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 59
IV
Botany Progress
In this chapter 83 research-doctorate programs in botany are as-
sessed. These programs, according to the information supplied by their
universities, have accounted for 1.574 doctoral H-ar-~= :awAr~ Front
the FY1976-80 period. On the average, 20 full-time and part-time
s tudents intending to earn doctorates were enrolled in a program in
December 1980, with an average faculty size of 19 members.2 A major-
ity of the 83 programs, listed in Table 4.1, are located in botany or
botanical science departments. Approximately one-third are found in
departments of plant pathology or plant physiology. Four programs were
initiated since 1970. Each of 11 institutions--Clemson University,
University of Georgia, University of Illinois, Iowa State University,
University of Missouri, North Carolina State University, Ohio State
University, Oklahoma State University, Pennsylvania State University,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and University of
Wisconsin (Madison)--has two botany programs evaluated in this study.
Each of five institutions--University of California (Berkeley), Uni-
versity of California (Davis), University of Kentucky, University of
Minnesota, and Texas A&M University--has three botany programs evalu-
ated. In addition to the 62 institutions represented in this disci-
pline, another 2 were initially identified as meeting the criteria3
for inclusion in the assessment:
Brandeis University
Harvard University
_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en _ __ _-e~
data from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 1,488
research doctorates in botany, phytopathology, and plant physiology
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 ex-
clude some doctorates included in the numbers reported by the institu-
tional coordinators.
2See 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 7 doctorates in botany during
the FY1976-78 period.
59
OCR for page 60
60
Botany programs at these two institutions have not been included in the
evaluations in this discipline, since in each case the study coordina-
tor indicated that the institution did not at that time have a re-
search-doctorate program in botany.
Before examining individual program results presented in Table 4.1,
the reader is urged to refer to Chapter II, in which each of the 16
measures used in the assessment is discussed. Summary statistics de-
scribing every measure are given in Table 4.2. For nine of the mea-
sures, data are reported for at least 78 of the 83 botany 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 sta-
tistics.4 For measure 12, a composite index of the size of a uni-
versity library, data are available for 68 programs. With respect to
measure 13--the fraction of faculty with research grants from the Na-
tional Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, or the
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration--data are re-
ported for 45 programs that had at least 10 faculty members; for mea-
sure 14, the total university expenditures for research in the biolog-
ical sciences, data are available for 69 programs. m e programs not
evaluated on measures 12, 13, and 14 are typically smaller--in terms
of faculty size and graduate student enrollment--than other botany pro-
grams. Were data on these two measures available for all 83 programs,
it is likely that their reported means would be appreciably lower (and
that some of the correlations of these measures with others would be
higher).
Intercorrelations among the 16 measures (Pearson~product-moment
coefficients) are given in Table 4.3. Of particular note are the mod-
erately high positive correlations of the measures of the numbers of
faculty (01) and students (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 83 programs in botany. Figure 4.2
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 pro-
gram size and reputational rating, it is quite apparent that some of
the smaller programs received high mean ratings.
Table 4.4 describes the 153 faculty members who participated in the
evaluation of botany programs. mese individuals constituted 61 per-
cent of those asked to respond to the survey in this discipline and 10
percent of the faculty population in the 83 research-doctorate programs
being evaluated.5 Approximately three-fourths of the survey partici-
pants were botanists, plant physiologists, or phytopathologists; the
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.
s see Table 2.3 in Chapter II.
OCR for page 61
61
remainder were in ecology or other biological science fields. More
than two-thirds of the survey participants had earned their-highest
degree prior to 1970, and a majority 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 83 botany programs (and are
given in Table 4.11. For each program the mean rating and an associ-
ated "confidence interval" of 1.S 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
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. 31-33 for a discussion of the interpretation of mean ratings
and associated confidence intervals.
