National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: VI. Mechanical Engineering Programs
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"VII. Summary and Discussion." National Research Council. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9780.
×
Page 142

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.

VII Seminary and Discussion In the four preceding chapters results are presented of the assess- ment of 326 research-doctorate programs in chemical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering. In- cluded in each chapter are summary data describing the means and intercorrelations of the program measures in a particular discipline. In this chapter a comparison is made of the summary data reported in the four disciplines. Also presented here are an analysis of the reliability (consistency) of the reputational survey ratings and an examination of some factors that might nossiblv have influenced the ~ ~.. ~ ~ _ let= _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ .~ ~ ~ ! _ _ A_ FOUL V=y L=::iul~ . -1-~11~ ~lld~=L ~Ull~lUQ=~ WlUl1 ~uyye~ClOn~ 1~` 1m~rOvlNg studies of this kind--with particular attention given to the types of measures one would like to have available for an assessment of research-doctorate programs. This chapter necessarily involves a detailed discussion of various statistics (means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients) describing the measures. Throughout, the reader should bear in mind that all these statistics and measures are necessarily imperfect at- tempts to describe the real quality of research-doctorate programs. Quality and some differences in quality are real, but these differences cannot be subsumed completely under any one quantitative measure. For example, no single numerical ranking--by measure 08 or by any weighted average of measures--can rank the quality of different programs with precision. However, the evidence for reliability indicates considerable sta- bility in the assessment of quality. For instance, a program that comes out in the first decile of a ranking is quite unlikely to "really" belong in the third docile, or vice versa. If numerical ranks of programs were replaced by groupings (distinguished, strong, etc.), these groupings again would not fully capture actual differences in quality since there would likely be substantial ambiguity about the borderline between adjacent groups. Furthermore, any attempt at linear ordering (best, next best, . . .) may also be inaccurate. Programs of roughly comparable quality may be better in different ways, so that there simply is no one best--as will also be indicated in some of the numerical analyses. However, these difficulties of formulating ranks should not hide the underlying reality of differences in quality or the importance of high quality for effective doctoral education. 109

110 SUM ARY OF BRIE RESULTS Displayed in Table 7.1 are the numbers of programs-evaluated (bot- tom line) and the mean values for each measure in the four engineering disciplines. As can be seen, the mean values reported for individual measures vary considerably among disciplines. The pattern of means on each measure is summarized below, but the reader interested in a de- tailed comparison of the distribution of a measure may wish to refer to the second table in each of the four preceding chapters. 2 Program Size (Measures 01-03~. Based on the information provided to the committee by the study coordinator at each university, electrical engineering programs had, on the average, the largest number of faculty members (23 in December 1980), followed by civil (20) and mechanical engineering (20~. Electrical engineering programs also graduated the most students (32 Ph.D. recipients in the FY1975-79 period) and had the largest enrollment {49 doctoral students in December 1980~. In con- trast, chemical engineering programs were reported to have an average of only 12 faculty members, 18 graduates, and 24 doctoral students. Proaram Graduated (Measures 04-071. The mean fraction of FY1975-79 doctoral recipients who as graduate students had received some national fellowship or training grant support (measure 04) ranges from .13 for graduates of civil engineering programs to .25 for graduates in chem- ical engineering. With respect to the median number of years from first enrollment in a graduate program to receipt of the doctorate (measure 05), chemical engineering graduates typically earned their degrees almost a full year sooner than graduates in any other disci- pline. In terms of employment status at graduation (measure 06), an average of 78 percent of the Ph.D. recipients from chemical engineering programs reported that they had made firm job commitments by the time they had completed requirements for their degree, contrasted with 69-71 percent of the program graduates in the other engineering disciplines. A mean of only 15-19 percent of the graduates in the four engineering disciplines reported that they had made firm commitments to take posi- tions in Ph.D.-granting institutions (measure 071. This low percentage {compared with the humanities and many of the science disciplines) reflects the availability of employment opportunities for engineers outside the academic sector. Survey Results (Measures 08-11) Differences in the mean ratings de- . rived from the reputational survey are small. In all four disciplines the mean rating of scholarly quality of program faculty (measure 08) 1 Means for measure 16, ~influence" of publication, are omitted since arbitrary scaling of this measure prevents meaningful comparisons across disciplines. 2 The second table in each of the four preceding chapters presents the standard deviation and decile values for each measure.

111 TABLE 7.1 Mean Values for Each Program Measure, by Discipline Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. Program Size 01 12 20 23 20 02 18 22 32 21 03 24 35 49 29 Program Graduates 04 .25 .13 .19 .21 05 5.9 6.9 6.7 7.0 06 .78 .69 .70 .71 07 .15 .19 .17 .17 Survey Results 08 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 09 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 10 1.1 1.0 1.1 I.0 11 · 9 University Librar`~- 12 Research Support 13 .37 .20 .27 .22 14 7819 7998 7679 7893 Publication Recoros 15 lu '~ zz ' t Total Programs 79 74 91 82

112 is slightly below 3.0 ("good"), and programs were judged to be, on the average, a bit below "moderately" effective (2.0) in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 091. In the opinions of--the survey re- spondents, there has been "little or no changes (approximately 1.0 on measure 10) in the last five years in the overall average quality of programs. The mean rating of an evaluator's familiarity with the work of program faculty (measure 11) is below 1.0 ("some familiarity in every discipline--about which more will be said later in this chapter. University Library (Measure 12~. Measure 12, based on a composite index of the sizes of the library at the university in which a pro- gram resides, is calculated on a scale from -2.0 to 3.0, with a mean of .2 in each of the four engineering disciplines. In considering this measure it must be remembered that the index reflects the overall size of the university library and that data are unavailable for some of the smaller universities. Research Support (Measures 13-14~. Measure 13, the proportion of pro- gram faculty who had received NSF, NIH, or ADAMHA4 research grant awards during the FY1978-80 period, has mean values ranging from as high as .37 in chemical engineering to .20 in civil engineering. It should be emphasized that this measure does not take into account re- search support that faculty members have received from sources other than these three federal agencies. AS mentioned in Chapter II, a sig- nificant fraction of the engineering faculty receive support from DOD, NASA, DOE, and other federal agencies. In terms of total university expenditures for R&D in engineering (measure 14), the mean value re- ported in each discipline is slightly less than $8,000,000. It should be emphasized that these figures represent university expenditures in engineering In toto and that data are not available on expenditures in individual engineering disciplines. m us, the small differences re- ported here reflect variations in the sets of universities covered in the assessment in the four disciplines. Publication Records (Measures 15 and 161. Some diversity is found in the mean number of articles associated with a research-doctorate program (measure 15~. An average of 22 articles published in the 1978-79 period is reported for programs in electrical engineering; in each of the other three disciplines the mean number of articles ranges from .10 to .12. This difference reflects both the program size in a 3The index, derived by the Association of Research Libraries, re- flects a number of different measures, including number of volumes, fiscal expenditures, and other factors relevant to the size of a uni- versity library. See the description of this measure presented in Appendix D. Every few faculty members in engineering programs received any re- search support from the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Adminis- tration.

