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.
v:l French Language and Literature Programs In this chapter 58 research-doctorate programs in French language and literature are assessed. These programs, according to the infor- mation supplied by their universities, have accounted for 811 doctoral degrees awarded during the FY1976-80 period--approximately 82 percent of the aggregate number of French language and literature doctorates earned from U.S. universities in this five-year span. With respect to this percentage it should be pointed out that five of the university coordinators providing program information to the committee were unable to determine how many of the recent graduates from the departments of romance languages or modern languages were degree recipients in French. Data for these five programs are not included in the above estimate. On the average, 20 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 Most of the 58 programs, listed in Table 6.1, are located in departments of French and Italian or romance languages. Eleven are found in departments of French (only) and eight in modern languages. Only one of the programs was initiated since 1970, and no two programs are located in the same university. In addi- tion to the 58 institutions represented in this discipline, another 4 were initially identified as meeting the criteria3 for inclusion in the assessment: Georgetown University Middlebury College SUNY at Binghamton University of Rochester Data from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 985 research doctorates in French language and literature were awarded by U.S. universities between FY1976 and FY1980. 2 See the reported means for measures 03 and 01 in Table 6.2. 3 As mentioned in Chapter I, the primary criterion for inclusion was that a university had awarded at least 5 doctorates in French during the FY1976-78 period. 83
84 French 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 have a research-doctorate program in French or failed to provide the information requested by the committee. Before examining individual program results presented in Table 6.1, 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 6.2. For eight of the measures, data are reported for at least 52 of the 58 French programs. For measures 04-07, which pertain to characteristics of the program graduates, data are presented for only approximately two-thirds of the programs; the other third had too few graduates on which to base statistics.4 Intercorrelations among the 12 measures (Pearson product-moment coefficients) are given in Table 6.3. Of particular note are the high positive correlations of the measures of program size (01-03) and library index (12) with reputational survey ratings (08, 091. Figure 6.1 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 S8 programs in French. Figure 6.2 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 6.4 describes the 110 faculty members who participated in the evaluation of French programs. These individuals constituted 63 percent of those asked to respond to the survey in this discipline and 18 percent of the faculty population in the 58 research-doctorate pro- grams being evaluated.5 Approximately one-third of the survey parti- c~pants had earned their highest degree since 1970, and a majority held the rank of full professor. One exception should be noted with regard to the survey evaluations in this discipline. It has been called to the attention of the com- mittee that the faculty list (used in the survey} for the Department of Romance Languages and Literatures at Harvard University was missing the name of one member. The committee has decided to report the survey results for this program but cautions that the reputational ratings may have been influenced by this omission. 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 58 French programs (and are given 4As 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. ssee Table 2.3 in Chapter II.