OCR for page 62
62
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Characteristics of
Prog Program Size Program Graduates
No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03} t04) (05) (06} (07)
001. Arizona, University of-Tucson 9 10 11 NA NA NA NA
Botany 43 46 44
002. Auburn University 15 9 3 NA NA NA NA
Botany, Plant Pathology, and M ~ crobioJogy 4 7 46 3 8
003. Brigham Young University 12 18 16 .08 5.5 .58 .25
Botany and Range so ~ ence 45 49 4 7 40 63 44 45
004. California, University of-Irvine 9 9 8 NA NA NA NA
Dev & Cel l Bio/Eco ~ & Evol ut Bio/Molec Boo 43 46 42
005. California, University of-Berkeley 15 42 40 . 3-4 5. 8 .86 . 60
Botany 47 60 64 60 58 62 70
006. California, University of-Berkeley 16 14 19 .13 5.2 .83 .17
Plant Pathology 48 48 49 44 67 61 39
007. California, University of-Berkeley 35 4 7 .19 6.6 .85 .60
Plaz2t Physiology 62 43 41 48 48 62 70
008. California, University of-Davis 55 38 20 .21 6.8 .61 .34
Botany 76 58 50 50 45 46 52
009. California, University of-Davis 20 29 NA .15 5.4 .81 .46
Plant Pathology 51 54 45 64 59 60
010. California, University of-Davis 85 41 NA .09 6.4 .64 .34
Plant Physiology 98 60 41 50 48 52
011. California, University of-Los Angeles 20 28 21 .31 5.5 .54 .46
Biology 51 54 51 r 5 8 63 41 60
012. California, University of-Riverside 15 31 37 .04 6.2 .70 .30
Plant Pathology 47 55 61 37 54 52 49
013. Chicago, University of 5 8 13 NA NA NA NA
Biology
014. Claremont Graduate School 5 4 4 NA NA NA NA
Botany 40 43 3g
015. Clemson University 12 8 3 NA NA NA NA
PI ant Pathol ogy 45 45 3 8
016. Clemson University 11 6 16 NA NA NA NA
Plant Physiology 44 44 47
017. Colorado State University-Fort Collins 27 8 11 .00 5.5 .70 .30
Botany and Plant Pathology 56 45 44 34 63 52 49
018. Colorado, University of 10 11 14 .14 8. 0 .36 .14
Environmental, Population & Organismic Bio 43 46 46 45 29 29 37
019. Connecticut, University of-Storrs 13 9 20 NA NA NA NA
Biological Sciences 45 46 50
020. Cornell University-Ithaca 26 59 38 .18 6.5 .78 .42
Botany 55 67 62 47 50 57 5
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
NOTE: On the f irst line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported;
can 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 63
63
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Prog Survey Results
No. (08) (09) (10) (11)
001. 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.4
40 45 3 8 40
002. 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.6
41 42 54 46
003. 2.4 1.7 1.2 0.5
43 4 7 49 44
004. 3.0 1.8 1.1 0.7
50 50 44 49
005. 4.3 2.5 0.9 1.1
65 65 34 66
2.1 1.2 0.7
56 50 49
2.3 1.1 0.9
60 44 5 7
2.6 1.4 1.4
6 7 63 74
2.5 1.2 0.6
66 52 48
2.6 1.5 1.2
68 65 66
2.1 1.2 1.0
5 7 51 62
2.3 1.3 0.8
61 58 54
1.7 0.9 0.6
48 37 46
1.7 0.8 0.7
47 27 52
1.3 NA 0.2
39 35
0.8
27
1.8
50
1.7
46
1.7
47
2.5
65
006. 3.8
59
007. 4.2
64
008. 4.5
68
009. 4.3
66
010. 4.5
68
011. 3.8
60
012. 3.9
61
013. 2.6
45
014. 3.4
55
015. 1.9
36
016. 1.3
29
017. 3.0
49
018. 2.4
42
019. 2.6
45
020. 4.2
65
NA 0.2
32
1.3 0.9
55 57
1.4 0.4
63 40
1.3 0.7
55 49
1.2 1.1
51 66
Univers ~ ty
ibrarY
(12)
0.9
55
NA
0.6
41
NA
2.2
69
2.2
69
2.2
69
0.6
53
0.6
53
0.6
53
2.0
66
1 . O
37
0.9
55
NA
NA
NA
1 .1
36
0.9
38
0.5
42
1.6
63
Research Published
Supper t Articles
(13) (14) (1 5) (16)
NA 7828 32
49 45 45
too NA 28
37 44 44
.08 NA 10
41 40 42
NA 6547 16
4 7 41 43
.73 18977 101
71 69 58 56
.06 18977
40 69
.31 18977
52 69
.26 18053
49 67
.20 18053
47 67
.24 18053
48 67
.65 15581
67 63
.40 6232
56 46
NA 17589
66
NA NA
.00 1275
37 37
.00 1275
37 37
.04 8863
39 51
.40 11967
56 56
.39 15199
55 62
.31 14597
51 61
101
58 56
101
58 56
208
79 86
208
79 86
208
79 86
25
43
117
61
14
41
38
13
41
~3
41
47
48
12
41
14
41
169
71
Survey Ratings
Standard Error
(08) (09) (10) (11)
. 13 .11 . 10 .0 6
.15 .09 .11
.12 .08 .09
.13 .07 .11
.07
.06
.07
.08 .06 .09 .08
.12 .06 .12 .09
.08 .08 .10 .08
.07 .06 .08 .08
.11 .08 .10 .09
.07 .06 .08 .08
.09 .06 .08 .08
.13 .07 .09 .09
.15 .10 .12 .06
.15 .12 .07 .08
.18 .11 NA .05
.26 .17 NA
41
.12 .07 .08 .07
48
.18 .14 .15 .07
44
.09 .07 .09 .07
43
68
.07 .06 .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. "NAT indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in
standardized form are reported for this measure.
