
research doctorates in linguistics were awarded by U.S. universities
between FY1976 and FY1980.
2 See the reported means for measures 03 and 01 in Table 8.2.
3As mentioned in Chapter I, the primary criterion for inclusion was
that a university had awarded at least 5 doctorates in linguistics
during the FY1976-78 period.
115
OCR for page 116
116
have a research-doctorate program in linguistics or failed to provide
the information requested by the committee.
Before examining individual program results presented in Table 8.1,
the reader is urged to refer to Chapter II, in which each of the 12
measures used in the assessment is discussed. Summary statistics
describing every measure are given in Table 8.2. For eight of the
measures, data are reported for at least 33 of the 35 linguistics
programs. For measures 04-07, which pertain to characteristics of the
program graduates, data are presented for only approximately 25 of the
programs; the other 10 had too few graduates on which to base
statistics.4
Intercorrelations among the 12 measures (Pearson product-moment
coefficients) are given in Table 8.3. Of particular note are the high
positive correlations of the measures of faculty size (01), number of
recent program graduates (021, and measures pertaining to the employ-
ment of graduates (06, 07) with reputational survey ratings (08, 09~.
Figure 8.1 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 35 programs in linguistics. Figure
8.2 plots the mean rating of program effectiveness (measure 09) against
the total number of FY1976-80 program graduates (measure 02~. Although
in both figures there is a significant positive correlation between
program size and reputational 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 8.4 describes the 105 faculty members who participated in the
evaluation of linguistics programs. These individuals constituted 70
percent of those asked to respond to the survey in this discipline and
21 percent of the faculty population in the 35 research-doctorate pro-
grams being evaluated.5 More than two-fifths of the survey partici-
pants had earned their highest degree since 1970, and approximately
half were full professors.
To assist the reader in interpreting results of the survey evalua-
tions, estimated standard errors have been computed for mean ratings
of the scholarly quality of faculty in 35 linguistics programs (and are
given in Table 8.1~. For each program the mean rating and an associ-
ated "confidence interval" of 1.5 standard errors are illustrated in
Figure 8.3 (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
4 As 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.
s see Table 2.3 in Chapter II.
6 See pp. 28-30 for a discussion of the interpretation of mean ratings
and associated confidence intervals.
OCR for page 117
117
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.
OCR for page 118
118
TABLE 8.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Linguistics
Characteristics of
Prog Program Size Program Graduates
No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
001. Arizona, University of-Tucson 6 9 17 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics * 41 42 43
002. Brown University 10 9 31 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics 45 42 49
003. CUNY-Graduate School 9 13 35 .40 NA .70 .40
Linguistics * 44 45 50 52 56 58
004. California, University of-Berkeley 12 31 63 .27 8.5 .76 .46
Linguistics 47 60 62 45 45 60 62
005. California, University of-Los Angeles 40 45 46 .47 9.7 .58 .29
Linguistics 78 71 55 56 35 4 7 50
006. California, University of-San Diego 11 23 40 .35 6.0 .72 .44
linguistics 46 54 52 49 65 5 7 61
007. Chicago, University of 24 21 45 .54 8.5 .58 .38
Linguistics 61 52 55 60 45 47 56
008. Connecticut, University of-Storrs b 12 17 .50 7.5 .82 .27
Linguistics 41 45 43 5 8 53 64 49
009. Cornell University-Ithaca 26 31 40 .39 8.3 .57 .11
Linguistics 63 60 52 52 46 46 38
010. Florida, University of-Gainesville 6 16 33 .08 10.0 .15 .00
Linguistics * 41 4 8 50 34 32 15 31
011. Georgetown University 15 51 128 .29 9.2 .59 .12
Linguistics 51 76 89 46 39 4 7 39
012. Harvard University 25 15 23 .62 8.2 .58 .42
Linguistics 62 47 45 64 47 47 59
013. Hawaii, University of 28 25 62 .38 8.8 .57 .13
Linguistics 65 55 62 51 42 46 40
014. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign 21 32 57 .21 8.8 .63 .15
Linguistics 5 7 61 60 42 43 50 41
015. Indiana University-Bloomington 10 24 59 .38 8.1 .65 .45
Linguistics 45 54 60 51 48 52 61
016. Kansas, University of 17 8 15 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics 53 41 42
017. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9 32 37 .75 5.5 .75 .50
Linguistics and Philosophy 44 61 51 71 69 59 65
018. Massachusetts, University of-Amherst 9 21 32 .20 5.4 .75 .60
Linguistics 44 52 49 41 70 59 72
019. Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor 20 42 39 .38 8.0 .70 .37
Linguistics 56 69 52 51 49 55 56
020. Minnesota, University of 9 1 12 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics 44 36 41
* 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. "NAT indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
OCR for page 119
119
TABLE 8.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Linguistics
University Survey Ratings
Prog Survey Results Library Standard Error
No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (08) (09) (10) (11)
001. 2.7 1.6 1.8 1.3 0.9 .10 .10 .05 .07
50 51 70 53 51
002. 2.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 -1.1 .09 .07 .08 .06
48 48 56 49 31
003. 2.9 1.6 1.0 1.3 NA .09 .07 .07 .06
52 51 48 52
004. 3.9 2.0 0.8 1.9 2.2 .11 .09 .06 .03
61 58 41 65 64
005. 4.4 2.4 1.1 1.8 2.0 .07 .06 .06 .04
66 65 50 64 62
006. 3.8 2.2 1.2 1.8 -0.0 .07 .06 .07 .04
60 60 53 63 42
007. 3.9 2.2 1.0 1.6 0.9 .09 .06 .05 .05
62 61 47 59 51
008. 2.8 1.9 1.5 1.2 -0.5 .11 .08 .06 .07
50 55 60 49 3 7
009. 2.8 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.6 .10 .07 .09 .06
50 51 53 50 58
010. 0.9 0.6 NA 0.3 0.8 .10 .11 NA .04
32 32 30 50
011. 2.4 1.5 0.9 1.1 -0.6 .10 .08 .06 .07
46 49 43 49 36
012. 3.3 1.8 0.8 1.4 3.0 .09 .07 .07 .06
55 54 41 55 72
013. 2.9 1.8 1.2 1.0 -0.1 .09 .08 .06 .06
52 53 52 4 7 41
014. 3.5 2.2 1.1 1.4 2.0 .08 .06 .06 .06
57 60 51 56 62
015. 2.5 1.5 0.6 1.4 0.9 .09 .07 .07 .05
48 49 34 55 52
016. 2.0 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.1 .10 .10 .11 .06
42 43 52 38 43
017. 4.7 2.6 0.9 2.0 -0.3 .07 .07 .05 .01
69 67 44 67 39
018. 3.8 2.4 1.6 1.6 -0.7 .10 .07 .07 .06
60 64 65 59 35
019. 2.6 1.6 0.5 1.2 1.8 .11 .08 .07 .07
48 49 33 50 60
020. 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 .09 .12 .07 .06
44 41 51 46 54
NOTE: On the f irst line of data for every program, raw values for each measure
are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized
f orm, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that
the value for a measure is not available.
OCR for page 120
120
TABLE 8.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Linguistics
Characteristics of
Prog Program Size Prouram Graduates
No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
021. New York University 12 3 38 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics 4 7 3 7 52
022. North Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill 6 18 9 .27 9 .3 .60 .27
linguistics and Non-Western languages 41 49 39 45 38 48 49
023. Northern Illinois University-De Kalb 2 2 10 NA NA NA NA
Engl ish 3 7 36 40
024. Northwestern University 13 11 10 .33 7.2 .55 .18
Linguistics 49 44 40 4 8 56 44 43
025. Ohio State University-Columbus 8 16 21 .27 7.5 .53 .20
Linguistics 43 4 8 45 45 53 43 44
026. Pennsylvania, University of 28 24 56 .30 8.5 .70 .30
Linguistics 65 54 59 47 45 55 51
027. Pittsburgh, University of 8 7 10 NA NA NA NA
General Linguistics 43 41 40
028. Rochester, University of 12 12 8 .42 7.0 .42 .08
Foreign Languages, Literature & Linguistics 47 45 39 53 57 35 36
029. SUNY at Buffalo 7 17 37 .07 6.3 .73 .20
Linguistics 42 49 51 34 62 58 44
030. Southern California, University of 11 12 60 .10 NA NA NA
Linguistics 46 45 61 36
031. Stanford University 9 16 21 .52 8.0 .63 .32
l inguistics 44 4 8 45 59 49 51 52
032. Texas, University of-Austin 40 34 51 .15 7.8 .56 .22
Linguistics 78 62 5 7 3 8 51 45 46
033. Washington, University of-Seattle 7 9 16 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics 42 42 42
034. Wisconsin, University of-Madison 12 4 1 NA NA NA NA
Linguistics 4 7 3 8 36
035. Yale University 13 6 17 .80 6.5 .80 .20
Linguistics 49 40 43 74 61 63 44
* 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 121
121
TABLE 8.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Linguistics
Prog
No. (08)
021. 2.1
43
022. 0.9
32
023. 0.1
24
024. 1.8
41
025. 3.4
57
University
_ Survey Results Library
(12)
0.5
47
1.0
52
NA
(09) (10)
1.2 1.4
43 59
0.6 0.3
32 27
0.2 NA
24
1.1
42
2.1
58
(11)
0.8
43
0.4
34
0.1
27
1.1 0.6
50 37
1.0 1.5
47 57
0.3
45
0.9
51
.10 .09
.05 .09
.12 .11
.07 .05
Survey Ratings
Standard Error _
(08) (09) (10) (11)
.10 .10 .11 .07
.08
NA
.08
.07
.06
.03
.06
.05
026. 3.9 2.0 1.3 1.5 0.7 .09 .07 .06 .05
61 57 56 58 49
027. 1.8 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.1 .12 .10 .08 .07
