Click for next page ( 232


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 231
APPENDI X C LETTER TO EVALUATORS COMMITTEE ON AN ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY-RELATED CHARACTERISTICS OF RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES Established by the Co'~fere'zce Board of Associated Research Councils Office of the Staff Director / Natiorsal Research Council / 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. / Washington, D.C. 20418 April 14, 1981 Dear As you may already know, our committee has undertaken an assessment of research-doctorate programs in U.S. universities. The study is exam- ining approximately 2,650 programs in 31 fields in the arts and humanities, biological sciences, engineering, physical and mathematical sciences, and social sciences. A study prospectus is provided on the reverse of this page. You have been selected from a faculty list furnished by your institu- tion to evaluate programs offering research-doctorates in the field of English Language and Literature. On the first page of the attached form is a list of the 145 programs that are being evaluated in this field. These programs produce more than 90 percent of the doctorate recipients in the field. In order to keep the task manageable, you are being asked to consider a randomly selected subset of 50 of these programs. These are designated with an asterisk in the list on the next page and are presented in random sequence on the evaluation sheets that follow. Please read the accompanying instructions carefully before attempting your evaluations. We ask that you complete the attached survey~form and return it in the enclosed envelope within the next three weeks. The evaluations you and your colleagues render will constitute an important component of this study. Your prompt attention to this request will be very much appreciated by our committee. Sincerely, ~~,: ~~ ~~ Lyle Jones For the Study Committee Enclosures COMMITTEE MEMBERS Marcus Alexis Winfred P. Lehmann Kumar Patel Robert M. Bock Saunders Mac Lane Michael J. Pelczar, Jr. Lyle V. Jones, Co-Chairman Philip E. Converse Nancy S. Milburn Jerome B. Schneewind Gardner Lindzey, Co-Chairman James H. M. Henderson Lincoln E. Moses Duane C. Spriestersbach Paul A. Albrecht Ernest S. Kuh James C. Olson Harriet A. Zuckerman 231

OCR for page 231
232 RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (a DESIGNATES THE PROGRAMS WHICH YOU ARE ASKED TO EVALUATE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES.) INSTITUTION - DEPARTMENT/ACADEMIC UNIT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY - LITERATURE ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, TEMPE - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE - ENGLISH AUBURN UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH BALL STATE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH BOSTON COLLEGE - ENGLISH BOSTON UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERATURE BROWN UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH BRYN MAWR COLLEGE - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO - LITERATURE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA - ENGLISH CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - HUMANITIES CUNY, THE GRADUATE SCHOOL - ENGLISH CLAREMONT GRADUATE SCHOOL - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER - ENGLISH COLUMBIA UNIV-GRAD SCHOOL OF ARTS ~ SCI - ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, STORRS - ENGLISH CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, NEWARK - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF DENVER - ENGLISH DUKE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH EMORY UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH FORDHAM UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, ATHENS - ENGLISH HARVARD UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE UNIV OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN - ENGLISH INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, IOWA CITY - ENGLISH JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, MANHATTAN - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS - ENGLISH KENT STATE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - ENGLISH LEHIGH UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON ROUGE - ENGLISH LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - ENGLISH MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST - ENGLISH MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, OXFORD - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, ALBUQUERQUE - ENGLISH NEW YORK UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA, GRAND FORKS - ENGLISH NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, DE KALB - ENGLISH NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - ENGLISH OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH OHIO UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, STILLWATER - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, EUGENE - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH - ENGLISH PRINCETON UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WEST LAFAYETTE - ENGLISH * (CONTINUED ON REVERSE)

OCR for page 231
233 * * * * UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND - ENGLISH RICE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER - ENGLISH RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK - ENGLISH SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - ENGLISH SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, CARBONDALE - ENGLISH STANFORD UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GAINESVILLE - ENGLISH FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, TALLAHASSEE - ENGLISH SUNY AT BINGHAMTON - ENGLISH, GENERAL LITERATURE, AND RHETORIC SUNY AT BUFFALO - ENGLISH SUNY AT STONY BROOK - ENGLISH SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH TEMPLE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE - ENGLISH TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, LUBBOCK - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN - ENGLISH TUFTS UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH TULANE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF TULSA - MODERN LETTERS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY - ENGLISH VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA - ENGLISH WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, PULLMAN - ENGLISH WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (ST LOUIS) - ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERATURE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE - ENGLISH WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON - ENGLISH UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE - ENGLISH YALE UNIVERSITY - ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

