Click for next page ( 116


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 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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115
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 115