113 particular discipline (i.e., the total number of faculty and other staff members involved in research) and the frequency with which engi neers in that discipline publish; it may also depend on the-length of a typical paper in a discipline. Mean scores are not reported on measure 16, the estimated "overall influence" of the articles attri- buted to a program. Since this measure is calculated from an average of journal influence weights,5 normalized for the journals covered in a particular discipline, mean differences among disciplines are uninterpretable. CORRELATIONS AMONG MEASURES Relations among the program measures are of intrinsic interest and are relevant to the issue of validity of the measures as indices of the quality of a research-doctorate program. Measures that are logically related to program quality are expected to be related to each other. To the extent that they are, a stronger case might be made for the validity of each as a quality measure. A reasonable index of the relationship between any two measures is the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. A table of corre- lation coefficients of all possible pairs of measures is presented in each of the four preceding chapters. This chapter presents selected correlations to determine the extent to which coefficients are compa- rable in the four disciplines. Special attention is given to the cor- relations involving the number of FY1975-79 program graduates (measure 02), survey rating of the scholarly quality of program faculty (measure 08), university R&D expenditures in a particular discipline (measure 14), and influence-weighted number of publications (measure 16~. These four measures have been selected because of their relatively high cor- relations with several other measures. Readers interested in correla- tions other than those presented in Tables 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 may refer to the third table in each of the preceding four chapters. Correlations with Measure 02. Table 7.2 presents the correlations of measure 02 with each of the other measures used in the assessment. As might be expected, correlations of this measure with the other two measures of program size--number of faculty (01) and doctoral student enrollment (03~--are quite high in all four disciplines. Of greater interest are the strong positive correlations between measure 02 and measures derived from either reputational survey ratings or publication records. The coefficients describing the relationship of measure 02 with measures 15 and 16 are greater than .60 in all disciplines except mechanical engineering. This result is not surprising, of course, since both of the publication measures reflect total productivity and have not been adjusted for program size. The correlations of measure 02 with measures 08, 09, and 11 are equally as strong. It is quite s see Appendix F for a description of the derivation of this measure.

114 TABLE 7.2 Correlations of the Number of Program Graduates (Measure 02) with Other Measures, by Discipline Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. Program Size 01 .53 .83 .78 .66 03 .82 .71 .82 .78 Program Graduates 04 .00 .01 -.09 -.11 05 .32 .16 .18 .17 06 .22 -.11 .10 -.01 07 .14 .05 .06 .12 Survey Results ~ 08 .83 .72 .76 .67 09 .83 .73 .75 .68 10 .07 .18 .11 .17 11 .79 .75 .81 .70 University Library 12 .40 .39 .47 .32 Research Suppor 13 .45 .39 .39 .33 14 .42 .51 .58 .58 Publication Records 15 .66 .73 .84 .69 16 .69 .65 .85 .52

115 apparent that the programs that received high survey ratings and with which evaluators were more likely to be familiar were also ones that had larger numbers of graduates. Although the committee gave serious consideration to presenting an alternative set of survey measures that were adjusted for program size, a satisfactory algorithm for making such an adjustment was not found. In attempting such an adjustment on the basis of the regression of survey ratings on measures of program size, it was found that some exceptionally large programs appeared to be unfairly penalized and that some very small programs received un- justifiably high adjusted scores. Measure 02 also has positive correlations with measure 12, an index of university library size, and with measures 13 and 14, which pertain to the level of support for research in a program. Of particular note are the moderately large coefficients for measure 14, university R&D expenditures in engineering--in all disciplines but chemical engineer- ing they are above .50. m e correlations of measure 02 with measures 04, 05, 06, and 07 are below .20 in all disciplines except chemical engineering. Correlations with Measure 08. Table 7.3 shows the correlation coeffi- cients for measure 08, the mean rating of the scholarly quality of program faculty, with each of the other variables. m e correlations of measure 08 with measures of program size {01, 02, and 03) are .50 or greater for all four disciplines. Not surprisingly, the larger the program, the more likely its faculty is to be rated high in quality. Correlations of measure 08 with measure-04, the fraction of students with national fellowship awards, are .20 or smaller in each of the engineering disciplines. For programs in the biological and social sciences, the corresponding coefficients (to be presented in subsequent volumes of the committee's report) are found to be greater, typically in the range .40 to .70. Perhaps in engineering, departments with highly regarded faculty are more likely to provide support to doctoral students as teaching assistants or research assistants on faculty research grants--thereby reducing dependency on national fellowships. (The low correlation of rated faculty quality with the fraction of students with national fellowships is not, of course, inconsistent with the thesis that programs with large numbers of students are programs with large numbers of fellowship holders.) Correlations of rated faculty quality with measure 05, shortness of time from matriculation in graduate school to award of the doctor- ate, are notably higher for programs in chemical and mechanical engi- neering than for programs in the other two disciplines. Although the coefficients are by no means as large as many of those discussed above, it is evident that programs producing graduates in shorter periods of time tended to receive higher survey ratings. Correlations of ratings of faculty quality with measure 06, the fraction of program graduates with definite employment plans, and with measure 07, the fraction with plans for employment in Ph.D.-granting institutions, are positive, but quite low for each of the engineering disciplines.

116 TABLE 7.3 Correlations of the Survey Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty (Measure 08) with Other Measures, by Discipline Chemical Civil Engin. Engin. Program Size 01 .51 .73 .73 02 .83 .72 .76 03 .77 .57 .68 Electrical Mechanical Engin. Engin. Program Graduates 04 .20 .18 -.03 .08 05 .43 .25 .21 .37 06 .27 .05 .13 .03 - 07 .25 .21 .12 .19 Survey Results 09 .99 .98 .98 .97 10 .31 .35 .23 .14 11 .96 .94 .94 .95 University Library 12 .41 .54 .56 .52 Research Support 13 .62 .62 .56 .52 14 .42 .57 .59 .52 Publication Records 15 .65 .62 .78 .70 16 .65 .57 .80 .57