OCR for page 231
234 INSTRUCTIONS At the top of the next page please provide the 1nformat10n requested on the highest degree you hold and your current field of specialization. You may be assured that all information you furnish on the survey form is to be used for purposes of statistical description only and that the confidentiality of your responses w111 be protected. On the pages that follow you are asked to judge 50 programs (presented in random sequence) that offer the research-doctorate. Each program is to be evaluated in terms of: (1) scholarly quality of program faculty; (2) effectiveness of program in educating research scholars/scientists; and (3) change in program quality in the last five years (see below). Although the assessment is limited to these factors, our committee recognizes that other factors are relevant to the quality of doctoral programs, and that graduate programs serve important purposes in addition to that of educating doctoral candidates. A 11st of the faculty members significantly involved in each program, the name of the academic unit in which the program is offered, and the number of doctorates awarded in that program during the last five years have been printed on the survey form (whenever available). Although this 1nformat ton has been furnished to us by the institution and is believed to be accurate, it has not been verified by our study committee and may have a few omissions, misspellings, or other errors. Before marking your responses on the survey form, you may find it helpful to look over the full set of programs you are being asked to evaluate. In making your Judgments about each program, please keep in mind the following instructions: (1) Scholariv Oualitv of Program Facultv. Check the box next to the term that most closely corresponds to your Judgment of the quality of faculty in the research-doctorate program described. Consider only the scholarly competence and achievements of the faculty. It is suggested that no more than five programs be Designated "distinguished." (2) Effectiveness of Program in Educating Research Scholars/Scient1sts. Check the box next to the term that most closely corresponds to your Judgment of the doctoral progr~m's effectiveness in educating research scholars/sc1ent1sts. Consider the access- 1bil1ty of the faculty, the curricula, the instruct10nal and research facilities, the quality of graduate students, the performance of the graduates, and other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of the research-doctorate program. (3) Change in Program Oualitv in Last Five Years. Check the box next to the term that most closely corresponds to your esti- mate of the change that has taken place in the research- doctorate program in the last five years. Consider both the scholarly quality of the program faculty and the effectiveness of the program in educating research scholars/scientists. Com- pare the quality of the program today with its quality five years ago--not the change in the program's relative standing among other programs in the field. In assessing each of these factors, mark the category "Don't know well enough to evaluate" if you are unfamiliar with that aspect of the program. It is quite possible that for some programs you may be knowledgeable about the scholarly quality of the faculty, but not about the effectiveness of the program or change in program quality. For each of the programs identified, you are also asked to 1nd1cate the extent to which you are familiar with the work of members of the program faculty. For example, if you recognize only a very small fraction of the faculty, you should mark the category "Little or no familiarity." Please be certain that you have provided a set of responses for each of the programs identified on the following pages. The fully completed survey form should be returned in the enclosed envelope to: Committee on an Assessment of Ouality-Related Characteristics of Research-Doctorate Programs National Research Council, UH-638 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Our committee will be most appreciative of your thoughtful assessment of these research- doctorate programs. We welcome any comments you may wish to append to the completed survey form.

OCR for page 231
235 PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: HIGHEST DEGREE YOU HOLD: ( ) PH.D. ( ) OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) YEAR Of HIGHEST DEGREE: INSTITUTION OF HIGHEST DEGREE: 1 YOUR CURRENT FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION (CHECK ONLY ONE): A. ( ) ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE B. ( ) OTHER (PLFASE SPECIFY): FORM NO . 2 116 -57 INSTITUTION: HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT/ACADEMIC UNIT: ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE TOTAL DOCTORATES AWARDED 1976-80: 34 FORM NO. 2116-01 PROFESSORS: Daniel AARON, William ALFRED, Herschel BAKER, W. U. BATE, Larry D. BENSON, Warner BERTHOFF, Morton W. BLOOMFIELD, William H. BOND, Robert BRUSTEIN, Jerome H. BUCKLEY John M. BULLITT, Stanley CAVELL, Robert H. CHAPMAN, Charles W. DUNN, Monroe ENGEL, G. Blakemore EVANS, Robert S. FITZGERALD, Alan HEIMERT, Walter J. KAISER, John V. KELLEHER Robert J. KIELY, Harry LEVIN, David PERKINS, Joel PORTE ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS : James T. ENGELL ASSISTANT PROFESSORS: Ronald BUSH, John KLAUSE, Heather MCCLAVE, Elizabeth R. MCKINSEY, James MILLER, Albert J. VONFRANK, Robert N. WATSON OTHER STAFF: Richard C. MARIUS SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM IN EDUCATING RESEARCH SCHOLARS/SCI ENTISTS 1. ( ) DISTINGUISHED 2. ( ) STRONG 1. ( ) EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE 3. ( ) GOOD 2. ( ) REASONABLY EffECTIVE 4. ( ) ADEQUATE 3. ( ) MINIMALLY EffeCTIYE S. ( ) MARGINAL 4. ( ) NOT EffECTIVE 6. ( ) NOT SUffICIENT fOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE FAMI LIARITY WITH WORK OF PROGRAM FACULTY 1. ( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) CONSIDERABLE FAMILIARITY SOME FAMILIARITY LITTLE OR NO fAMILIARITY CHANGE IN PROGRAM QUALITY IN LAST FIVE YEARS ( ) BETTER THAN fIVE YEARS AGO (.) LITTLE OR NO CHANGE IN LAST FIVE YEAR ( ) POORER THAN fIVE YEARS AGO ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE

OCR for page 231
236 INSTITUTION: SUNY AT STONY BROOK FORM NO. 2116-02 DEPARTMENT/ACADEMIC UNIT: ENGLISH TOTAL DOCTORATES AWARDED 1976-80: 69 PROFESSORS: Thomas U. J. ALTIZER, David V. ERDMAN, Thomas FLANAGAN, Donald FRY, Homer GOLDBERG, Harvey GROSS, Jan KOTT, Thomas KRANIDAS, Richard LEVIN, Richard LEVINE, Jack LUDWIG, Thomas MARESCA, Ruth MILLER, Louis SIMPSON, Judah STAMPFER, John THOMPSON, Herbert WEISINGER ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS: Paul DOLAN, Edward FEISS, Clifford HOFFMAN, Aaron LIPTON, Joseph PEQUIGNEY, Thomas ROGERS, Walter SCHEPS, Sallie SEARS, Peter SHAW, Alice WILSON, Rose ZIMBARDO ASSISTANT PROFESSORS: Bruce BASHFORD, Diane FORTUNA, William HARRIS, David LAURENCE, Paul NEWLIN, David SHEEHAN, Setphen SPECTOR, Susan SQUIER SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY 1. ( ) DISTINGUISHED 2. ( ) STRONG 3. ( ) GOOD 4. ( ) ADEQUATE 5. ( ) MARGINAL 6. ( ) NOT SUFFICIENT FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE FAMILIARITY WITH WORK OF PROGRAM FACULTY 1. ( ) CONSIDERABLE FAMILIARITY 2. ( ) SOME FAMILIARITY 3. ( ) LITTLE OR NO fAMILIARITY EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM IN EDUCATING RESEARCH SCHOLARS/SCIENTISTS 1. ( ) EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE 2. ( ) REASONABLY EFFECTIVE 3. ( ) MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE 4. ( ) NOT EFFECTIVE O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE CHANGE IN PROGRAM QUALITY IN LAST FIVE YEARS 1. ( ) BETTER THAN FIYE YEARS AGO 2. ( ) LITTLE OR NO CHANGE IN LAST FIYE YEAR 3. ( ) POORER THAN FIYE YEARS AGO O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE INSTITUTION: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY FORM NO. 2116-03 DEPARTMENT/ACADEMIC UNIT: ENGLISH TOTAL DOCTORATES AWARDED 1976-80: 50 PROFESSORS: Hans C. AARSLEFF, Lawrence N. DANSON, Margatet A. DOODY, John V. FLEMING, Michael P. GOLDMAN, Samuel HYNES, Edmund KEELEY, Alvin B. KERNAN, Ulrich C. KNOEPFLMACHER, A. Walton LITZ Jr, Richard M. LUDWIG, Thomas MCFARLAND, Henry K. MILLER, Earl MINER, Thomas P. ROCHE Jr, Theodore R. WEISS ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS: Maria A. DIBATTISTA, Emory ELLIOTT, William L. HOWARTH ASSISTANT PROFESSORS: James H. AVERILL, David BROMWICH, Andrew FIGHTER, Gail GIBSON, Dorothy KLOPF Lee C. MITCHELL, Carol ROSEN, Harry J. SOLO SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY 1. ( ) DISTINGUISHED 2. ( ) STRONG 3. ( ) GOOD 4. ( ) ADEQUATE 5. ( ) MARGINAL 6. ( ) NOT SUFFICIENT FOR DOCTORAL EDUCATION O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE FAMILIARITY WITH WORK OF PROGRAM FACULTY J. ( ) CONSIDERABLE FAMILIARITY 2. ( ) SOME FAMILIARITY 3. ( ) LITTLE OR NO FAMILIARITY EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM IN EDUCATING RESEARCH SCHOLARS/SCIENTISTS 1. ( ) EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE 2. ( ) REASONABLY EFFECTIVE 3. ( ) MINIMALLY EFFECTIVE 4. ( ) NOT EFFECTIVE O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE CHANGE IN PROGRAM QUALITY IN LAST FIVE YEARS 1. ( ) BETTER THAN FIVE YEARS AGO 2. ( ) LITTLE OR NO CHANGE IN LAST FIVE YEAR 3. ( ) POORER THAN FIVE YEARS AGO O. ( ) DON'T KNOW WELL ENOUGH TO EVALUATE