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 47
l:v
G - ics Programs
In this chapter 35 research-doctorate programs in the classics are
assessed. These programs, according to the information supplied by
their universities, have accounted for 334 doctoral degrees awarded
during the FY1976-80 period. On the average, 17 full-time and part-
time students intending to earn doctorates were enrolled in a program
in December 1980, with an average faculty size of 11 members. 2 Only
three of the programs were initiated since 1970, and no two programs
are located in the same university. In addition to the 35 institutions
represented in this discipline, another 6 were initially identified as
meeting the criteria3 for inclusion in the assessment:
-
University of Dallas
Saint Louis University
SUNY at Albany
Tufts University
Western Conservative Baptist
Seminary--Oregon
Yeshiva University
Classics programs at these six institutions have not been included in
the evaluations in this discipline, since in each case the study
t Date from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 316
research doctorates in classical languages and literature were awarded
by U.S. universities between FY1976 and FY1980. Since the NRC figure
is based on field of degree and not department, it may exclude some
doctorates included in the numbers reported by institutional
coordinators.
2 See the reported means for measures 03 and 01 in Table 4.2.
3As mentioned in Chapter I, the primary criterion for inclusion was
that a university had awarded at least 3 doctorates in the classics
during the FY1976-78 period.
47
OCR for page 48
48
coordinator either indicated that the institution did not at that time
have a research-doctorate program in classics or failed to provide the
information requested by the committee.
Before examining individual program results presented in Table 4.1,
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 4.2. For eight of the
measures, data are reported for at least 31 of the 35 classics pro-
grams. For measures 04-07, which pertain to characteristics of the
program graduates, data are presented for less than half of the
programs; the other programs had too few graduates on which to base
statistics.4
Intercorrelations among the 12 measures (Pearson product-moment
coefficients) are given in Table 4.3. Of particular note are the high
positive correlations of the measures of program size (01-03) with
reputational survey ratings (08, 09~. Figure 4.1 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 the classics. Figure 4.2 plots the mean rating of
program effectiveness (measure 09) against the total number of
FY1976-80 program graduates (measure 02~. In both figures there is a
significant positive correlation between program size and reputational
rating.
Table 4.4 describes the 100 faculty members who participated in the
evaluation of classics programs. These individuals constituted 67
percent of those asked to respond to the survey in this discipline and
27 percent of the faculty population in the 35 research-doctorate pro-
grams being evaluated.5 More than one-third of the survey partici-
pants had earned their highest degree since 1970, and almost half held
the rank of full professor.
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 classics programs (and are
given in Table 4.11. For each program the mean rating and an associ-
ated "confidence interval" of 1.5 standard errors are illustrated in
Figure 4.3 (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 accuracy
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.
5See 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 49
49
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 50
50
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Classics
Prog
No. University - Department/Academic Unit
001. Boston University
Classical Studies *
002. Brown University
Classics
003. Bryn Mawr College
Classics
004. California, University of-Berkeley
Classics
005. California, University of-Los Angeles
Classics
006. Catholic University of America
Greek and Latin
007. Chicago, University of
Classical Languages and Literatures
008. Cincinnati, University of
Classics
009. Columbia University
Classics
010. Cornell University-Ithaca
Classics
Duke University
Classical Studies
012. Fordham University
Classical Languages and Literatures
013. Harvard University
The Classics
014. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign
Classics
015. Indiana University-Bloomington
Classical Studies
016. Iowa, University of-Iowa City
Classics
017. Johns Hopkins University
Classics
018. Loyola University of Chicago
Classical Studies
019 . Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor
Classical Studies
020 . Minnesota, University of
Classics
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
Program Size
(01) (02) (03)
8 5
43 43
10 13
48 55
12 14
53 57
17 9
66 49
12 3
53 40
8 6
43 45
11 4
51 41
11 8
51 48
12 8
53 48
12 7
53 46
8 9
43 49
6 3
38 40
19 36
71 91
9 15
46 58
10 6
48 45
8 7
43 46
4 9
33 49
9 6
46 45
15 14
61 57
11 11