117 The correlations of measure 08 with measure 09, rated effective- ness of doctoral education, are uniformly very high, at or above .97 in every discipline. This finding is consistent with results from the Car tter and Roose-Andersen studies .6 The coefficients describing the relationship between measure 08 and measure 11, familiarity with the work of program faculty, are also very high, ranging from .94 to .96. In general, evaluators were more likely to have high regard for the quality of faculty in those programs with which they were most famil- iar. That the correlation coefficients are as large as observed may simply reflect the fact that "known programs tend to be those that have earned strong reputations. Correlations of ratings of faculty quality with measure 10, ratings of perceived improvement in program quality, range from .14 in mechan- ical engineering to .35 in civil engineering. One might have expected that a program judged to have improved in quality would have been somewhat more likely to receive high ratings on measure 08 than would a program judged to have declined--thereby imposing a small positive correlation between these two variables. Moderate to high correlations are observed in all four disciplines between measure 08 and university library size (measure 12), support for research (measures 13 and 14), and publication records {measures 15 and 16~. With few exceptions these coefficients are .50 or greater. Of particular note are the strong correlations with the two publication measures for electrical engineering programs. It is interesting to note that the correlations with measure 16 are generally no higher than those with measure 15--i.e., the "weighted influence" of journals in which articles are published yields an index that tends to relate no more closely to faculty reputation than does an unadjusted count of the number of articles published. m is finding is inconsistent with the findings of Anderson et al.7 and with the committee's findings in the mathematical and physical sciences. Correlations with Measure 14. Correlations of measure 14, reported dollars of support for research and development, with other measures are shown in Table 7.4. m e reader is reminded that this measure re- flects total university expenditures in engineering and not expendi- tures in the four separate engineering disciplines. The pattern of relations is quite similar for programs in all four engineering disci- plines: moderately high correlations with measures of program size and reputational survey results (except measure 10), and slightly lower correlations with publication measures. For programs in electrical engineering some of these relations are stronger than in the other engineering disciplines. Of particular note is strong correlation in electrical engineering between measure 14 and~each of the publication measures (15 and 161. In interpreting these relationships one must keep in mind the fact that the research expenditure data have not been 6 Roose and Andersen, p. 19. 7Anderson et al., p. 95.

118 TABLE 7.4 Correlations of the University Research Expenditures in a Discipline (Measure 14) with Other Measures, by Discipline Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. Program Size 01 .48 .56 .63 .60 02 .42 .51 .58 .58 03 .50 .38 .62 .46 Program Graduates 04 -.02 .16 .20 .04 05 .00 -.02 .12 .19 06 .07 -.02 .08 .03 07 .02 .21 .30 ~ .13 Survey Results 08 .42 .57 .59 .52 09 .41 .55 .57 .52 10 .18 .04 .09 .07 11 .41 .58 .62 .61 University Library 12 .21 .26 .21 .20 Research Suppor t 13 .09 .29 .21 .16 Publication Records 15 16 .39 .44 .61 .49 .35 .36 .65 .42

119 adjusted for the number of faculty and other staff members involved in research in a program. Cb~re[~ic~ Bold Measurer lo. Measure 16 is the number of published articles attributed to a program and adjusted for the "average influ- ence~ of the journals in which the articles appear. The correlations of this measure with all others appear in Table 7.5. Of particular interest are the moderately high correlations with all three measures of program size and with the reputational survey results (excluding measure 10~. Most of those coefficients exceed .60 and are generally somewhat larger for programs in electrical engineering. In this dis- cipline moderately high correlations are also observed between measure 16 and measures 12, 13, and 14. It should be pointed out that the exceptionally large coefficients reported for measure 15 result from the fact that the two publication measures are logically as well as empirically interdependent. Despite the appreciable correlations between reputational ratings of quality and program size measures, the functional relations between the two probably are complex. If there is a minimum size for a high- quality program, this size is likely to vary from discipline to disci- pline. Increases in size beyond the minimum may represent more high- quality faculty, or a greater proportion of inactive faculty, or ~ faculty with heavy teaching responsibilities. In attempting to select among these alternative interpretations, a single correlation coeff~- cient provides insufficient guidance. Nonetheless, certain similari- ties across disciplines may be seen in correlations among the measures. High correlations consistently appear among measures 08, 09, and 11 from the-reputational survey, and these measures also are prominently related to program size (measures 01, 02, and 03), to publication pro- ductivity (measures 15 and 16), to R&D expenditures {measure 14), and to library size (measure 12~. These results show that for all dis- ciplines the reputational rating measures (08, 09, and 11) tend to be associated with program size and with other correlates of size: pub- lication volume, R&D expenditures, and library size. Also, the reputational measures 08, 09, and 11 tend to be positively related to shortness of time-to-Ph.D. (measure 05) and to the fraction of faculty holding research grants {measure 13~. ANALYST S OF THE SURVEY RESPONSE Measures 08-11, derived from the reputational survey, may be of particular interest to many readers since measures of this type have been the most widely used (and frequently criticized) indices of qual- ity of graduate education. In designing the survey instrument for this assessment the committee made several changes in the form that had been used in the Roose-Andersen study. The modifications served two pur- poses: to provide the evaluators with a clearer understanding of the programs that they were asked to judge and to provide the committee with supplemental information for the analysis of the survey response. One change was to restrict to 50 the number of programs that any

120 TABLE 7.5 Correlations of the Influence-Weighted Number of Publications (Measure 16) with Other Measures, by Discipline Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. Program Size 01 .46 .69 .83 .59 02 .69 .65 .85 .52 03 .65 .52 .81 .45 Program Graduates 04 .07 .17 .01 .02 05 .30 -.05 .10 .18 06 .23 .10 .19 .10 - 07 .14 .05 .14 .20 Survey Results 08 .65 .57 .80 .57 09 .63 .57 .78 .61 10 .34 .35 .17 .24 11 .68 .58 .84 .60 University Library 12 .12 .32 .51 .36 Research Support 13 .35 .26 .52 14 .35 .36 .65 Publication Records 15 .96 .95 .98 .88

121 individual was asked to evaluate. Probably the most important change was the inclusion of lists of names and ranks of individual faculty members involved in the research-doctorate programs to be evaluated on the survey form, together with the number of doctoral degrees awarded in the previous five years. Ninety percent of the evaluators were sent forms with faculty names and numbers of degrees awarded; the remaining 10 percent were given forms without this information, so that an analysis could be made of the effect of this modification on survey results. Another change was the addition of a question con- cerning an evaluator's familiarity with each of the programs. In addition to providing an index of program recognition (measure 11), the inclusion of this question permits a comparison between the ratings furnished by individuals who had considerable familiarity with a par- ticular program and the ratings by those not as familiar with the pro- gram. Each evaluator was also asked to identify his or her own insti- tution of highest degree and current field of specialization. This information enables us to compare, for each program, the ratings fur- nished by alumni of that institution with the ratings by other evalu- ators, as well as to examine differences in the ratings supplied by evaluators in certain specialty fields. Before examining factors that may have influenced the survey re- sults, some mention should be made of the distributions of responses to the four survey items and the reliability (consistency) of the rat- ings. As can be seen from Table 7.6, the response distribution for each survey item does not vary greatly from discipline to discipline. For example, in judging the scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08), survey respondents in each discipline rated between 5 and 8 percent of the programs as being "distinguished" and between 1 and 2 percent as "not sufficient for doctoral education." In evaluating the effective- ness in educating research scholars, they rated 6-9 percent of the programs as being "extremely effective" and approximately 2-4 percent as "not effective. n Of particular interest in this table are the frequencies with which evaluators failed to provide responses to mea- sures 08, 09, and 10. Approximately one-third of the total number of evaluations requested for measure 08 were not furnished because survey respondents in engineering felt that they were not familiar enough with a particular program to evaluate it. m e corresponding percent- ages of "don't knows responses for measures 09 and 10 are considerably larger--42 and 52 percent, respectively--suggesting that survey re- spondents found it more difficult (or were less willing) to judge pro- gram effectiveness and change than to judge the scholarly quality of program faculty. The large fractions of don't know" responses are a matter of some concern. However, given the broad coverage of research-doctorate pro- grams, it is not surprising that faculty members would be unfamiliar with many of the less distinguished programs. As shown in Table 7.7, survey respondents in each discipline were much more likely to furnish evaluations for programs with high reputational standing than they were for programs of lesser distinction. For example, for engineering programs that received mean ratings of 4.0 or higher on measure 08, almost 95 percent of the evaluations requested on measure 08 were pro-