OCR for page 64
64
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Prog
No. University - Department/Academic Unit
021. Duke University
Botany
022. Florida, University of-Gainesville
Botany/Plant Pathology
023. Georgia, University of-Athens
Botany
024. Georgia, University of-Athens
Plant Pathology
025. Hawaii, University of
Botanical Sciences*
026. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign
Botany
027. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign
Plant Pathology and Plant Physiology
028. Indiana University-Bloomington
Biology
029. Iowa State University-Ames
Botany
030. Iowa State University-Ames
Plant Pathology, Seed and Weed Sciences
031.
Iowa, University of-Iowa City
Botany
032. Kansas State University-Manhattan
Plant Pathology
033. Kansas, University of
Botany
034. Kentucky, University of
Biological Sciences
035. Kentucky, University of
Plant Pathology (College of AgricultureJ
036. Kentucky, University of
Plant Physiology (College of AgricultureJ
037. Louisiana State University-Baton Rouge
Botany
038. Maryland, University of-College Park
Botany
039. Massachusetts, University of-Amherst
Botany
040. Miami University-Ohio
Botany
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
Character ist ics of
Program Size Program Graduates
(01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
19 35
50 57
42 28
67 54
19 23
50 52
19 10
50 46
41 20
66 50
27 16
56 49
39 29
65 54
14 23
46 52
20 20
51 50
16 11
48 46
12 14
45 48
13 4
45 43
11 7
44 45
7 3
41 43
14 9
46 46
10 5
43 44
7 5
41 44
21 31
51 55
18 20
49 50
14 12
46 47
59
77
60
77
33
59
7
41
21
51
28
55
6
40
22
51
23
52
12
44
18 .19
48 48
10 NA
43
9
42
4
39
11
44
9
42
6
40
59
77
27
55
15
46
43 6.0
66 56
12 7.7
43 34
36 7.0
61 43
36 6.0
61 56
29 7.5
56 36
25 5.9
53 57
05 5.7
37 61
44 5.8
67 58
11 6.5
42 49
NA NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA NA
NA NA
08 6.8
40 IS
44 6.5
68 49
08 5.5
40 63
6.0 .81
56 59
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
.59 .41
44 57
.74 .32
55 50
.77 .41
57 57
.36
29
.71
52
.09
34
.18
40
.81 .50
59 63
.74 .26
54 46
.50 .31
38 50
.83 .33
61 51
NA NA
.44
59
NA
NA
NA NA
NA
NA NA
NA NA
.54 .19
41 41
.72 .33
53 51
.91 .46
66 60
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 65
65
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Prog Survey Results
No. (08) (09) (10) (11)
021. 4.0 2.5 1.2 1.0
62 65 50 62
022. 3.1 1.9 1.3 1.0
51 52 58 62
023. 3.7 2.1 1.5 1.0
58 56 69 62
024. 3.0 1.9 1.4 0.5
50 52 65 44
025. 3.0 1.8 1.3 0.6
ag An 59 48
1.2 1.0
52 63
1.4 1.0
62 62
1.0 1.0
40 62
1.1 0.6
46 46
1.0 0.6
38 45
0.9 0.5
37 45
1.5 0.5
69 42
1.1 0.6
48 46
NA 0.4
39
1.6 0.6
72 48
1.3 0.4
55 41
1.1 0.4
46 40
1.2 0.8
53 52
1.1 0.9
43 56
1.3 0.6
55 49
026. 3.8
60
027. 3.9
60
028. 3.7
58
029. 3.2
52
030. 3.0
50
031. 2.6
45
032. 2.7
46
033. 2.7
46
034. 1.9
36
035. 3.3
53
036. 2.7
45
037. 1.9
36
038. 2.7
47
039. 3.4
54
040. 3.1
51
2.2
58
2.3
61
2.1
57
1.9
