Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ofMadison 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