122 TABLE 7.6 Distribution of Responses to Each Survey Item, by Discipline Survey Measure Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Total Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. 08 SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY Distinguished 6.5 7.8 6.5 5.4 5.9 Strong 14.0 14.5 13.8 13.4 14.3 Good 20.5 24.0 19.2 19.2 19.1 Adequate 16.7 20.5 14.5 15.3 15.6 Marginal 7.3 8.6 6.8 7.6 5.8 Not Sufficient for Doctoral Education 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.8 1.4 Don't Know Well Enough to Evaluate 33.3 22.6 37.1 37.4 38.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 O9 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM IN EDUCATING SCIENTISTS Extremely Effective 7.1 8.6 7.0 5.9 6.6 Reasonably Effective 31.6 34.3 28.8 30.0 32.6 Minimally Effective 16.9 20.4 16.6 15.9 14.1 Not Effective 2.8 3.8 3.3 2.4 1.7 Don't Know Well Enough to Evaluate 41.6 32.8 44.3 45.8 45.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10 CHANGE IN PROGRAM QUALITY IN LAST FIVE YEARS Better 10.6 15.2 8.8 9.3 8.0 Little or No Change 30.3 36.5 26.5 28.1 28.7 Poorer 7.4 9.0 7.2 6.7 6.4 Don't Know Well Enough to Evaluate 51.8 39.2 57.5 55.8 57.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 11 FAMILIARITY WITH WORK OF PROGRAM FACULTY Considerable 16.8 22.8 16.3 14.4 12.9 Some 42.0 44.7 40.6 40.4 41.7 Little or None 39.6 31.1 41.5 43.1 44.3 No Response 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.1 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 NOTE: For survey measures 08, 09, 10 the "don't know" category includes a small number of cases for which the respondents provided no response to the survey item.

123 TABLE 7.7 Survey Item Response Rates, by Discipline and Mean Rating on Measure 08 Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Survey Measure Total Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. 08 SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY Mean Rating on Measure 08 4.0 or Higher 94.5 98.5 91.7 96.3 89.3 3.0 - 3.9 80.9 92.1 78.0 77.7 76.6 2.0 - 2.9 62.9 76.2 59.3 57.9 57.4 Less than 2.0 49.0 59.3 43.8 45.0 42.1 09 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM IN EDUCATING SCIENTISTS Mean Rating on Measure 08 4.0 or Higher 90.4 94.3 88.4 91.4 85.1 3.0 - 3.9 72.8 83.5 71.7 67.9 69.2 2.0 - 2.9 53.5 64.0 50.3 49.3 49.7 Less than 2.0 41.1 48.7 37.9 37.6 36.4 10 CHANGE IN PROGRAM QUALITY IN LAST FIVE YEARS Mean Rating on Measure 0E 4.0 or Higher 80.2 90.8 75.7 76.2 70.2 3.0 - 3.9 61.0 77.8 55.4 55.7 55.7 2.0 - 2.9 43.9 58.2 37.3 40.7 38.6 Less than 2.0 31.4 39.4 27.3 29.0 24.9

124 vided; 90 and 80 percent, respectively, were provided on measures 09 and 10. In contrast, the corresponding response rates for programs with mean ratings below 2.0 are much lower--49, 41, and-31 percent response on measures 08, 09, and 10, respectively. Of great importance to the interpretation of the survey results is the reliability of the response. How much confidence can one have in the mean rating reported for a particular program? In the first table in each of the preceding four chapters, estimated standard errors associated with the mean ratings of every program are presented for all four survey items (measures 08-11~. While there is some variation in the magnitude of the standard errors reported in every discipline, they rarely exceed .20 for any of the four measures and typically range from .05 to .10. For programs with higher mean ratings the estimated errors associated with these means are generally smaller--a finding consistent with the fact that survey respondents were more likely to furnish evaluations for programs with high reputational standing. The "split-half" correlations presented in Table 7.8 give an indication of the overall reliability of the survey results in each discipline and for each measure. In the derivation of these correlations individual ratings of each program were randomly divided into two groups (A and B), and a separate mean rating was computed for each group. The last column in Table 7.8 reports the correlations between the mean program ratings of the two groups and is not corrected for the fact that the mean ratings of each group are based on only half rather than a full set of the responses.9 As the reader will note, the coefficients reported for measure 08, the scholarly quality of program faculty, are in the range of .95 to .98--indicating a high degree of consistency in evaluators' judgments. The correlations reported for measures 09 and 11, the rated effectiveness of a program and the evaluators' familiar- ity with a program, are somewhat lower but still at a level of .90 or higher in each discipline. Not surprisingly, the reliability coeffici- ents for ratings of change in program quality in the last five years (measure 10) are considerably lower, ranging from .66 to .88 in the four engineering disciplines. While these coefficients represent tolerable reliability, it is quite evident that the responses to mea- sure 10 are not as reliable as the responses to the other three items. Further evidence of the reliability of the survey responses is presented in Table 7.9. As mentioned in Chapter VI of the first volume (mathematical and physical sciences) of the committee's reports, 11 For a discussion of the interpretation of "split-half" coefficients, see Robert L. Thorndike and Elizabeth Hagan, Measurement and Evaluation in PsYcholoov and E8~ALiOn · John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969, pp. 182-185. 9To compensate for the smaller sample size the "split-half" coefficient may be adjusted using the Spearman-Brown formula: r' = 2r/~1 + r). This adjustment would have the effect of increasing a correlation of .70, for example, to .82, a correlation of .80 to .89, a correlation of .90 to .95, and a correlation of .95 to .97.