85 in Table 6.1~. For each program the mean rating and an associated "confidence interval" of 1.5 standard errors are illustrated in Figure 6.3 (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 appar- ent 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. 6 See pp. 28-30 for a discussion of the interpretation of mean ratings and associated confidence intervals.
86 TABLE 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Lang. & Lit. Prog No. University - Department/Academic Unit 001. Arizona, University of-Tucson Romance Languages 002. Boston College Romance Languages and Literature 003. Boston University Modern Foreign Languages and Literature 004. Brown University French Stud ies 005. Bryn Mawr College French 006. CUNY-Graduate School French 007. California, University of-Berkeley French 008. California, University of-Davis French and I tat fan 009. California, University of-Irvine French and I tal fan 010. California, University of-Los Angeles French 011. California, University of-Santa Barbara French and I tat fan 012. Case Western Reserve University Modern Languages and Literatures 013. Catholic University of America Mod ern Languages 014. Chicago, University of Romance Languages and Literatures 015. Colorado, University of French and I tat fan 016. Columbia University French and Romance Phil of ogy 017. Connecticut, University of-Storrs Romance and Cl assical languages 018. Cornell University-Ithaca Romance Studies 019. Duke University Romance Languages 020. Emory University Mod ern Languages and Cl assics * indicates program was initiated since 1970. Program Size (01) (02) (03) 7 9 41 44 13 10 56 45 7 5 41 41 10 23 49 57 7 7 41 43 11 52 51 83 13 23 56 57 8 6 43 42 10 12 49 47 10 28 49 61 12 8 54 43 3 12 31 47 6 5 38 41 8 11 43 46 9 6 46 42 17 39 66 71 10 14 49 49 14 59 9 13 46 48 5 5 36 41 Characteristics of Program Graduates (04) (05) (06) (07) .50 .10 51 41 .73 .18 69 49 NA NA .48 .09 50 40 NA NA .25 .06 31 37 .47 .33 49 64 NA NA .46 .18 48 49 .40 .15 44 46 NA NA .29 .12 35 43 NA NA NA NA NA NA .51 .16 52 47 .67 .08 65 40 .67 .37 65 67 .42 .00 45 31 NA NA 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. 6 41 31 57 NA 12 .38 45 59 18 NA 49 40 .09 63 38 28 .31 55 54 10 44 13 .27 46 51 36 .05 60 35 .64 11.5 78 34 NA NA NA NA 8.1 57 NA 10.0 44 7.2 63 NA NA 8.7 53 8.8 53 4 40 6 .12 11.0 41 40 3 8 16 NA 48 36 60 15 47 76 85 10 .33 44 56 NA NA 9 43 10 44 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .25 11.5 50 34 8.5 55 .29 6.3 53 70 .46 7.6 65 61 NA NA
87 TABLE 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Lang. & Lit. Prog Survey Results No. (08) (09) (10) (11) 001. 002. 003. 004. 005. 1.6 39 1.7 40 1.3 36 2.7 51 2.6 49 006. 3.7 62 007. 3.6 61 008. 2.9 53 009. 3.2 56 010. 2.4 48 011. 2.9 53 012. 1.0 33 013. 1.2 34 014. 3.1 56 015. 1.5 38 016. 4.4 70 017. 1.7 40 018. 3.6 60 019. 3.2 56 020. 1.1 33 1.1 1.1 40 52 1.1 1.0 40 48 0.7 1.0 31 50 1.9 1.1 57 54 1.7 0.8 52 42 2.1 1.1 60 55 2.0 1.2 59 59 1.6 1.3 51. 62 1.9 1.3 55 62 1.6 0.7 50 36 1.7 1.2 53 56 0.8 0.3 34 23 1.0 0.7 37 38 1.9 0.8 56 43 1.1 0.8 40 41 2.3 1.0 65 57 1.2 1.1 42 54 2.2 1.0 63 52 1.9 1.2 57 57 0.7 0.6 32 33 University Libr ary (12) 0.6 0.9 38 54 0.6 NA 38 0. 5 -0 .4 36 42 1.0 -1.1 50 35 0.9 NA 48 1.4 60 1.5 62 1.0 49 1.3 58 1.0 49 1.2 55 0.6 38 0.4 34 1.1 53 0.6 38 1.8 72 0.6 38 1.3 59 1.3 56 0.6 38 NA 2.2 67 0.6 52 NA 2.0 65 O. . 1 44 1 . 3 33 NA 0.9 54 O. . 9 37 1.7 62 0 . 5 41 1.6 62 0.3 49 0.6 40 Survey Rat ing s Standard Error (08) (09) (10) (11) . 11 .10 .10 .06 .14 .13 .10 .12 .12 .09 .11 .13 .06 .10 .08 .07 .08 .07 .06 .08 .10 .08 .10 .07 .10 .08 .10 .08 .15 .11 .12 .11 .07 .07 .06 .07 .07 .06 .09 .07 .07 .07 .09 .07 .07 .07 .08 .07 .09 .06 .10 .07 .10 .07 .13 .10 .08 .06 .07 .06 .07 .04 .12 .09 .08 .06 .08 .06 .08 .07 .08 .05 .09 .06 .12 .11 .12 .07 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 form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
