Click for next page ( 130


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 129
Music Programs In this chapter 53 research-doctorate programs in music are assessed. These programs, according to the information supplied by their universities, have accounted for 1,385 doctoral degrees awarded during the FY1976-80 period--approximately 71 percent of the aggregate number of music doctorates earned from U.S. universities in this five- year span. The study committee has serious concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the program coverage in this discipline. In the instructions to the coordinators they were asked to provide faculty lists and other information for research-doctorate programs in "musicology." This instruction was in error since the committee intended to include all areas of research training in music. Some institutional coordinators furnished faculty lists and other infor- mation on only the musicology component of music programs, while some coordinators included other areas as well {e.g., theory and composi- tion). Also of concern is the fact that several of the faculty lists provided apparently include performers who had little or no involve- ment in research. Furthermore, at least 1 of the 53 programs eval- uated does not offer a research doctorate in any area of music, although those earning doctorates of musical arts at this institution do receive some research training. The committee seriously considered not reporting the results of its assessment of programs in this discipline (as suggested by a few survey evaluators), but decided that in view of the effort made by both the survey respondents and the program coordinators the results should be reported, along with a full explanation of the problems encountered. On the average, 42 full-time and part-time students intending to earn doctorates were enrolled in a program in December 1980, with an average faculty size of 20 members.2 Only three of the programs were initiated since 1970, and no two programs are located in the . data from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 1,946 research doctorates in music were awarded by U.S. universities between FY1976 and FY1980. 2 See the reported means for measures 03 and 01 in Table 9.2. 129

OCR for page 129
130 same university. In addition to the 53 institutions represented in this discipline, another 6 were initially identified as meeting the criter ia3 for inclusion in the assessment: University of Arizona--Tucson Cleveland Institute of Music Harvard University University of Mississippi--Oxford University of Northern Colorado--Greeley Southern Baptist Theological Seminary--Kentucky Music programs at these six institutions have not been included in the evaluations in this discipline, since in each case the study coordi- nator either indicated that the institution did not at that time have a research-doctorate program in music or failed to provide the informa- tion requested by the committee. Before examining individual program results presented in Table 9.1, 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 9.2. For all but one of the measures, data are reported for at least 48 of the 53 music pro- grams. For measure 12, a composite index of the size of a university library, data are available for 41 programs. The programs not evalu- ated on measure 12 are typically smaller--in terms of faculty size and graduate student enrollment--than other music programs. Were data on this measure available for all 53 programs, it is likely that the re- ported mean would be appreciably lower {and that some of the correla- tions of this measure with others would be higher). Intercorrelations among the 12 measures {Pearson product-moment coefficients) are given in Table 9.3. Of particular note are the high positive correlations of university library size (12) with reputational survey ratings (08, 091. The correlations of the measures of program size {01-03) with reputational survey ratings (08, 09) are much lower than the corresponding correlations in other disciplines. Figure 9.1 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 53 programs in music. Figure 9.2 plots the mean rating of program effectiveness (measure 09) against the total number of FY1976-80 program graduates (measure 02~. The lack of a strong relationship between measures is quite apparent in both figures. Table 9.4 describes the 69 faculty members who participated in the evaluation of music programs. These individuals constituted only 43 percent of those asked to respond to the survey in this discipline and 6 percent of the faculty population in the 53 research-doctorate 3 As mentioned in Chapter I, the primary criterion for inclusion was that a university had awarded at least 9 doctorates in music during the FY1976-78 period.

OCR for page 129
131 programs being evaluated.4 Approximately half of the survey partic- ipants were musicologists, and another 19 percent {13 individuals) specialized in music theory and composition. The remainder {21 individuals) may include some faculty members who had little or no involvement in research training, but the exact number of such individuals is not known. More than one-third of the survey partic- ipants had earned their highest degree since 1970, and almost half held the rank of full professor. Two exceptions should be mentioned with regard to the survey evaluations in this discipline. First, it should be noted that the program at the Eastman School of Music was identified on the survey form as "University of Rochester--Music." Also, the program at the Julliard School of Music does not conform with a typical research- doctorate program in that it is specifically intended for "those students showing greatest promise for a major career as performing artists," but it does involve seminars dealing with a "scholarly approach to the study of music." In addition to these two exceptions, as has been noted earlier, several of the faculty lists included the names of performance teachers who were not involved in the research aspects of a program. In reporting the results in this discipline, the committee wishes to emphasize these deficiencies and the likeli- hood that they may have influenced the reputational ratings as well as other program measures. To assist the reader in interpreting results of the survey eval- uations, estimated standard errors have been computed for mean ratings of the scholarly quality of faculty in 53 music programs (and are given in Table 9.1~. For each program the mean rating and an associ- ated "confidence interval" of 1.5 standard errors are illustrated in Figure 9.3 (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.5 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. 4 See Table 2.3 in Chapter II. s see pp. 28-30 for a discussion of the interpretation of mean ratings and associated confidence intervals.