41 39 51 39 43
028. 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 -0.6 .12 .12 .13 .05
36 34 32 32 36
029. 2.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.3 .10 .09 .09 .06
43 43 41 4 7 45
030. 2.9 1.7 1.8 1.3 0.4 .10 .08 .07 .07
52 52 69 52 46
031. 3.6 2.1 1.5 1.6 2.0 .07 .06 .07 .05
58 59 61 59 62
032. 4.1 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.6 .08 .05 .07 .05
63 61 55 60 58
033. 2.8 1.7 1.3 1.4 1.5 .09 .08 .08 .06
51 53 57 55 57
034. 2.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.6 .10 .08 .11 .06
45 44 54 44 58
035. 2.9 1.4 0.9 1.3 2.1 .10 .08 .07 .06
52 46 45 53 63
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 122
TABLE 8.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Linguistics
Number
of
Programs Standard D E C I L E S
Measure Evaluated Mean Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Program Size
01 Raw Value 35 14 9 6 7 9 9 11 12 14 21 27
Std Value 35 50 10 41 42 44 44 46 47 50 57 64
02 Raw Value 35 19 12 4 8 10 12 16 18 24 31 33
Std Value 35 50 10 38 41 43 45 48 49 54 60 62
03 Raw Value 35 34 24 10 12 17 21 33 37 40 51 60
Std Value 35 50 10 40 41 43 45 50 51 52 S7 61
Program Graduates
04 Raw Value 26 .36 .18 .09 .20 .27 .29 .35 .38 .40 .49 .57
Std Value 26 50 10 35 41 45 46 49 51 52 57 62
05 Raw Value 24 7.9 1.2 9.5 8.9 8.5 8.4 8.1 7.9 7.5 6.9 6.1
Std Value 24 50 10 37 41 45 46 48 50 53 58 64
06 Raw Value 25 .62 .13 .48 .56 .57 .58 .62 .65 .70 .73 .75
Std Value 25 50 10 39 45 46 47 50 52 56 58 60
07 Raw Value 25 .28 .15 .10 .13 .19 .20 .27 .30 .37 .42 .45
Std Value 25 50 10 38 40 44 45 49 51 56 59 61
Survey Results
08 Raw Value 35 2.8 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.4 3.8 3.9
Std Value 35 50 10 34 43 45 48 50 51 56 60 61
09 Raw Value 35 1.6 .6 .7 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7
Std Value 35 50 10 34 41 45 48 50 52
2.2
61
1n Raw Value 33 1.1 .3 .5 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5
Std Value 33 50 10 32 41 44 47 50 53 53 56 62
11 Raw Value 35 1.2 .5 .4 .7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7
Std Value 35 50 10 33 40 46 48 50 53 55 59 61
University Library
12 Raw Value 33 .8 1.0 -.6 -.3 .1 .4 .8 .9 1.5 1.7 2.0
Std Value 33 50 10 36 39 43 46 50 51 57 59 62
NOTE: Standardized values reported in the preceding table have been computed from exact values
of the mean and standard deviation and not the rounded values reported here.
OCR for page 123
123
TABLE 8.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 35 Programs
in Linguistics
Measure
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
Program Size
01 .57 .38 .07 -.37 -.11 -.12 .51 .46 -.02 .38 .36
02 .74 -.10 -.34 .03 .05 .50 .53 -.30 .49 .12
03 -.27 -.35 .04 -.04 .36 .39 -.05 .39 -.10
Program Graduates
04 .24 .36 .29 .33 .25 -.16 .30 .20
05 .53 .46 .2S .25 .21 .27 -.38
06 .63 .49 .49 .25 .59 -.01
07 .57 .57 .10 .65 .04
Survey Results
08 .98 .29 .96 .23
09 .35 .95 .16
10 .24 -.16
11 .29
University Library
12
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 124
124
s . o++
+
+
4.0++
+
Measure +
3. 0++
08 +
2.0++
+
1 .0++
+
*
* *
*
*
:*
*
*
*
*
* * *
*
*
* :
* *
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
r ~ .54
4 9 16 25 36 49
Measure 01 (square root scale)
FIGURE 8.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members
(measure 01)--35 programs in linguistics.
OCR for page 125
125
3.0++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
.+
+
2.0++
+
+
+
Measure +
+ * * *
09 + *
+ *
+ * * *
+* *
1.0++ * r = .58
+
+
+ *
+
*
* *
O. O +/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/
1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64
Measure 02 (square root scale)
FIGURE 8.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09)
versus number of graduates in last f ive years (measure 02) --35 programs in linguistics.
OCR for page 126
126
TABLE 8.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Linguistics
Respondents
N %
Field of Specialization
Linguistics 97 92
Other/Unknown 8 8
Faculty Rank
Professor 52 50
Associate Professor 35 33
Assistant Professor 18 17
Year of Highest Degree
Pre-1950 5 5
1950-59 13 12
1960-69 42 40
Post-1969 44 41
Unknown 1 1
Evaluator Selection
Nominated by Institution 85 81
Other 20 19
survey Form
With Faculty Names 94 90
Without Names 11 11
Total Evaluators 105 100
OCR for page 127
127
——x——
5.0 4-.0 Mu a.
Mean Survey Rating (Measure 08)
FIGURE 8.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 35 programs in linguistics.
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 128
Representative terms from entire chapter:
std value