88 TABLE 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Lang. & Lit. Character istics of Prog Program Size Program Graduates No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) 021. Florida State University-Tallahassee 9 10 18 .09 6.8 .46 .00 Modern Languages 46 45 49 38 66 48 31 022. Fordham University 5 14 15 .29 11.5 .57 .07 Modern Languages and Literatures 36 49 47 52 34 57 38 023. Harvard University 9 NA 21 .13 9.0 .50 .18 Romance Languages and Literatures 46 51 40 51 S1 49 024. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign 19 20 20 .18 7.6 .52 .26 French 71 54 50 44 61 53 57 025. Indiana University-Bloomington 15 26 42 . 14 9.2 .54 .29 French and Italian 61 60 64 42 50 54 59 026. Iowa, University of-Iowa City 13 12 14 .30 8.5 .40 .30 French and I tal fan 56 4 7 46 53 55 44 61 027. Johns Hopkins University 3 17 13 .20 7.1 .47 .27 Romance languages 31 52 46 46 64 49 57 028 . Kansas, University of 11 13 10 .47 11.3 .77 . 24 French and I tal fan 51 4 8 44 66 36 72 54 029 . Kentucky, University of 8 9 1 .30 11.5 NA NA French Language and Literature 43 44 3 8 53 34 030. Maryland, University of-College Park 13 7 14 NA NA NA NA French and Ital fan Languages and Literature 56 43 46 031. Massachusetts, University of-Amherst 16 16 11 .18 9.5 .46 .27 French and Italian 64 51 45 45 48 48 58 032. Michigan State University-East Lansing 10 7 19 NA NA NA NA Romance & Classical languages & Literatures 49 43 50 033. Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor 16 14 15 .06 10.5 .28 .22 Romance Languages and literatures 64 49 47 35 41 34 53 034 . Minnesota, University of 8 11 13 . 18 9 .5 . 18 . 18 French and I tal fan 43 46 46 45 4 8 26 49 035. Missouri, University of-Columbia 9 8 10 NA NA NA NA Romance Language 46 43 44 036. Nebraska, University of-Lincoln 6 1 4 NA NA NA NA Modern Languages and Literatures 38 37 40 037. New York University 19 18 41 .09 10.0 .50 .20 French and Ital fan Languages & Literatures 71 52 63 38 44 51 51 038 . North Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill 8 28 39 .23 9 .1 .64 .32 Romance Languages 43 61 62 48 51 62 62 039. Northwestern University 12 15 11 .29 10.5 .44 .13 French and I tal fan 54 50 45 53 41 4 7 44 040 . Ohio State University-Columbus 10 NA NA . 16 10 .0 .44 . 17 Romance Languages and Literatures 49 43 44 47 48 * indicates program was initiated since 1970. 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 form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
89 TABLE 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Lang. & Lit. University Survey Ratings Prog Survey Results Library Standard Error No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (08) (09) (10) (11) 021. 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.3 -0.4 .11 .11 .06 .06 32 32 46 32 42 022. 1.9 1.3 0.8 0.8 NA .14 .10 .08 .07 42 43 42 44 023. 3.2 1.6 1.0 1.6 3.0 .09 .07 .09 .05 56 52 50 64 75 024. 3.5 2.0 1.2 1.3 2.0 .08 .05 .06 .06 60 59 57 57 65 025. 3.5 2.2 1.1 1.4 0.9 .11 .07 .06 .07 60 63 53 59 55 026. 2.3 1.4 -1.3 0.7 0.3 .09 .08 .11 .07 46 46 60 42 48 027. 2.5 1.7 0.2 1.4 -0.4 .19 .11 .05 .07 49 51 16 61 42 028. 2.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.1 .10 .08 .07 .08 46 48 44 45 46 029. 2.5 1.5 0.9 1.2 -0.1 .10 .07 .06 .07 49 48 44 54 45 030. 1.9 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.2 .11 .09 .09 .07 43 41 56 42 4 7 031. 2.4 1.5 1.2 0.9 -0.7 .12 .08 .08 .07 47 47 56 47 39 032. 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.3 .11 .10 .07 .07 46 45 46 48 49 033. 3.6 2.1 1.0 1.5 1.8 .08 .06 .07 .07 61 60 50 61 63 034. 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.8 1.2 .11 .08 .10 .08 4 7 48 56 44 5 7 035. 1.5 1.0 1.2 0.5 -0.2 .12 .12 .09 .06 38 37 56 37 44 036. 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.6 -0.5 .11 .10 .14 .07 32 29 53 38 41 037. 4.3 2.4 1.3 1.7 0.5 .08 .07 .07 .06 68 66 64 67 50 038. 2.9 1.9 0.8 1.3 1.0 .10 .07 .07 .06 54 57 41 56 55 039. 2.4 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.3 .10 .08 .08 .06 47 48 43 45 48 040. 2.6 1.6 0.9 1.0 0.9 .10 .08 .08 1 .06 50 50 44 50 54 1 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.