OCR for page 129
132 TABLE 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music Characteristics of Prog Program Size Program Graduates No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) .(06) (07) 001. Ball State University 54 21 39 .00 9.8 .69 .15 Music* 71 48 49 37 51 54 43 002. Boston University 11 2 9 .00 13.0 .58 .26 Music 44 40 39 3 7 35 45 52 003. Brandeis University 10 3 25 NA NA NA NA Music 43 41 44 004. CUNY-Graduate School 19 17 65 .27 11.7 .43 .14 Music 49 46 5 7 66 41 34 42 005. California, University of-Berkeley 14 26 33 .17 7.3 .41 .18 Music 46 50 47 55 63 32 45 006. California, University of-Los Angeles 32 27 50 .18 11.5 .68 .29 Music 57 50 52 56 42 53 54 007. California, University of-San Diego 17 11 26 .00 9.3 NA NA Music* 48 44 45 37 53 008. California, University of-Santa Barbara 9 16 33 .08 7.3 .50 .25 Music 43 46 4 7 46 63 39 51 009. Case Western Reserve University 6 12 12 .04 14.0 .54 .13 Music 41 44 40 42 30 43 41 010. Catholic University of America 7 16 18 .04 10.9 .70 .22 Music 42 46 42 42 45 55 4 8 011. Chicago, University of 11 13 45 .27 9.5 .82 .64 Music 44 45 51 66 52 64 83 012. Cincinnati, University of 19 43 13 .03 10.5 .72 .27 College Conservatory of Music 49 57 41 41 47 56 53 013. Colorado, University of 41 11 11 .11 10.5 .72 .19 Music 63 44 40 49 47 57 46 014. Columbia University 13 10 75 .15 9.5 .46 .23 Music 45 43 60 53 52 36 49 015. Cornell University-Ithaca 14 20 27 .21 7.8 .53 .21 Music 46 48 45 59 61 41 48 016. Florida State University-Tallahassee 26 37 143 .11 10.5 .72 .22 Nusic 54 54 82 49 47 56 48 017. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign 10 13 37 .06 10.0 .77 .35 Music 43 45 48 43 50 60 60 018. Indiana University-Bloomington 22 40 68 .10 13.0 .73 .27 Music 51 56 5 8 4 7 35 5 7 53 019. Iowa, University of-Iowa City 24 128 120 .08 11.1 .75 .20 Music 52 91 75 45 44 59 47 020. Julliard School 12 45 41 .08 6.1 .55 .26 Graduate Division 45 58 50 45 69 43 52 * 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 129
133 TABLE 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music University Prog Survey Results Library No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) 001. 002. 003. 004. (08) 1.7 39 2.4 46 3.6 58 4.0 62 005. 4.5 67 006. 3.8 60 007. 1.9 41 008. 2.6 48 009. 1.9 41 010. 2.0 42 011. 4-5 67 012. 2.1 43 013. 2.0 42 014. 3.9 61 015. 4.0 62 016. 2.5 47 017. 4.1 63 018. 3.7 59 019. 3.0 52 020. 2.9 51 (09) 1.0 40 1.2 43 1.9 56 2.0 59 2.6 69 2.1 60 1.1 42 1.4 48 1.1 42 1.1 41 2.6 68 1.2 43 1.1 42 2.3 63 2.3 64 1.5 49 2.2 62 2.0 58 1,8 54 1.3 45 (10) (11) 1.2 0.6 57 39 1.1 0.7 52 44 0.8 1.0 39 51 1.1 1.3 55 58 1.2 1.4 57 63 1.1 54 1.1 51 1.3 62 0.9 43 0.9 43 1.0 49 1.0 47 1.0 47 0.9 40 1.1 50 1.3 65 1.1 53 1.1 51 1.0 47 0.9 44 NA 0.4 40 NA NA 2.2 68 1.4 2.0 62 65 0.6 -0.0 39 44 0.9 -0.1 49 43 0.8 -1.3 44 30 0.8 NA 45 1.3 58 0.7 41 0.6 40 1.2 57 1.3 58 0.9 53 0.2 41 0.9 35 1.7 63 1.6 61 0.9 -0.4 49 39 1.6 2.0 67 65 1.5 0.9 66 54 1.1 0.3 53 47 1.2 NA 58 Survey Rat ing s Standard Error - (08) (09) (10) (11) .19 .12 .09 .08 .18 .13 .09 .09 .12 .09 .10 .10 .12 .09 .07 .09 .10 .08 .07 .09 .09 .09 .24 .16 .13 .14 .13 .19 .13 .19 .13 .08 .09 .08 .09 .05 .08 .08 .08 .17 .13 .16 .08 .16 .11 .13 .08 .10 .08 .12 .10 .11 .08 .10 .09 .22 .13 .12 .09 .10 .08 .07 .08 .11 .09 .09 .07 .12 .08 .10 .09 .23 .14 .09 .08 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 129
134 TABLE 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music Characteristics of Prog Prouram Size Program Graduates No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) 021. Kansas, University of 18 1 34 .00 10.0 .73 .36 Fine Arts 49 40 47 37 50 57 61 022. Kentucky, University of 17 11 19 NA NA NA NA Music 4 8 44 42 023. Louisiana State University-Baton Rouge 3 17 22 .20 10.3 .80 .50 Music 39 46 43 58 49 63 72 024. Maryland, University of-College Park 29 21 76 .16 9.5 .71 .21 Music 55 48 61 54 52 56 48 025. Miami, University of-Florida 30 14 20 .11 5.5 .65 .12 Music 56 45 43 49 72 51 40 026. Michigan State University-East Lansing 19 38 36 .04 9.1 .61 .13 Music 49 55 48 42 54 48 41 027. Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor 92 108 133 .11 8.6 .61 .20 Music 95 83 79 49 57 48 47 028. Minnesota, University of 14 21 36 .05 12.5 .71 .19 Music 46 4 8 4 8 42 3 7 56 46 029. Missouri, University of-Kansas C ity 12 26 116 .13 12.0 .75 .33 Music 45 50 74 50 40 59 58 030. New York University 10 18 25 .15 12.5 .40 .08 Music 43 47 44 53 37 31 37 031. North Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill 6 17 25 .26 8.0 .53 .21 Music 41 46 44 65 60 41 4 8 032. North Texas State University-Denton 18 18 57 .10 10.1 .65 .16 Music 49 47 55 47 49 51 43 033. Northwestern University 19 28 17 .00 11.4 .78 .19 Music 49 51 42 3 7 43 62 46 034. Ohio State University-Columbus 39 62 96 .17 7.6 .61 .17 Music 62 65 67 55 62 48 45 035. Oklahoma, University of-Norman 34 29 62 .00 NA .60 .30 Music 59 51 56 37 47 55 036. Oregon, University of-Eugene 13 30 34 .16 11.8 .76 .16 Music 45 52 47 54 41 60 44 037. Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins Univ 67 27 40 .04 13.0 .78 .30 Peabod y Conservatory o f Music 79 50 49 42 35 61 56 038. Pennsylvania, University of 15 9 30 NA NA NA NA Music 47 43 46 039. Pittsburgh, University of 9 9 16 .21 11.0 .43 .07 Music 43 43 41 60 45 34 36 040. Princeton University 9 29 33 .33 8.0 .63 .46 Music 43 51 47 72 60 49 69 * 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 129