125 TABLE 7.8 Correlations Between Two Sets of Average Ratings from Two Randomly Selected Groups of Evaluators in Engineering MEASURE 08: SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY Discipline Mean Rating Std. Deviation Correlation Group A Group B Group A Group B N r Chemical Engin. 2.65 2.68 .95 .96 79 .98 Civil Engin. 2.67 2.67 .85 .88 74 .95 Electrical Engin. 2.62 2.59 .86 .89 90 .95 Mechanical Engin. 2.75 2.73 .79 .80 81 .96 MEASURE 09: EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM IN EDUCATING SCHOLARS Discipline Mean Rating Std. Deviation Correlation Group A Group B Group A Group B N r Chemical Engin. 1.59 1.60 .54 .53 79 .97 Civil Engin. 1.58 1.56 .48 .49 74 .90 Electrical Engin. 1.60 1.60 .46 .47 90 .92 Mechanical Engin. 1.70 1.71 .41 .40 81 .94 MEASURE 10: IMPROVEMENT IN PROGRAM IN LAST FIVE YEARS Discipline Mean Rating Std. Deviation Correlation Group A Group B Group A Group B N.' r Chemical Engin. 1.07 1.09 .27 .27 79 .88 Civil Engin. 1.00 1.01 .25 .24 74 .69 Electrical Engin. 1.06 1.04 .25 .24 90 .66 Mechanical Engin. 1.03 1.03 .22 .22 81 .74 MEASURE 11: FAMILIARITY WITH WORK OF PROGRAM FACULTY Discipline Mean Rating Std. Deviation Correlation Group A Group B Group A Group B N r Chemical Engin. . 92 .92 .40 .41 79 .97 Civil Engin. .73 .75 .35 .3S 74 .94 Electrical Engin. . 70 .72 .36 .35 90 .93 Mechanical Engin. . 68 .69 .30 .31 81 .90

126 TABLE 7.9 Comparison of Mean Ratings for 11 Mathematics Programs Included in Two Separate Survey Administrations N Survey All Evaluators Measure First X Second N X Evaluators Rating the Same Program in Roth Rllrv~vc First N X Second N X 08 100 4.9 114 4.9 50 4.9 50 4.9 09 90 2.7 100 2.8 42 2.7 43 2.7 10 74 1.2 83 1.2 38 1.1 34 1.2 11 100 1.6 115 1.6 50 1.5 50 1.6 Program B 08 94 4.6 115 4.6 48 4.6 50 4.5 09 81 2.6 91 2.5 40 2.6 39 2.5 10 69 1.0 82 1.0 37 1.0 36 0.9 11 98 1.4 116 1.4 50 1.5 50 1.5 Program C 08 86 3.4 103 3.6 42 3.4 44 3.5 09 56 2.0 66 2.1 28 2.1 29 2.0 10 55 1.1 62 1.3 30 1.2 27 1.4 11 99 1.0 116 1.1 50 1.1 50 1.0 Program D 08 74 3.0 93 3.0 37 2.8 38 2.9 09 50 1.8 48 1.6 27 1.7 16 1.6 10 46 1.4 52 1.5 24 1.4 23 1.5 11 90 1.0 113 0.9 46 1.0 46 0.9 Program E 08 69 3.0 95 3.1 39 3.0 46 3.1 09 40 1.8 60 1.9 25 1.8 30 1.8 10 36 0.8 58 0.9 24 0.8 29 0.9 11 96 0.8 115 0.9 52 0.9 52 1.0 08 63 2.9 90 3.0 26 3.0 32 3.1 09 35 1.8 46 1.7 10 1.6 13 1.8 10 32 1.1 43 1.1 11 1.3 12 1.2 11 95 0.7 115 0.8 43 0.7 44 0.7 Program G 08 69 2.7 92 2.8 39 2.7 39 3.0 09 35 1.7 45 1.6 17 1.7 19 1.7 10 36 1.1 43 1.2 17 1.1 19 1.2 11 85 0.9 116 0.8 46 0.9 46 0.9 Program H 08 58 2.2 73 2.5 36 2.2 37 2.4 09 32 1.3 43 1.3 22 1.2 19 1.3 10 30 1.5 39 1.5 20 1.7 17 1.4 11 90 0.7 116 0.6 51 0.7 52 0.6 Program I 08 55 2.0 74 1.9 30 1.9 30 2.0 09 33 1.0 41 0.9 19 1.0 18 0.8 10 27 1.2 31 1.1 15 1.1 13 1.2 11 99 0.5 115 0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 Program J 08 51 1.5 67 1.5 26 1.4 28 1.4 09 31 0.8 36 0.7 14 0.6 14 0.7 10 26 1.2 23 1.1 14 1.2 12 1.3 11 96 0.5 113 0.3 49 0.4 48 0.4 Program K 08 33 1.2 48 1.2 17 1.1 21 1.4 09 19 0.8 21 0.5 11 0.6 8 0.4 10 12 0.8 15 0.9 5 1.0 5 0.8 11 99 0.2 114 0.2 48 0.2 47 0.2

127 mathematics programs,~° selected at random, were included on a second form sent to 178 survey respondents in this discipline, and 116 indi- viduals (65 percent) furnished responses to the second survey. A com- parison of the overall results of the two survey administrations (col- umns 2 and 4 in Table 7.9) demonstrates the consistency of the ratings provided for each of the 11 programs. The average, absolute observed difference in the two sets of mean ratings is less than O.1 for each measure. Columns 6 and 8 of Table 7.9 report the results based on the responses of only those evaluators who had been asked to consider a particular program in both administrations of the survey. (For a given program approximately 40-45 percent of the 116 respondents to the second survey had been asked to evaluate that program in the prior survey.) It is not surprising to find comparable small differences in the mean ratings provided by this subgroup of evaluators. Critics of past reputational studies have expressed concern about the credibility of reputational assessments when evaluators provide judgments of programs about which they may know very little. As already mentioned, survey participants in this study were offered the explicit alternative, "Don't know well enough to evaluate." This response option was quite liberally used for measures 08, 09, and 10, as is shown in Table 7.6. In addition, evaluators were asked to indi- cate their degree of familiarity with each program. Respondents re- ported "considerable" familiarity with an average of only one program in every six. While this finding supports the conjecture that many program ratings are based on limited information, the availability of reported familiarity permits us to analyze how ratings vary as a func- tion of familiarity. m is-issue can be addressed in more than one way. It is evident from the data reported in Table 7.10 that mean ratings of the scholarly quality of program faculty tend to be higher if the evaluator has con- siderable familiarity with the program. mere is nothing surprising or, for that matter, disconcerting about such an association. When a particular program fails to provoke more than vague images in the evaluator's mind, he or she is likely to take this as some indication that the program is not an extremely lustrous one on the national scene. While visibility and quality are scarcely the same, the world of research in higher education is structured to encourage high quality to achieve high visibility, so that any association of the two is far from spurious. From the data presented in Table 7.10 it is evident that if mean ratings were computed on the basis of the responses of only those most familiar with programs, the values reported for individual programs would be increased. A largely independent question is whether a restriction of this kind would substantially change our sense of the relative standings of programs on this measure. Quite naturally, the answer depends in some degree on the nature of the restriction imposed. Mathematics is the only discipline in which results were obtained from two separate administrations of the survey.