52
1.9
51
1.7
47
1.6
44
1.8
49
1.0
31
2.0
54
1.6
45
1.3
38
1.7
48
1.8
50
1.8
50
—O . 1
46
—0.3
43
0.2
48
-0.7
40
-0.8
39
University Research
Library Suppor t
(12) (13) (14)
0.3 .84 11320
50 76 55
0.8 .10 3486
54 42 41
0.4 .63 10714
51 66 54
0.4 .05 10714
51 40 54
-0. 1 .20 4440
45 46 43
2.0 .41 6074
66 56 46
2.0 .28 6074
66 50 46
0.9 .57 NA
56 64
—0.5
42
-0.5
42
0.3
50
NA
0.1
48
- O . 1
46
—O. 1
46
.10 5287
42 45
.00 5287
37 45
.25 7088
49 48
.15 2496
44 40
.55 3161
62 41
NA 484
36
.00 484
37 36
.30 484 46
51 36 47
NA 5116 38
44 46
.24 1623 20
48 38 42
.33 3022 36
53 41 45
.43 NA 14
57 41
43
42
42
46
46
Published Survey Ratings
Art icles Standard Error
(IS) (16) (08) (09) (10) (11)
22 .10
43 44
94
57 50
126
63 59
126
63 59
63
51 46
134
65 66
134
65 66
24
43 46
57
49 48
57
49 48
10
40
22
43
9
40
46
47
46
47
.07
.09 .05
.08 .06
.16 .11
.13 .09
.07 .05
.10 .07
.09 .06
.10 .06
.15 .06
.13 .09
.16 .12
.09 .09
.09 .07
·09 .08
.10 .08
.09 .07
·09 .08
·09 .08
.08 .09
·07 .08
.11 .08
.13
.13
.07
.07
.12 .11 .10 .07
.18 .15 NA .07
.11 .07 .09 .08
.15 .10 .12 .07
.17 .13 .12 .06
.12 .08 .11 .07
.11 .07
.13 .09
NOTE: On the f irst 1 ine of clAta fOr - `r~rV nrc~arAm. row cram Il"= freer "AC:h m - A ::~1r" Arm rROOrt~cl.
.0 8 .08
.09 .07
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.
Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in
standardized form are reported for this measure.
OCR for page 66
66
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Prog
No. University - Department/Academic Unit
041. Michigan State Universit'East Lansing
Botany and Pl ant Pathol ogy
Q42. Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor
Blot ogical Sciences
043. Minnesota, University of
Agricul sure/ Biol ogical Sc ~ effaces/ Forestry
044. Minnesota, University of
Botany
045. Minnesota, University of
Pl ant Pathol ogy
046. Missouri, University of-Columb~a
Viol ogical Sciences
047 . Missouri, University of-Columbia
Pl ant Patbol ogy *
048. Montana, University of-Missoula
Botany
049 . Nebraska, University of-Lincoln
Li f e Sciences
050. North Carolina State Un~versity-Raleigh
Botany
051. North Carolina State Univers~ty-Raleigh
Pl art Patrol of
052. Nor to Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill
Botany
053. North Dakota State University-Fargo
Botany
054. North Dakota, University of-Grand Forks-
B ~ ology
055. Ohio State Univers'ty~olumbus
Botany
056. Ohio State University~olumbus
Pl ant Pathol ogy
057. Oklahoma State Un~versity-Stil [water
Botany
058. Oklahoma State Un~versity-St~llwater
Plant Sciences
059. Oklahoma, University of-Norman
Botany/Microbiol ogy
060. Oregon State University~orvallis
Botany and Pl ant Pathol ogy
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
Program Size
(01) (02) (03)
28 46
56 62
74 31
go 55
26 8
55 45
18 20
49 50
18 22
49 51
8 7
42 45
10
43
10 10
43 46
24 17
54 49
20 20
51 50
36 19
62 50
19 }5
50 48
8 13
42 47
2 4
37 43
21 22
51 51
22 8