51 52
8
41
24
57
43
77
30
63
18
51
6
39
9
42
18
51
30
63
13
46
12
45
16
49
36
70
15
48
10
43
9
42
17 .30
50 52
14 NA
47
26
59
30
63
Character istics of
Prouram Graduates
(04) (05) (06) (07)
NA NA
.08 6.0
36 61
.17 8.0
42 48
.31 8.0
52 48
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
.42 6.0
60 61
NA NA
.29 7.5
51 51
.25 8.5
48 45
NA NA
NA NA
NA .40
36
NA NA
NA NA
.46 .15
41 38
.42 .25
38 45
.69 .62
58 70
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
.58 .33
50 51
NA NA
.71 .54
60 65
.42 .25
38 45
NA NA
NA NA
.10
35
NA
.20 NA .70 .40
45 59 55
.07 11.2 .75 .25
35 28 63 45
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 51
51
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Classics
University Survey Ratings
Prog Survey Results Library Standard Error
No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (08) (09) (10) (11)
001. 2.4 1.1 0.8 1.4 -0.4 .~11 .08 .08 .06
44 40 42 53 36
002. 3.8 2.0 1.2 1.7 -1.1 .08 .06 .05 .05
59 57 63 62 29
003. 3.8 2.2 0.9 1.5 NA .09 .06 .06 .06
59 62 47 57
004. 4.6 2.4 1.2 1.8 2.2 .06 .06 .06 .05
67 66 62 64 63
005. 3.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 2.0 .11 .08 .10 .06
52 47 66 53 62
006. 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 NA .14 .11 .13 .06
35 39 41 27
007. 3.6 1.7 0.8 1.4 0.9 .09 .07 .08 .07
57 52 45 54 49
008. 2.9 1.8 0.7 1.1 -0.2 .10 .06 .09 .07
50 53 39 47 37
009. 3.7 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.7 .08 .05 .08 .06
58 57 54 56 58
010. 3.5 2.0 1.0 1.4 1.6 .08 .06 .08 .06
56 57 54 55 57
011. 2.8 1.8 1.1 1.3 0.3 .10 .07 .07 .07
49 53 58 52 44
012. 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 NA .10 .09 .12 .07
34 33 40 35
013. 4.9 2.7 0.8 1.9 3.0 .03 .05 .06 .04
70 70 45 67 72
014. 3.2 1.8 1.1 1.3 2.0 .09 .07 .09 .07
53 53 57 53 61
015. 2.8 1.7 1.0 1.3 0.9 .09 .07 .10 .07
48 51 52 51 50
016. 1.9 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.3 .11 .08 .07 .07
40 42 52 39 43
017. 2.5 .1.2 0.2 1.4 -0.4 .14 .09 .06 .06
46 42 18 54 36
018. 1.5 0.8 1.1 0.6 NA .12 .10 .06 .07
36 34 59 34
019. 4.1 2.3 1.1 1.7 1.8 .07 .05 .07 .05
61 63 57 62 59
020. 2.4 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.2 .10 .09 .10 .07
44 48 56 45 52
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 52
52
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Classics
Character istics of
Prog Program Size Program Graduates
No. University- Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
021. Missouri, University of-Columbia 5 3 4 NA NA NA NA
Classics and Classical Archaeology* 36 40 37
022. New York University 5 4 3 NA NA NA NA
Cl assics 36 41 36
023. North Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill 15 24 11 .28 8.7 .58 .21
Cl assics 61 72 44 50 44 50 42
024 . Ohio State University-Columbus 11 11 18 .25 6.0 .60 .20
Classics 51 52 51 48 61 52 42
025. Pennsylvania, University of 11 7 5 NA . NA NA NA
Classical Studies 51 46 38
026. Princeton University 13 12 25 .47 5.8 .67 .47
Cl assics 56 54 5 8 64 62 5 7 60
027. Rutgers, The State University-New Brunswick 8 3 15 NA NA NA NA
Classics 43 40 48
028. SUNY at Buffalo 8 11 16 .18 7.8 .36 .27
Cl assics 43 52 49 43 50 34 4 7
029. Stanford University 12 12 15 .64 7 ~ 5 .79 . 50
Cl assics 53 54 4 8 77 51 66 62
030. Texas, University of-Austin 22 13 25 .29 10.5 .50 . 21
Classics 79 55 58 51 33 44 42
031. Vanderbilt University 6 7 5 NA NA NA NA
Classical Studies 38 46 38
032. Virginia, University of 9 2 6 NA NA NA NA
Classics 46 38 39
033. Washington, University of-Seattle 9 8 12 NA NA NA NA
Classics 46 48 45
034. Wisconsin, University of—Madison 10 6 14 NA NA NA NA
Classics 48 45 47
035. Yale University 17 18 33 .22 6.3 .65 .41
Cl assical Languages and Literatures 66 63 66 46 59 55 56
* 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 a 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
OCR for page 53
53
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Classics
(08) (09) (10)
1.5 1.0 0.8
36 39
2.1 0.9
42 36
3.9 2.3
60 63
2.6 1.5
47 48
3.7 1.9
57 56
026. 4.1
62
027. 1.9
39
028. 2.7
47
029. 3.4
55
030. 3.8
58
031. 1.4
34
032. 1.9
40
033. 2.2
42
034. 2.6
47
035. 4.4
65
University
survey Recut to: Library
(11) (12)
0.8 -0.2
37 38
1.0 0.5
44 45
1.6 1.0
59 50
1.3 0.9
51 49
1.5 0.7
56 47
1.7 0.9
63 49
0.9 0.8
42 48
1.0 0.3
44 43
1.4 2.0
54 62
1.6 1.6
60 57
43
0.6
33
0.9
49
1.0
54
0.9
48
2.3 1.1
63 58
1.0 1.0
37 52
1.5 0.7
47 41
2.0 0.7
58 40
2.0 I.3
58 67
0.9 0.9
36 48
1.0 1.2
37 63
1.4 0.9
46 48
1.5 0.8
48 43
2.2 1.1
62 58
line
Survey Ratings
Standard Error
(08) (09) (10)
.14
.11
.06
.10
.08
.05
.09 .07
.08 .07
.08 .07
.11 .09
.10 .08
.08 .04
.06 .06
0.7 -0.7
36 32
0.9 0.7
39 48
0.8 1.5
38 55
1.0 1.6
44 56
1.7 2.1
62 62
—
(11)
· 09 e 06
.07 .07
.08 .06
.07
.08
.06
.06
.08 .05
.08 .07
.09 .07
.09 .06
.07 .05
.10 .09 .06
.11 .11 .09 .06
.10 .09 .09 .06
.10 .08 .06 .07
.07 .06 .08 .05
NOTE: On the first
are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized
form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation a 10. "NAB indicates that
the value for a measure is not available.