so TABLE 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Lang. & Lit. Prog No. University - Department/Academic Unit 041. Oregon, University of-Eugene Romance Languages 042. Pennsylvania State University French 043. Pennsylvania, University of Romance Languages 044. Pittsburgh, University of French and Ital fan Languages & Literatures 045. Princeton University Romance Languages and Literatures 04 6 . Rice University French and I tat fan 047. Rutgers, The State University-New Brunswick French 048. SUNY at Buffalo Modern Languages and Literatures 049. Southern California, University of French and I tat fan 0 50 . Stanford University French and I tat fan Program Size (01) (02) (03) 7 8 41 43 12 20 54 54 9 NA 46 11 51 11 51 6 16 38 51 15 6 61 42 10 11 49 46 7 4 41 40 12 14 54 49 8 4 43 40 23 26 57 54 Characteristics of Program Graduates (04) (05) (06) (07) 11 45 6 . 14 10 .0 41 42 44 NA .07 10.1 37 44 NA NA NA NA .36 6.8 58 66 15 47 54 71 7 .13 42 41 10 NA 44 18 49 .31 10 54 NA .46 8 65 3.5 41 NA 7.0 65 NA 8.0 58 NA .60 59 .67 65 NA .47 49 .64 62 NA NA .05 36 .29 60 NA .32 62 .36 67 NA .47 .27 49 57 NA NA .50 51 .08 40 051. Texas, University of-Austin 19 12 26 .27 9 .0 .50 .30 French and I tat fan 71 4 7 54 51 . 51 51 61 052. Tulane University 7 11 7 .50 8.4 .30 .10 French and Ital fan 41 46 42 68 55 36 41 053 . Vanderbilt University 11 18 6 .40 11.0 .33 .07 French and Italian 51 52 41 61 38 38 38 054. Virginia, University of 13 17 30 .29 9.5 .39 .15 French Language and Literature 56 52 56 52 48 42 46 055. Washington University-Saint Louis 6 9 6 NA NA NA NA Romance Languages 38 44 41 056 . Washington, University of-Seattle Romance Language and Literature 057. Wisconsin, University of-Madison French and I tat fan 058. Yale University French * indicates program was initiated since 1970. 19 71 14 52 59 83 16 48 64 79 NA NA .10 9.5 39 48 39 .36 8.9 62 57 52 71 82 .50 51 .38 42 .30 61 .11 42 .34 7.7 .53 .33 56 60 54 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.
91 TABLE 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Lang. & Lit. Prog Survey Results No. (08) (09) (10) (11) 041. 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.7 44 42 54 42 042. 2.6 1.7 1.1 1.1 50 53 55 51 043. 3.7 2.1 1.2 1.5 62 60 57 63 044. 2.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 48 46 50 48 045. 4.7 2.6 1.5 1.8 73 71 71 72 .7 1.1 51 55 1.5 1.4 48 66 1.7 0.8 52 41 0.9 0.9 35 47 2.1 1.2 61 58 1.8 1.0 55 50 1.4 1.0 46 51 1.6 1.0 51 48 2.0 1.5 59 72 1.S 0.8 49 41 046. 2.5 48 047. 2.6 50 048. 2.9 53 049. 1.6 39 OSO. 3.S 59 OS1. 2.9 53 OS2. 2.1 44 OS3. 2.7 51 054. 3.7 62 OSS. 2.3 47 1.0 50 0.6 39 0.8 44 1.S 63 0.7 43 1.6 61 -1.0 35 -0.7 38 0.7 53 -0.4 42 University Survey Ratings Library Standard Error (12) 0.9 36 0.7 52 0.7 52 0.1 46 0.9 54 1.0 -1.4 50 31 1.0 0.8 51 53 1.1 0.3 51 48 0.8 0.4 44 49 1.3 2.0 57 65 (08) (09) .11 .10 .08 .07 .08 .06 .10 .10 .OS .OS .08 .10 .09 .09 .07 .11 .11 .10 .06 tog .08 .11 .11 .11 .08 .08 .OS .12 .09 .07 .09 .06 .07 .06 .06 .04 .08 .03 10) (11) .10 .07 .07 .06 .06 .07 .06 .07 .OS .04 .07 .08 .08 .07 .08 .06 .09 .08 .09 .07 .08 .06 .06 .07 .07 .07 .07 .06 .09 .07 OS6. 2.3 1.6 1.1 0.7 1.S 47 50 53 41 60 OS7. 3.2 2.0 0.7 1.3 1.6 56 59 36 56 61 OS8. 4.8 2.7 1.1 1.9 2.1 74 74 53 73 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 = SO and standard deviation = 10. GINA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