128 TABLE 7.10 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evaluator's Familiarity with Work of Faculty MEAN RATINGS Consid- Some/ erable Little CORRELATION r N Chemical Engin. 2.91 2.58 .93 79 Civil Engin. 2.93 2.56 .87 74 Electrical Engin. 3.01 2.52 .84 89 Mechanical Engin. 3.23 2.65 .84 80 NOTE: N reported in last column represents the number of programs with a rating from at least one evaluator in each of the two groups. For example, if we exclude evaluations provided by those who confessed "little or no" familiarity with particular programs, then the revised mean ratings would be correlated at a level of at least .99 with the mean ratings computed using all of the data. (m is similarity arises, in part, because only a small fraction of evaluations are given on the basis of no more than "little" familiarity with the program.) m e third column in Table 7.10 presents the correlation in each discipline between the array of mean ratings supplied by respondents claiming Considerable" familiarity and the mean ratings of those indicating "some" or "little or non familiarity with~particular pro- grams. m is coefficient is a rather conservative estimate of agreement since there is not a sufficient number of ratings from those with "considerable" familiarity to provide highly stable means. Were more such ratings available, one might expect the correlations to be higher. However, even in the form presented, the correlations, which are at least .84 in all four disciplines, are high enough to suggest that the relative standing of programs on measure 08 is not greatly affected by the admixtures of ratings from evaluators who recognize that their knowledge of a given program is limited. As mentioned previously, 90 percent of the survey sample members were supplied the names of faculty members associated with each program to be evaluated, along with the reported number of program graduates (Ph.D. or equivalent degrees) in the previous five years. Since ear- lier reputational surveys had not provided such information, 10 percent of the sample members, randomly selected, were given forms without faculty names or doctoral data, as a "control group." Although one might expect that those given faculty names would have been more likely than other survey respondents to provide evaluations of the scholarly quality of program faculty, consistently large differences were not found (see Table 7.11) between the two groups in their frequency of response to this survey item. (m e reader may recall that the ~

129 TABLE 7.11 Item Response Rate on Measure 08, by Selected Characteristics of Survey Evaluators in Engineering Chemical Civil Electrical Mechanical Total Engin. Engin. Engin. Engin. ENIALUATOR'S FAMILIARITY WITH PROGRAM Considerable 99~9 99 9 100.0 99.8 99.9 Some 98.2 99.1 96.9 98.5 97.8 Little or None 21.1 31.7 17.1 18.6 18.4 TYPE OF SURVEY FORM Names 66.4 76.4 63.3 61.7 62.0 No Names 70.2 88.6 59.3 71.8 62.0 INSTITUTION OF HIGHEST DEGREE Alumni 98.5 100.0 97.2 98.2 Nonalumni 66.4 77.1 62.6 62.3 EVALUATOR'S PROXIMITY TO PROGRAM Same Region 79.0 85.1 78.3 75.8 75.7 Outside Region 65.0 76.2 61.0 60.7 60.1 NOTE: The item response rate is the percentage of the total ratings requested from survey participants that included a response other than "don't know.~" provision of faculty names apparently had a positive effect on survey sample members' willingness to complete and return their question- naires in engineering disciplines. The mean ratings provided by the group furnished faculty names are lower than the mean ratings supplied by other respondents in all dis- ciplines but chemical engineering (see Table 7.12~. Although small, the differences found in civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering are not what might have been expected. After all, those programs more familiar to evaluators tended to receive higher ratings, yet when steps were taken to enhance the evaluator's familiarity, the resulting ratings are somewhat lower. One post hoc interpretation of this leas shown in Table 2.3, the survey response rate for those furnished faculty names is approximately 5 percentage points higher than that for those not given this information.

130 finding is that a program may be considered to have distinguished fac- ulty if even only a few of its members are considered by the evaluator to be outstanding in their field. However, when a full list of pro- gram faculty is provided, the evaluator may be influenced by the num- ber of individuals whom he or she could not consider to be distin- guished. Thus, the presentation of these additional, unfamiliar names may occasionally result in a lower rating of program faculty. However interesting these effects may be, one should not lose sight of the fact that they are small at best and that their existence does not necessarily imply that a program's relative standing on measure 08 would differ much whichever type of survey form was used. Since only about 1 in 10 ratings was supplied without the benefit of faculty names, it is hard to establish any very stable picture of relative mean ratings of individual programs. However, the correlations between the mean ratings supplied by the two groups are reasonably high--rang- ing from .77 to .96 in the four disciplines (see Table 7.12~. Were these coefficients adjusted for the fact that the group furnished forms without names constituted only about 10 percent of the survey respon- dents, they would be substantially larger. From this result it seems reasonable to conclude that differences in the alternative survey forms used are not likely to be responsible for any large-scale reshuffling in the reputational ranking of programs on measure 08. It also sug- gests that the inclusion of faculty names in the committee's assessment need not prevent comparisons of the results with those obtained from the Roose-Andersen survey. Another factor that might be thought to influence an evaluator's judgment about a particular program is the geographic proximity of that program to the evaluator. There is enough regional traffic in academic life that one might expect proximate programs to be better known than those in distant regions of the country. This hypothesis may apply especially to the smaller and less visible programs and is confirmed by the survey results. For purposes of analysis, programs TABLE 7.12 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Type of Survey Form Provided to Evaluator MEAN RATINGS CORRELATION Names No Names r N Chemical Engin. 2.68 2.47 .96 79 Civil Engin. 2.66 2.91 .77 73 Electrical Engin. 2.60 2.61 .86 90 Mechanical Engin. 2.73 2.81 .87 81 NOTE: N reported in last column represents the number of pro- grams with a rating from at least one evaluator in each of the two groups.

131 TABLE 7.13 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evaluator's Proximity to Region of Program MEAN RATINGS CORRELATION Nearby Outside r N Chemical Engin. 2.75 2.66 .94 79 Civil Engin. 2.70 2.68 .86 73 Electrical Engin. 2.71 2.61 .86 87 Mechanical Engin. 2.72 2.74 .87 81 NOTE: N reported in last column represents the number of programs with a rating from at least one evaluator in each of the two groups. were assigned to one of nine geographic regions in the United States, and ratings of programs within an evaluator's own region are categorized in Table 7.13 as "nearby. Ratings of programs in any of the other eight regions were put in the ~outside" group. Findings re- ported elsewhere in this chapter confirm that evaluators were more likely to provide ratings if a program was within their own region of the country, 3 and it is reasonable to imagine that the smaller and the less visible programs received a disproportionate share of their ratings either from evaluators within their own region or from others who for one reason or another were particularly familiar with programs in that region. Although the data in Table 7.13 suggest that ~nearby" programs were given higher ratings than those outside the evaluator's region, the differences in reported means are quite small and probably represent no more than a secondary effect that might be expected, because, as we have already seen, evaluators tended to rate higher those programs with which they were more familiar. Furthermore, the high correlations found between the mean ratings of the two groups indicate that the relative standings of programs are not dramatically influenced by the geographic proximity of those evaluating them. Another consideration that troubles some critics is that large programs may be unfairly favored in a faculty survey because they are likely to have more alumni contributing to their ratings who, it would stand to reason, would be generous in the evaluations of their alma maters. Information collected in the survey on each evaluator's insti- tution of highest degree enables us to investigate this concern. The findings presented in Table 7.14 support the hypothesis that alumni provided generous ratings--with differences in the mean ratings (for Resee Appendix I for a list of the states included in each region. Resee Table 7.11.