135 TABLE 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music University Survey Ratings Prog Survey Results Library Standard Error No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (08) (09) (10) (11) 021. 2.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.1 .19 .14 .14 .09 45 43 53 44 45 022. 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 -0.1 .15 .12 .12 .08 41 40 43 44 43 023. 0.8 0.6 NA 0.3 -0.3 .20 .12 NA .08 30 32 32 40 024. 2.6 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.2 .12 .08 .08 .08 48 49 57 51 46 025. 1.4 0.8 NA 0.5 NA .19 .15 NA .08 36 3 7 38 026. 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 .20 .12 .11 .08 40 44 28 40 48 027. 4.0 2.2 1.0 1.5 1.8 .10 .07 .10 .08 62 62 50 65 63 028. 2.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.2 .15 .10 .12 .08 48 48 55 49 56 029. 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.5 NA .18 .13 .09 .08 34 36 47 37 030. 3.8 2.1 0.9 1.2 0.5 .11 .07 .11 .09 60 60 42 57 49 031. 3.8 2.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 .10 .09 .11 .10 60 60 61 5 7 54 032. 2.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 NA .10 .08 .08 .07 50 51 60 57 033. 3.0 1.6 1.2 1.1 0.3 .13 .09 .11 .08 52 51 57 55 47 034. 2.9 1.6 0.9 1.1 0.9 .10 .09 .11 .08 51 51 44 52 53 035. 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.5 -0.6 .18 .12 .11 .08 36 39 . 44 38 3- 036. 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.5 -0.9 43 42 54 38 34 037. 2.2 1.2 1.1 0.6 NA .25 .16 .12 .08 44 44 50 40 038. 4.0 2.2 1.5 1.4 0.7 .12 .08 .08 .08 62 61 73 62 51 039. 2.1 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.1 .15 .11 .14 .08 43 44 43 41 45 040. 4.5 2.6 0.7 1.5 0.9 .09 .08 .10 .08 6 7 68 30 66 5 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 129
136 TABLE 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music University - Department/Academic Unit Prouram Size (01) (02) (03) (04) Characteristics of Program Graduates (05) (06) (07) 041. Rochester, University of 20 26 34 .19 9.5 .77 .31 Eastman School of Music 50 50 47 57 52 61 56 042. Rutgers, The State University-New Brunswick Music 043. SUNY at Buffalo Music 044. Southern California, University of Music 045. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Music History and Literature 046. Stanford University Music 047. Texas, University of-Austin Music 048. Washington University-Saint Louis Musicology/ Music Education/ Theory 049. Washington, University of-Seattle Music 050. Wesleyan University Arts and Humani ties 051. West Virginia University Music 052. Wisconsin, University of-Madison Music 053. Yale University Music * indicates program was initiated since 1970. 13 12 45 44 19 16 49 46 48 81 67 72 15 15 47 45 13 13 45 45 19 20 49 48 7 11 42 44 29 84 55 74 8 14 42 45 20 21 50 48 14 5 46 41 11 23 44 49 38 49 23 44 67 58 29 46 50 52 38 49 36 48 40 49 10 40 39 9 39 52 53 NA NA .00 7.2 37 64 .14 12.8 51 36 .00 8.5 37 57 .10 8.8 48 56 .02 12.2 39 39 .33 9.2 72 54 .18 10.3 56 49 .06 7.5 43 62 .16 10.6 54 47 .26 11.0 65 45 .32 6.4 71 68 NA NA .31 .08 24 37 .57 .11 45 39 .82 tog 64 38 .54 .36 42 60 .80 .41 63 65 .41 .12 32 40 .65 .14 51 42 .57 .29 45 54 .71 .06 55 35 .67 .38 52 62 .72 .40 57 64 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 129
137 TABLE 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music University Survey Ratings Prog Survey Results Library Standard Error No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (08) (09) (10) (11) 041. 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.4 -0.6 .12 .09 .10 .10 58 58 80 61 37 042. 3.1 1.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 .12 .09 .10 .09 53 52 39 50 52 043. 3.1 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.3 .11 .09 .09 .08 53 48 46 51 47 044. 3.0 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.4 .15 .11 .08 .08 52 52 59 49 48 045. 0.5 0.2 NA 0.1 NA .13 .11 NA .05 27 25 27 046. 3.7 2.2 1.0 1.2 2.0 .09 .09 .06 .09 59 61 46 57 66 047. 3.2 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.6 .11 .09 .10 .08 54 52 55 59 61 048. 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.5 -0.4 .20 .15 .19 .08 40 40 30 37 40 049. 2.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.5 .15 .11 .11 .09 50 49 60 48 59 050. 2.7 1.5 0.8 0.7 NA .23 .13 .12 .09 49 49 34 43 051. 1.7 1.0 1.2 0.5 NA .18 .12 .11 .08 39 39 60 37 052. 2.6 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.6 .13 .12 .10 .08 48 46 42 55 61 053. 4.4 2.5 1.0 1.6 2.1 .10 .09 .08 .08 66 67 50 68 66 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. "NAB indicates that the value for a measure is not available.