52 45
7 4
41 43
4 ~ 194
65 99
12 12
45 47
27 30
56 55
53
72
41
64
12
44
6
40
17
48
11
44
8 14
45 46
10
43
27 .18
55 48
26
54
36
61
27
55
10
43
10
43
19
49
19
49
4
39
42
65
10 .17
43 46
41
64
Characteristics of
Program Graduates
(04) (05) (06) (07)
.19 6.6
48 48
.41 6.3
65 52
·40 8.0
64 29
.32 7.5
58 36
.20 7.5
49 36
NA NA
NA NA
.27 7.0
55 43
6.1 .80
54 59
.17 7.4
46 38
.21 6.8
50 46
.25 6.2
53 54
NA NA
NA NA
.13 5.5
44
.20 5.D
49 70
NA
.03 6.5
36 49
6.9 .67
44 50
.16 6.6
46 48
.83
63 60
NA NA
.63 .31
47 50
.57 .32
43 51
.54 .15
41 38
.43 .10
34 34
. 64 .36
48 53
NA NA
NA NA
.50 .10
38 34
.50
63
.89 .33
64 51
.95 .32
68 50
.65 .40
48 56
NA NA
NA NA
.30
49
.60 .20
45 42
NA
.50 .08
38 33
.08
33
.63 .27
47 46
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-- UNA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
OCR for page 67
67
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
University Research Published Survey Ratings
Prog Survey Results Library SuPpOr t Articles Standard Error
No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (08) (09) (10) (11)
041. 3.8 2.3 1.1 1.4 0.3 .25 10357 151 .08 .05 .08 .07
60 60 46 75 50 49 53 6 8 71
042. 4.2 2.S 1.1 1.0 1.8 .61 15431 52 .13 .09 .10 .09
64 65 43 62 64 65 62 48 49
043. 3.3 1.9 1.3 0.5 1.2 .35 13696 g8 .12 .09 .10 .07
54 52 57 43 58 53 59 58 53
044. 3.3 1.9 1.L 0.6 1.2 .39 13696 98 .11 .06 .10 .07
54 52 48 46 58 55 59 58 53
045. 3.5 2.3 1.2 O.7 1.2 .11 13696 98 .18 .10 .11 .09
55 60 49 50 58 42 59 58 53
046. 2.2 1.4 0.g 0.4 - 0.2 NA 4628 35 .17 .11 .10 .06
39 39 36 41 45 43 45 45
047. 2.9 1.7 1.1 0.6 -0.2 .20 4628 35 .12 .08 .08 .08
48 47 46 45 45 47 43 45 45
048. 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.4 NA .10 NA ~ .14 .09 .08 .07
35 35 36 42 42 38 40
049. 3.1 1.9 1.4 0.g -0~5 .25 2965 42 .14 .09 .09 .08
51 51 62 57 42 49 40 47 47
050. 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.5 NA .05 6741 115 .13 .08 .10 .07
47 52 52 45 40 47 61 55
051. 3.8 2.3 1.4 0.7 NA .00 6741 115 .13 .10 .12 .09
59 60 60 49 3 7 4 7 61 55
052. 3.7 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.0 .53 984g 15 .09 .06 .08 .08
58 57 59 59 56 61 53 41 42
053. 1.6 1.0 NA O.3 NA NA 5698 27 .16 .12 NA .05
33 30 35 45 44 43
054. 0.6 0.4 NA 0.2 NA NA NA 2 .18 .15 NA .04
20 1 7 31 39 40
055. 3.3 2.0 1.4 1.1 O.9 .29 8330 61 .11 .07 .10 .09
53 54 64 63 55 50 50 50 52
056. 2.8 1.8 1.2 O.5 0.9 .00 8330 61 .17 .09 .12 .08
48 49 52 43 55 37 50 50 52
057. 1.6 1.0 0.9 0.3 - 1.9 NA 3127 22 .15 .11 .07 .05
32 31 33 37 27 41 43 43
058. 2.5 1.7 1.3 0.3 -1 .9 .00 3127 22 .13 .12 .09 .05
43 48 55 37 27 37 41 43 43
059. 3.-1 1.9 1.3 0.8 - 0.6 .33 NA 15 .11 .08 .07 .08
51 50 57 55 42 53 41 45
060. 3.3 2.0 1.2 1.2 NA .33 7108 112 .09 .05 .07 .07
54 54 49 67 53 48 60 56
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. SNAG indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in
standardized form are reported for this measure.