132 TABLE 7.14 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evaluator's Institution of Highest Degree MEAN RATINGS NUMBER OF PROGRAMS WITH ALUMNI RATINGS N Alumni Nonalumni Chemical Engin. 3.77 3.35 32 Civil Engin. 3.96 3.23 27 Electrical Engin. 3.76 3.33 29 Mechanical Engin. 3.99 3.38 27 NOTE: The pairs of means reported in each discipline are computed for a subset of programs with a rating from at least one alumnus and are substantially greater than the mean ratings for the full set of programs in each discipline. measure 08) of alumni and nonalumni ranging from .42 to .73 in the disciplines. Given the appreciable differences between the ratings furnished by program alumni and other evaluators, one might ask how much effect this has had on the overall results of the survey. m e answer is "very little." As shown in the table, only about one program in every three received ratings from any alumnus.'4 Moreover, the fraction of alumni providing ratings of a program is always quite small and should have had minimal impact on the overall mean rating of any program. To be certain that this was the case, mean ratings of the scholarly quality of faculty were recalculated for every engineering program--with the evaluations provided by alumni excluded. The results were compared with the mean scores based on a full set of evaluations. Out of the 324 engineering programs evaluated in the survey, only 1 program {in civil engineering) had an observed difference as large as 0.2, and for 306 programs (94 percent) their mean ratings remain un- changed (to the nearest tenth of a unit). On the basis of these find- ings the committee saw no reason to exclude alumni ratings in the cal- culation of program means. Another concern that some critics have is that a survey evaluation may be affected by the interaction of the research interests of the evaluator and the area ts) of focus of the research-doctorate program to be rated. It is said, for example, that some narrowly focused pro- grams may be strong in a particular area of research but that this because of the small number of alumni ratings in every discipline, the mean ratings for this group are unstable and therefore the correla- tions between alumni and nonalumni mean ratings are not reported.

133 strength may not be recognized by a large fraction of evaluators who happen to be unknowledgeable in this area. This is a concern more difficult to address than those discussed in the preceding pages since little or no information is available about the areas of focus of the programs being evaluated (although in certain disciplines the title of a department or academic unit may provide a clue). To obtain a better understanding of the extent to which an evaluator's field of specialty may have influenced the ratings he or she has provided, an analysis was made of ratings provided by evaluators in physics and statistics/ biostatistics. In each discipline the survey participants were divided into two groups according to specialty field (as reported on the survey questionnaire). The results of the analysis, which are presented in the mathematical and physical sciences volume of the committee's re- port, indicate that there is a high degree of correlation in the mean ratings provided by those in differing specialty fields within these two disciplines. Although one cannot conclude from these findings that an evaluator's specialty field has no bearing on how he or she rates a program, these findings do suggest that the relative standings of programs in physics and statistics/biostatistics would not be greatly altered if the ratings by either group were discarded. INTERPRETATION OF REPUTATIONAL SURVEY RATINGS It is not hard to foresee that results from this survey will receive considerable attention through enthusiastic and uncritical reporting in some quarters and sharp castigation in others. The study committee understands the grounds for both sides of this polarized response but finds that both tend to be excessive. It is important to make clear how we view these ratings as fitting into the larger study of which they are a part. The reputational results are likely to receive a disproportionate degree of attention for several reasons, including the fact that they reflect the opinions of a large group of faculty colleagues and that they form a bridge with earlier studies of graduate programs. But the results will also receive emphasis because they alone, among all of the measures, seem to address quality in an overall or global fashion. While most recognize that "objective" program characteristics (i.e., publication productivity, research funding, or library size) have some bearing on program quality, probably no one would contend that a single one of these measures encompasses all that need be known about the quality of research-doctorate programs. Each is obviously no more than an indicator of some aspect of program quality. In contrast, the rep- utational ratings are global from the start because the respondents are asked to take into account many objective characteristics and to arrive at a general assessment of the quality of the faculty and effectiveness of the program. m is generality has self-evident appeal. On the other hand, it is wise to keep in mind that these reputation- al ratings are measures of perceived program quality rather than of "quality" in some ideal or absolute sense. What this means is that,

134 just as for all of the more objective measures, the reputational rat- ings represent only a partial view of what most of us would consider quality to be; hence, they must be kept in careful perspective. Some critics may argue that such ratings are positively misleading because of a variety of methodological artifacts or because they are supplied by "judges who often know very little about the programs they are rating. m e committee has conducted the survey in a way that per- mits the empirical examination of a number of the alleged artifacts and, although our analysis is by no means exhaustive, the general con- clusion is that their effects are slight. At the same time, criticisms of reputational ratings from prior studies represent a perspective that may be misguided. mis perspec- tive assumes that one asks for ratings in order to find out what "quality" really is and that to the degree that the ratings miss the mark of "quintessential quality, n they are unreal, although the quality that they attempt to measure is real. What this perspective misses is the reality of quality and the fact that impressions of quality, if widely shared, have an imposing reality of their own and therefore are worth knowing about in their own right. After all, these perceptions govern a large-scale system of traffic around the nation's graduate institutions--for example, when undergraduate students seek the advice of their professor concerning graduate programs that they might attend. It is possible that some professors put in this position disqualify themselves on grounds that they are not well informed about the rela- tive merits of the programs being considered. Most faculty members, however, surely attempt to be helpful on the basis of impressions gleaned from their professional experience, and these assessments are likely to have major impact on student decision-making. In short, the impressions are real and have very real effects not only on students shopping for graduate schools but also on other flows, such as job- seeking young faculty and the distribution of research resources. At the very least, the survey results provide a snapshot of these impres- sions from discipline to discipline. Although these impressions may be far from ideally informed, they certainly show a strong degree of consensus within each discipline, and it seems safe to assume that they are more than passingly related to what a majority of keen observers might agree program quality is all about. COMPARISON WITH RESULTS OF THE ROOSE—ANDERSEN STUDY An analysis of the response to the committee's survey would not be complete without comparing the results with those obtained in the sur- vey by Roose and Andersen 12 years earlier. Although there are obvious similarities in the two surveys, there are also some important differ- ences that should be kept in mind in examining individual program rat- ings of the scholarly quality of faculty. Already mentioned in this chapter is the inclusion, on the form sent to 90 percent of the sample members in the committee's survey, of the names and academic ranks of faculty and the numbers of doctoral graduates in the previous five years. Other significant changes in the committee's form are the