OCR for page 129
138 TABLE 9.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Music 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 53 20 16 7 10 12 13 15 19 19 27 38 Std Value 53 50 10 42 43 45 45 47 49 49 54 61 02 Raw Value 53 26 25 9 11 13 16 18 21 26 29 44 Std Value 53 50 10 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 57 03 Raw Value 53 42 31 11 19 25 31 34 38 41 59 76 Std Value 53 50 10 40 42 44 46 47 49 50 55 61 Program Graduates 04 Raw Value 49 .12 .09 .00 .03 .05 .08 .11 .14 .16 .19 .26 Std Value 49 50 10 37 40 42 46 49 52 54 58 66 05 Raw Value 48 10.0 2.0 12.8 11.9 11.0 10.5 10.1 9.5 9.1 8.0 7.3 Std Value 48 50 10 36 40 45 47 49 52 54 60 63 06 Raw Value 48 .64 .13 .43 .53 .57 .61 .65 .70 .72 .75 .78 Std Value 48 50 10 34 42 45 48 51 55 56 58 61 07 Raw Value 48 .24 .12 .09 .13 .16 .19 .21 .25 .28 .32 .39 Std Value 48 50 10 38 41 43 46 48 51 53 57 63 Survey Results 08 Raw Value 53 2.8 1.0 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.8 4.0 Std Value 53 50 10 37 41 43 47 49 52 58 60 62 09 Raw Value 53 1.6 .6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 Std Value 53 50 10 40 42 43 45 49 51 56 60 62 10 Raw Value 50 1.1 .2 .8 .9 .9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 Std Value 50 50 10 37 42 42 47 47 53 53 58 58 11 Raw Value 53 1.0 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Std Value 53 50 10 37 40 43 45 51 54 56 59 6 University Library 12 Raw Value 41 .6 .9 -.6 -.4 -.1 .2 .4 .8 1.0 1.6 1.9 Std Value 41 50 10 37 40 43 46 48 52 55 61 6 NOTE: Standardized values reported in the preceding table have been computed from of the mean and standard deviation and not the rounded values reported here. exact values