OCR for page 68
68
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Prog
No. University - Department/Academic Unit
Characteristics of
Program Size Program Graduates
(01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07)
061. Oregon, University of-Eugene 10 2 1 NA NA NA NA
Biology 43 42 3 7
062. Pennsylvania State University 13 6 8 NA NA NA NA
Botany 45 44 42
063. Pennsylvania State University 33 19 19 .19 7.0 .88 .50
Plant Pathology 60 50 49 48 43 64 63
064. Purdue University-West Lafayette 9 18 21 .46 5.7 .54 .25
Biological Sciences 43 49 51 69 60 41 45
065. Rhode Island, University of 13 10 10 NA 7.2 .40 .30
Botany 45 46 43 40 32 49
066. Rutgers, The State University-New Brunswick 30 17 33 .13 7.5 .44 .19
Botany/Plant Physiology 58 49 59 43 36 34 41
067. SUNY-College of Environ Science & Forestry 11 6 7 NA NA NA NA
Environmental and Forest Biology 44 44 41
068. Southern Illinois University-Carbondale 15 17 23 .14 7.8 .71 .21
Botany 47 49 52 45 33 53 43
069. Tennessee, University of-Knoxville 16 19 19 .29 6.3 .69 .06
Botany 48 50 49 56 53 51 32
070. Texas A & M University 7 6 14 NA NA NA NA
Biology 41 44 46
071. Texas A & M University 11 8 14 NA NA NA NA
Plant Pathology 44 45 46
072. Texas A & M University 11 7 6 NA NA NA NA
Plant Physiology 44 45 40
073. Texas, University of-Austin 23 34 33 .50 6.2 .60 .43
Botany 53 56 59 72 53 45 58
074. Vanderbilt University 6 7 5 NA NA NA NA
General Biology 40 45 40
075. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Univ 27 18 24 .00 6.1 .57 .14
Plant Pathology & Physiology 56 49 53 34 54 43 3 7
076. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Univ 12 8 13 NA NA NA NA
Biology
077. Washington State University-Pullman 12 15 15 .00 6.8 .58 .42
Botany 45 4 8 46 34 46 44 5 7
078. Washington University-Saint Louis 11 6 11 NA NA NA NA
Plant Biology* 44 44 44
079. Washington, University of-Seattle 17 19 19 .41 7.5 .65 .47
Botany 48 50 49 65 36 48 61
080. Wisconsin, University of-Madison 17 38 46 .17 6.1 .86 .57
Botany 48 58 68 47 55 62 68
* 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 69
69
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
University Research Published Survey Ratings
Prog Survey Results Library Support Articles Standard Error
No. (08) (O9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (08) (09) (10) (11)
061. 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.6 -0.9 .50 NA 6 .15 .09 .08 .08
43 43 39 45 37 60 39 40
062. 2.3 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 .39 8024 78 .16 .12 .11 .05
42 41 3 8 41 54 55 49 54 4 8
063. 3.7 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.7 .00 8024 78 .13 .11 .12 .09
58 59 56 46 54 37 49 54 48
064. 3~4 2.0 0~9 0.8 -0.5 NA 10337 106 .13 .07 .07 .08
54 54 35 55 41 53 59 60
065. 2.3 1.5 1.1 0.4 NA .23 NA 22 .17 .13 .07 .06
41 42 47 41 48 43 42
066. 3.0 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.8 .13 7505 48 .10 .08 .08 .06
50 50 52 50 55 43 48 48 48
067. 3.1 1.9 1.0 0.3 NA .27 NA 15 .16 .08 .10 .06
51 51 41 37 50 41 42
068. 2.3 1.3 0.9 0.5 - 0.2 .00 NA 19 .14 .09 .10 .06
41 38 37 43 45 37 42 42
069. 2.7 1.8 1.0 0.5 - 0.4 .06 NA 35 .13 .10 .09 .07
46 50 43 45 43 40 45 44
070. 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.5 -0.5 NA 3199 56 .18 .16 .11 ·07
3 7 39 36 43 42 41 49 51
071. 2.2 1.5 1.2 0.5 -0.5 .00 3199 56 .15 .11 .10 .07
40 42 50 43 42 3 7 41 49 51
072. 2.6 1.7 1.0 0.4 -0.5 .18 3199 56 .20 .13 .10 .07
45 47 38 41 42 46 41 49 51
073. 4.5 2.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 .74 5757 36 .08 .06 .08 .08
68 67 60 69 63 71 45 45 46
074. 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.5 -0.7 NA 5204 11 .21 .13 .08 .08
35 37 38 42 39 44 40 43
075. 2.4 1.4 1.3 0.6 -0.0 .00 3108 42 .13 .10 .12 .08
43 40 56 45 46 3 7 41 4 7 45
076. 2.6 1.6 1.3 0.6 -0.0 .33 3108 42 .17 .11 .16 .08
45 45 59 47 46 53 41 47 45
071. 2.9 1.9 1.4 0.6 -0.3 .50 998 107 .11 .07 .11 .07
48 52 63 48 44 60 37 59 56
078. 3.6 2.0 1.5 0.8 -0.4 .55 16825 12 .14 .08 .11 .08
56 53 66 55 43 62 65 41 43
079. 3.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.5 .53 14164 40 .08 .04 .08 .08
58 55 59 62 61 62 60 46 49
080. 3.8 2.3 1.0 1.1 1.6 .65 19738 132 .08 .06 .09 .08
60 60 38 66 62 67 70 64 64
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. GINA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in
standardized form are reported for this measure.