135 identification of the university department or academic unit in which each program may be found, the restriction of requesting evaluators to make judgments about no more than 50 research-doctorate programs in their discipline, and the presentation of these programs in random se- quence on the survey form. The sampling frames used in the two surveys also differ. m e sample selected in the earlier study included only individuals who had been nominated by the participating universities, while more than one-fourth of the sample in the committee's survey were chosen at random from full faculty lists. (Except for this difference the samples were quite similar--i.e., in terms of number of evaluators in each discipline and the fraction of senior scholars.~5) Several dissimilarities in the coverage of the Roose-Andersen and this committee's reputational assessments should be mentioned. The former included a total of 130 institutions that had awarded at least 100 doctoral degrees in two or more disciplines during the FY1958-67 period. m e institutional coverage in the committee's assessment was based on the number of doctorates awarded in each discipline (as described in Chapter I) and covered a total population of 228 univer- sities. Most of the universities represented in the later study but not the earlier one are institutions that offered research-doctorate programs in a limited set of disciplines. Finally, in the Roose- Andersen study, ratings were compiled on only one program from each institution represented in a discipline, whereas in the committee's survey separate ratings were requested if a university offered more than one research-doctorate program in a given discipline. The conse- quences of these differences in survey coverage are quite apparent: in the committee's survey, evaluations were requested for a total of 326 research-doctorate programs in chemical, civil, electrical, and mechanical engineering compared with 287 programs in the Roose- Andersen study. Figures 7.1-7.4 plot the mean ratings of scholarly quality of fac- ulty in programs included in both surveys; sets of ratings are graphed for 61 programs in chemical engineering, 57 in civil engineering, 66 in electrical engineering, and 61 in mechanical engineering. Since in the Roose-Andersen study programs were identified by institution and discipline (but not by department) the matching of results from this survey with those from the committee's survey is not precise. For universities represented in the latter survey by more than one program in a particular discipline, the mean rating for the program with the largest number of graduates (measure 02) is the only one plotted here. Although the results of both surveys are reported on identical scales, some caution must be taken in interpreting differences in the mean ratings a program received in the two evaluations. It is impossible to estimate what effect all of the differences described above may have had on the results of the two surveys. Furthermore, one must Moor a description of the sample group used in the earlier study, see Roose and Andersen, pp. 28-31.

136 5. 0++ 4 . 0+ Measure + 3.0++ + + 08 * * * * * * + - 2.0 1.0 * * * * * * * * . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r = .89 0.0 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Roose-Andersen Rating ( 1970) FIGURE 7.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--61 programs in chemical engineering.

137 s. o++ + + + t 4. 0++ + + Measure + 3.0++ 08 + + + + + + 2. 0++ 1 . 0++ + 0.0 + 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r = . 91 Roose-Andersen Rating (1970) FIGURE 7.2 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--57 programs in civil engineering.

138 5 . 0++ 4.0++ * * * * + + + + + + + Measure + 3.0++ 08 + + + + + 2. 0++ + + + 1 . 0 ++ + + + O.0 + 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r = .92 Roose-Andersen Rating (1970) FIGURE 7.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--66 programs in electrical engineering.

139 5. 0++ 4.0++ + + + + + Measure + 3.0++ 08 + + + + + 2.0++ + 1.0~+ + O. O + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ~ 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Roose-Andersen Rating (1970) FIGURE 7.4 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in tne Roose-Andersen study--61 programs in mechanical engineering.

140 remember that the reported scores are based on the opinions of differ- ent groups of faculty members and were provided at different time periods. In 1969, when the Roose-Andersen survey was-conducted, gradu- ate departments in most universities were still expanding and not fac- ing the enrollment and budget reductions that many departments have had to deal with in recent years. Consequently, a comparison of the over- all findings from the two surveys tells us nothing about how much grad- uate education has improved (or declined) in the past decade. Nor should the reader place much stock in any small differences in the mean ratings that a particular program may have received in the two surveys. On the other hand, it is of particular interest to note the high cor- relations between the results of the evaluations. For programs in the four engineering disciplines the correlation coefficients range between .89 (chemical) and .93 (mechanical). The extraordinarily high correla- tions found in all four disciplines may suggest to some readers that reputational standings of programs in these disciplines have changed very little in the last decade. However, one must keep in mind that the correlations are based on the reputational ratings of only three- fourchs of the programs evaluated in this assessment in these disci- plines and do not take into account the emergence of many new programs that did not exist or were too small to be rated in the Roose-Andersen study. FUTURE STUDIES One of the most important objectives in undertaking this assessment was to test new measures not used extensively in past evaluations of graduate programs. Although the committee believes that it has been successful in this effort, much more needs to be done. First and foremost, studies of this kind should be extended to cover other types of programs and other disciplines not included in this effort. As a consequence of budgeting limitations, the committee had to restrict its study to 32 disciplines, selected on the basis of the number of doctor- ates awarded in each. A multidimensional assessment of research- doctorate programs in many important disciplines not included among these 32 should be of great value to the academic community. Consid- eration should also be given to embarking on evaluations of programs offering other types of graduate and professional degrees. As a matter of fact, plant for including master 's-degree programs in this assess- ment were originally contemplated, but because of a lack of available information about the resources and graduates of programs at the master's level, it was decided to focus on programs leading to the research doctorate. Perhaps the most debated issue the committee has had to address concerned which measures should be reported in this assessment. In fact, there is still disagreement among some of its members about the relative merits of certain measures, and the committee fully recognizes a need for more reliable and valid indices of the quality of graduate programs. First on a list of needs is more precise and meaningful information about the product of research-doctorate programs--the

141 graduates. For example, what fraction of the program graduates have gone on to be productive investigators--either in the academic setting or in government and industrial laboratories? What fraction have gone on to become outstanding investigators--as measured by receipt of major prizes, membership in academies, and other such distinctions? How do program graduates compare with regard to their publication records? Also desired might be measures of the quality of the students applying for admittance to a graduate program (e.g., Graduate Record Examination - scores, undergraduate grade point averages). If reliable data of this sort were made available, they might provide a useful index of the reputational standings of programs, from the perspective of graduate students. A number of alternative measures relevant to the quality of program faculty were considered by the committee but not included in the assessment because of the associated difficulties and costs of come piling the necessary data. For example, what fraction of the program faculty were invited to present papers at national meetings? What fraction had been elected to prestigious organizations/groups in their field? What fraction had received senior fellowships and other awards of distinction? In addition, it would be highly desirable to supple- ment the data presented on NSF, NIH, and ADAMHA research grant awards (measure 13) with data on awards from other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration) as well as from major private foundations. AS described in the preceding pages, the committee was able to make several changes in the survey design and procedures, but further imp provements could be made. Of highest priority in this regard is the expansion of the survey sample to include evaluators from outside the academic setting (in particular, those in government and industrial laboratories who regularly employ graduates of the programs to be evaluated). To add evaluators from these sectors would require a major effort in identifying the survey population from which a sample could be selected. Although such an effort is likely to involve considerable costs in both time and financial resources, the committee believes that the addition of evaluators from the government and industrial settings would be of value in providing a different perspective to the reputa- tional assessment and that comparisons between the ratings supplied by academic and nonacademic evaluators would be of particular interest.

Next: Minority Statement »
An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Engineering Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!