of data for every program, raw values for each measure
OCR for page 54
54
TABLE 4.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Classics
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 11 4 6 8 8 9 10 11 12 12 16
Std Value 35 50 10 38 43 43 46 48 51 53 53 64
02 Raw Value 35 10 7 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 13 15
Std Value 35 50 10 40 42 45 46 48 49 52 55 58
03 Raw Value 3S 17 10 5 8 11 13 15 16 18 25 30
Std Value 35 50 10 38 41 44 46 48 49 51 58 63
Program Graduates
04 Raw Value 16 .28 .14 .08 .17 .20 .23 .25 .28 .29 .31 .44
Std Value 16 50 10 36 42 44 46 48 50 51 52 61
05 Raw Value 14 7.7 1.6 10.9 9.0 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.5 6.5 6.0 6.0
Std Value 14 50 10 30 42 46 48 49 51 57 60 60
06 Raw Value 16 .58 .13 .39 .42 .45 .53 .58 .63 .67 .70 .73
Std Value 16 50 10 35 38 40 46 50 54 57 59 62
07 Raw Value 16 .32 .14 .13 .20 .21 .25 .25 .31 .40 .46 .52
Std Value 16 50 10 36 41 42 45 45 49 56 60 64
Survey Results
08 Raw Value 35 2.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.8 4.1
Std Value 35 50 10 35 40 44 47 49 53 57 59 62
09 Raw Value 35 1.6 .5 .9 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.3
Std Value 35 50 10 36 38 42 48 50 54 58 58 63
10 Raw Value 35 .9 .2 .7 .7 .8 .9 .9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
Std Value 35 50 10 40 40 44 49 49 54 59 59 63
11 Raw Value 35 1.2 .4 .7 .8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7
Std Value 35 50 10 35 38 44 46 52 54 54 60 62
University Library
12 Raw Value 31 1.0 1.0 -.4 -.1 .4 .8 .9 1.1 1.6 1.8 2.0
Std Value 31 50 10 36 39 44 48 49 52 57 59 61
NOTE: Standardized values reported in the preceding table have been computed
of the mean and standard deviation and not the rounded values reported
from exact values
here.
OCR for page 55
55
TABLE 4.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 35 Programs
in Classics
Measure
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Program Size
01 .63 .64 .04 -.30 .45 .49 .81 .80 .52 .71 .69
02 .58 -.05 -.03 .21 .25 .66 .72 .07 .61 .44
03 -.38 -.12 .18 .32 .65 .66 .28 .61 .53
Program Graduates
04 .29 .38 .49 .10 .17 -.20 .14 .27
05 -.02 .21 .18 .14. -.05 .26 -.29
06 .70 .34 .44 .24 .29 .59
07 .64 .69 .21 .48 .71
Survey Results
08 .96 .31 .95 .59
09 .30 .88 .59
10 .25 .33
11 .45
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 56
56
5 . 0++
+
+
4.0++
+
+
Measure +
3.0++
0 8 +
+
+
2. 0++
+
+
1 . 0++
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* *
*
: *
* *
*
O. O +/++++++++++++++++++++++++/++++++++++++++++++++++++/++++++++++++++++++++++++/++++++++++++++++++++++++/
1 4 9 16 25
Measure 01 (square root scale)
FIGURE 4.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members
(measure 01)--35 programs in classics.
OCR for page 57
57
3 . 0++
+
+
2 . 0++
Measure +
09 +
1 . 0++
*
:*
*
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
*
*
*
* *
* *
*
*
*
r ~ .76
O. O +/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/+++++++++++++++/
1 4 9 16 25 36 49
Measure 02 (square root scale)
FIGURE 4.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09)
versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02)--35 programs in classics.
OCR for page 58
58
TABLE 4.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Classics
Respondents
N
Field of Specialization
Classics 93 93
Other/Unknown 7 7
Faculty Rank
Professor 47 47
Associate Professor 32 32
Assistant Professor 21 21
Year of Highest Degree
Pre-1950 8 8
1950-59 17 17
1960-69 39 39
Post-1969 35 35
Unknown 1 1
Evaluator Selection
Nominated by Institution 79 79
Other 21 21
Survey Form
With Faculty Names 88 88
Without Names 12 12
Total Evaluators 100 100
OCR for page 59
59
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Mean Survey Rating (measure 08)
FIGURE 4.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 35 programs in classics.
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 60
Representative terms from entire chapter:
std value
