National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD) (2011)

Chapter: Appendix H: Detail for the Rating Study

« Previous: Appendix G: Correlation of the Median R and S Rankings by Broad Field
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Detail for the Rating Study." National Research Council. 2011. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12994.
×
Page 281
Suggested Citation:"Appendix H: Detail for the Rating Study." National Research Council. 2011. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12994.
×
Page 282

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.

Appendix H Detail for the Rating Study Max Min Number Average Number of of Ratings No. of No. of Count of Ratings for for a Programs Raters in Raters per a Program Program in Field in Sample Sample Program in the Field the Field Animal Sciences 36 135 40.4 54 21 Anthropology 50 163 43.3 51 33 Applied Mathematics 26 110 48.1 65 35 Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology 49 143 40.3 45 30 Biology/Integrated Biology/Integrated Biomedical Sciences 50 172 37.4 48 27 Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering 50 162 41.9 55 29 Cell and Developmental Biology 50 170 40.0 56 21 Chemical Engineering 50 160 47.2 54 23 Chemistry 50 173 44.0 58 37 Civil and Environmental Engineering 50 162 43.4 53 32 Classics 18 73 41.7 47 36 Communication 49 169 50.0 57 28 Comparative Literature 29 91 39.1 54 31 Computer Sciences 49 186 50.1 61 41 Earth Sciences 50 197 48.5 64 26 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 49 158 40.3 53 26 Economics 49 166 44.6 52 34 Electrical and Computer Engineering 50 261 68.9 82 52 English Language and Literature 50 172 45.6 63 30 French and Francophone Language and Literature 30 91 42.3 51 36 Genetics and Genomics 40 116 36.5 51 28 Geography 40 136 47.1 56 35 German Language and Literature 23 91 49.9 56 45 History 49 159 41.8 57 31 History of Art, Architecture, and Archeology 39 121 40.4 48 16 Immunology and Infectious Disease 50 176 38.3 56 26 Kinesiology 30 83 36.2 44 29 Linguistics 30 108 48.4 58 22 Materials Science and Engineering 49 171 45.6 56 27 Mathematics 48 181 48.4 56 39 Mechanical Engineering 48 265 70.5 85 53 Microbiology 48 141 35.5 43 26 Music (Except Performance) 43 137 40.9 52 24 Neuroscience and Neurobiology 50 160 41.9 51 32 Nursing 28 101 44.1 54 32 Nutrition 29 119 47.6 61 38 Oceanography, Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology 30 141 49.5 72 28 Operations Research, Systems Engineering and Industrial Engineering 48 146 38.0 52 28 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health 50 195 46.7 60 36 281

282 APPENDIX H Max Min Number Average Number of of Ratings No. of No. of Count of Ratings for for a Programs Raters in Raters per a Program Program in Field in Sample Sample Program in the Field the Field Philosophy 50 171 46.7 57 34 Physics 50 177 43.7 58 23 Physiology 46 140 35.6 48 27 Plant Sciences 43 153 39.3 54 25 Political Science 50 154 40.9 48 29 Psychology 50 231 50.9 69 28 Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration 35 119 38.3 51 29 Public Health 32 157 49.0 73 27 Religion 30 95 40.1 54 28 Sociology 51 214 43.0 53 27 Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature 49 161 44.0 54 36 Statistics and Probability 48 163 47.2 60 38

Next: Appendix I: Count of Ranked and Unranked Programs by Field »
A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD) Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $100.00 Buy Ebook | $79.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States provides an unparalleled dataset that can be used to assess the quality and effectiveness of doctoral programs based on measures important to faculty, students, administrators, funders, and other stakeholders.

The data, collected for the 2005-2006 academic year from more than 5,000 doctoral programs at 212 universities, covers 62 fields. Included for each program are such characteristics as faculty publications, grants, and awards; student GRE scores, financial support, and employment outcomes; and program size, time to degree, and faculty composition. Measures of faculty and student diversity are also included.

The book features analysis of selected findings across six broad fields: agricultural sciences, biological and health sciences, engineering, physical and mathematical sciences, social and behavioral sciences, and humanities, as well as a discussion of trends in doctoral education since the last assessment in 1995, and suggested uses of the data . It also includes a detailed explanation of the methodology used to collect data and calculate ranges of illustrative rankings.

Included with the book is a comprehensive CD-ROM with a data table in Microsoft Excel. In addition to data on the characteristics of individual programs, the data table contains illustrative ranges of rankings for each program, as well as ranges of rankings for three dimensions of program quality: (1) research activity, (2) student support and outcomes, and (3) diversity of the academic environment.

As an aid to users, the data table is offered with demonstrations of some Microsoft Excel features that may enhance the usability of the spreadsheet, such as hiding and unhiding columns, copying and pasting columns to a new worksheet, and filtering and sorting data. Also provided with the data table are a set of scenarios that show how typical users may want to extract data from the spreadsheet.

PhDs.org, an independent website not affiliated with the National Research Council, incorporated data from the research-doctorate assessment into its Graduate School Guide. Users of the Guide can choose the weights assigned to the program characteristics measured by the National Research Council and others, and rank graduate programs according to their own priorities.

  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!