92 TABLE 6.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--French Language & Literature Number of Programs Measure Evaluated Mean Standard D E C I L E S Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Program Size 01 Raw Value 58 11 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 Std Value 58 50 10 38 41 43 46 49 51 54 56 64 02 Raw Value 53 15 11 5 7 9 11 12 14 16 20 27 Std Value 53 50 10 41 43 44 46 47 49 51 54 60 03 Raw Value 53 20 16 6 7 10 11 14 16 20 30 40 Std Value 53 50 10 41 42 44 45 46 48 50 56 63 Program Graduates 04 Raw Value 40 .26 .14 .09 .12 .14 .18 .27 .29 .31 .36 .46 Std Value 40 50 10 38 40 41 44 51 52 54 57 64 05 Raw Value 40 9.2 1.5 11.5 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.2 8.9 8.5 7.7 7.1 Std Value 40 50 10 34 41 44 48 50 52 55 60 64 06 Raw Value 40 .48 .13 .29 .39 .44 .46 .47 .50 .51 .57 .67 Std Value 40 50 10 35 43 47 48 49 52 52 57 65 07 Raw Value 40 .19 .10 .06 .08 .11 .15 .18 .22 .27 .30 .32 Std Value 40 50 10 37 39 42 46 49 53 58 61 63 Survey Results . 08 Raw Value 58 2.6 .9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.S 3.7 Std Value 58 50 10 36 40 45 48 49 51 55 60 62 09 Raw Value 58 1.6 .5 .9 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 Std Value 58 50 10 36 40 46 48 50 52 56 59 61 10 Raw Value 58 1.0 .2 .7 .8 .9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Std Value 58 50 10 37 41 45 50 50 54 54 58 62 11 Raw Value 58 1.0 .4 .6 .6 .8 .9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 Std Value 58 50 10 39 39 44 47 50 52 58 58 63 University Library 12 Raw Value 52 .5 1.0 -.9 -.5 -.4 .2 .3 .7 .9 1.5 1.9 Std Value 52 50 10 37 41 41 47 48 52 54 60 64 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
93 TABLE 6.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on S8 Programs in French Language & Literature Measure 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Program Size 01 .40 .52 -.18 .10 .09 .31 .57 .56 .49 .43 .5S 02 .67 -.14 .06 -.11 .07 .64 .67 .02 .63 .51 03 -.20 .06 .10 .28 .60 .S8 .16 .59 .55 Program Graduates 04 -.01 .14 -.18 -.06 -.02 .16 -.1S -.17 05 .03 .23 .22 .26 .12 .20 .18 06 33 .00 04 04 04 05 07 .38 .41 .11 .38 .25 Survey Results 08 .97 .45 .94 .62 09 .37 .90 .58 10 .31 .22 11 .61 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.
94 5. 0++ 4 . 0++ Measure + 3.0++ 0 8 + . 2. 0++ 1 . 0++ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r = .58 u . O +/++++++++++++++++++++++++/++++++++++++++++++++++++/++++++++++++++++++++++++/++++++++++++++++++++++++/ 1 4 g 16 25 Measure 01 (square root scale) FIGURE 6.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01)--58 programs in French language & literature.
95 3.0++ + + + + + 2. 0++ + Measure + 09 + + 1.0++ + + +* O. O +/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/+++++++++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r = .45 * * Measure 02 ( square root scale) FIGURE 6.2 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 French language & literature.
96 TABLE 6.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in French Language & Literature Respondents N Field of Specialization French Language and Literature 100 Other/Unknown 10 Faculty Rank 91 9 Professor 59 54 Associate Professor 37 34 Assistant Professor 14 13 Year of Highest Degree Pre-1950 5 5 1950-59 25 23 1960-69 43 39 Post-1969 36 33 Unknown 1 1 Evaluator Selection Nominated by Institution 96 87 Other 14 13 Survey Form With Faculty Names 102 93 Without Names 8 7 Total Evaluators 110 100
97 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Mean Survey Rating (measure 08) FIGURE 6.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 58 programs in French language & literature. 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.