OCR for page 70
70
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
Prog
No. University- Department/Academic Unit
081. Wisconsin, University of-Madison
Pl ant Patrol ogy
082. Wisconsin, University of-Milwaukee
Botany *
083. Yale University
Biology/Forestry and Environmental Studies
* indicates program was initiated since 1970.
Program Size
(Oft (02) (03)
27 24 45
56 52 6 7
9 NA NA
43
21 49 57
51 63 75
Characteristics of
Program Graduates
(04) (05)
NA NA
.32 6.1
58 54
6.1 .73
54
(06) (07)
.37
54
NA NA
.92 .41
66 56
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. GINA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
OCR for page 71
71
TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany
University Research Published Survey Ratings
Prog Survey Results Library Support Articles Standard Error
No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (13)- (14) (15) (16) (08) t09) (10) (11)
081. 4.3 2.6 1.1 0.9 1.6 .22 19738 132 .12 .08 .08 .10
65 66 45 57 62 48 70 64 64
082. 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.4 NA NA NA NA .17 .13 .13 .06
38 36 44 38 NA
083. 4.1 2.3 1.1 1.0 2.1 .48 4337 25 .09 .07 .08 .07
63 61 43 60 68 59 43 43 46
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. "NAT indicates that the value for a measure is not available
Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in
standardized form are reported for this measure.
l
.
OCR for page 72
72
TABLE 4.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Botany
Number
of
Programs
Measure Evaluated
Program Size
01 Raw Value 83
Std Value 83
02 Raw Value 82
Std Value 82
03 Raw Value 80
Std Value 80
Program Graduates
04 Raw Value
Std Value
05 Raw Value
Std Value
06 Raw Value
Std Value
07 Raw Value
Std Value
Survey Results
08 Raw Value
Std Value
09 Raw Value
Std Value
10 Raw Value
Std Value
11 Raw Value
Std Value
University Library
12 Raw Value
Std Value
Research Support
13 Raw Value
Std Value
14 Raw Value
Std Value
Publication Records
69
69
69
69
15 Raw Value 82
Std Value 82
16 Std Value 82
Standard
Mean Deviation
19 14
50 10
19 23
50 10
20 IS
50 10
52 .21
52 50
53 6.5
53 50
53 .67
53 50
53 .32
53 50
83 3.0
83 50
83 1.8
83 50
78 1.2
78 50
83
83
68 .3
68 50
.13
10
.8
10
.15
10
.14
10
.8
10
.4
10
.2
10
.7 .3
50 10
1.0
10
.28 .22
50 10
8406 5704
50 ;0
60
50
50
51
10
10
D E C I L E S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 10
41 43
5 7
44 45
6 8
40 42
.04 .10
37 42
7.5 7.3
36 39
.46 .54
36 41
.10 .17
34 39
1.9 2.3
36 41
1.3 1.5
38 43
.9 1.0
35 41
.4 .4
40 40
_ · 9 - · 5
37 42
.00 .05
37 40
1588 3127 4
38 41
11 15
40 41
42 43
11 13
44 46
8 10
45 46
10 13
43 45
.13 .17
44 47
6.8 6.6
45 48
.58 .63
44 47
.25 .30
45 49
2.6 2.8
45 47
1.7 1.7
47 47
1.1 1.1
46 46
.5
44 47
-.4
—.1
43 46
.10 .20
42 46
409 5534
43 45
22 34
43 45
44 45
15
47
14
48
16
47
.19
48
6.4
51
.66
49
.32
50
3.0
50
1.8
49
1.2
52
.6 .6
47
.2
49
.25
49
6741
47
42
47
46
18
49
18
49
19
49
.20
49
6.2
53
.71
53
.34
51
3.3
53
1.9
52
1.2
52
.7
51
.6
53
.31
51
8146
50
56
49
48
7 ~
20 26
51 55
20 2B
50 54
23 33
52 59
.28 .34
55 60
6.1 5.8
55 59
.77 .82
57 60
.41 .43
56 58
3.5 3.8
56 59
2.0 2.2
54 58
1.3 1.3
57 57
.8 1.0
54 61
.9 1.2
56 59
.39 .48
55 59
10714 14251
54 60
78 104
54 59
52 56
9
34
61
35
57
41
64
.41
65
5.5
63
.86
63
.49
62
4.1
63
2.4
63
1.4
63
1.1
64
1.8
65
.58
64
18053
67
131
64
63
NOTE: Standardized values reported in the preceding table have been computed from exact values
of the mean and standard deviation and not the rounded values reported here. Since the
scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only data in standardized form
are reported for this measure.