OCR for page 129
139 TABLE 9.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 53 Programs in Music Measure 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Program Size 01 .54 .44 -.21 -.07 .15 -.18 -.02 -.02 .17 .01 .11 02 .61 -.02 -.03 .12 -.17 .12 .13 .08 .17 .12 03 .06 -.03 .11 .03 .17 .21 .12 .25 .18 Program Graduates 04 .21 -.20 .21 .44 .46 -.08 .35 .26 05 -.26 .05 .17 .16 -.13 .14 .34 06 .46 -.26 -.23 .33 -.14 -.06 07 .28 .30 -.04 .30 .24 Survey Results 08 .99 .16 .94 .73 09 .14 .91 .72 10 .23 -.01 11 74 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 129
140 5.0++ + + + + 4. 0++ Measure + 3.0++ 08 + ~, 2. 0++ 1 . 0~+ + * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. O +/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 Measure 01 (square root scale) FIGURE 9.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01)--53 programs in music.

OCR for page 129
141 3.0++ + + + + 2.0++ + Measure + 09 + +* * 1. 0++ + * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r = .14 O. O +/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 121 144 Measure 02 (square root scale) FIGURE 9.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last f ive years (measure 02) --53 programs in music.

OCR for page 129
142 TABLE 9.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Music Respondents N % Field of Specialization Musicology 3S 51 Music Theory & Composition 13 19 Other/Unknown 21 30 Faculty Rank Professor 34 49 Associate Professor 22 32 Assistant Professor 9 13 Other/Unknown 4 6 Year of Highest Degree Pre-1950 2 3 1950-59 15 22 1960-69 27 39 Post-1969 24 35 Unknown 1 1 Evaluator Selection Nominated by Institution 60 87 Other 9 13 Survey Form With Faculty Names 61 88 Without Names 8 12 Total Evaluators 69 100

OCR for page 129
143 5,0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Mean Survey Rating (Measure 08) FIGURE 9.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 53 programs in music. 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 i1.5 standard errors around the reported mean (x) of each program.

OCR for page 129