OCR for page 73
73
TABLE 4.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 83 Programs in Botany
Measure
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 ~ 0 11 12 13 14 15 16
Program Size
01 .42 . 48 -.10 -. 08 .04 .04 . 56 .57 . 36 .52 . 31 -. 04 . 31 . 55 . 55
02 .5S -.14 .04 -.06 -.07 .29 .34 .11 .27 -.01 .03 .09 .23 .24
03 .04 .02 .21 .24 .51 .54 .09 .60 .29 .26 .17 .33 .32
Program Graduates
04 -.07 -.18 .11 . 31 . 23 -. 24 .25 . 34 . 54 . 20 -. 12 -. 11
05 . 2S .24 .26 . 2S -. 13 .21 .11 .12 .12 .04 .16
06 .S8 .36 .32 -.07 .23 .24 -.03 .04 .24 .18
07 .59 . S6 -. 09 .51 .43 .50 .28 .24 . 26
Survey Results
08 .97 .29 .83 .66 .49 .62 .60 .62
09 .32 .80 .62 .45 .61 .61 .63
10 .24 .02 -.05 -.07 .26 .24
11 .54 .54 .48 .51 .56
University Library
12 .34 .5S .40 .37
Research Suppor t
13
14
Publ ication Records
15
.36 -.02 .04
.47 .52
.96
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 74
74
s.o++
+
+
4.0++
+
Measure +
3.0++
08 +
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
2.0++
+
+
+
+
1. 0++
+
+
O.O +/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/
1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100
*
* * *
*
*
*
*
**
* * *
*
* * *
* *
*
* **
*
r *
* *
* *
* *
* *
** *
* * * *
*
* *
*: *
* *
* *
* *
*
*
* *
*
* *
* ** *
*
*
* * * *
* *
*
*
*
*
*
r
Measure 01 tsquare root scale)
FIGURE 4.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members
(measure 01)--83 programs in botany.
OCR for page 75
75_
3. 0++
+
2.0++
+
+
+
*
Measure +
+ ~
09 + *
+ *
+
1. 0++ * *
+ *
+
+
* * * *
** * *
** *
*
*
* *
* * *** *
*** *
*** * *
* *
***
*
** *
*
*
*
*
*
*
** * * *
* *
* ~
*
*
r = .56
0.0 +~++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++~++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/
1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 ~ 00 }21 144 169 196
Measure 02 tSquare root scale)
FIGI}RE 4.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists
(measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02)--82 programs
in botany.
OCR for page 76
76
TABLE 4.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Botany
Respondents
N %
Field of Specialization
Botany 45 29
Ecology 16 11
Plant Physiology 35 23
Phytopathology 35 23
Other/Unknown 22 14
Faculty Rank
Professor 85 56
Associate Professor 51 33
Assistant Professor 16 11
Other/Unknown 1 1
Year of Highest Degree
l
Pre-1950 9 6
1950-59 25 16
1960-69 79 52
Post-1969 39 26
Unknown 1 1
Evaluator Selection
l
Nominated by Institution 131 86
Other 22 14
Survey Form
With Faculty Names 136 89
Without Names 17 11
Total Evaluators 153 100
OCR for page 77
77
s.o
3.0
Mean Survey Rating (measure 08)
FIGURE 4.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 83 programs in botany.
_ , O
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.
0.0
OCR for page 78
Representative terms from entire chapter:
raw value
