Summary Report 1993: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities (1995)

* These rates may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding. The rates for 1980– 1992 reflect late responses. The self-report rate for 1993 may increase somewhat in the next year if additional questionnaires are received from doctorate recipients.

** The National Research Council's Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel (NRC/OSEP) enters information from commencement programs, such as name, Ph.D. field and year, and earlier educational history if available. Gender is assumed from the name of the recipient wherever possible. Institutions provide similar information and, occasionally, other demographic variables such as citizenship and race/ethnicity.

As shown on the previous page, 94.6 percent of all doctorate recipients in 1993 completed survey forms; this percentage is referred to as the “self-report” rate. For the remaining 5.4 percent of recipients, “skeletal” forms were created using information from doctorate-granting institutions or commencement programs. Whether or not individuals completed the survey questionnaire, the following four data items are available for all recipients: gender, Ph.D. institution, Ph.D. field, and Ph.D. year.

This report presents data obtained from all survey forms, both self-reported and skeletal. The reader should note that nonresponse in a tabulation varies according to the combination of selected variables. Higher nonresponse rates occur when any of the four above-mentioned variables are cross-tabulated with another variable (e.g., educational debt) because the universe consists of the entire doctoral cohort. In other words, the 5.4 percent of Ph.D.s who did not respond to the survey are included, even though their records contain minimal information. Nonresponse is generally lower when citizenship or race/ethnicity is cross-tabulated with a variable such as debt because the population is restricted to a group (e.g., U.S. citizens) largely drawn from self-reported forms and thus more likely to have responses to the debt question. To be more precise, information on debt was not available for only 3.9 percent of U.S. citizens in 1993; nonresponse was low because information on both citizenship and debt was obtained mostly from self-reported forms. Nonresponse was higher for the entire 1993 cohort (7.3 percent) because it included the 5.4 percent of forms that were only partially filled in by institutions or staff of the National Research Council. The same was true for men (7.6 percent) and women (6.8 percent) because gender was known even for Ph.D.s who did not complete a survey form. Cross-tabulating debt with field of doctorate would yield similarly high nonresponse rates because Ph.D. field is available for all recipients.

For the most part, the tables and figures in this report display percentages that are based only on the number of doctorate recipients who responded to the applicable survey questions; recipients who did not respond are excluded.¹ The technical notes in this appendix provide rates of nonresponse for questions covered in the body of the report. Rates for selected populations and years are presented, along with descriptive explanations of the data as needed. There are six technical notes in all, pertaining to the following tables and figures and focusing on the topics indicated in parentheses:

Technical Note 1: Figures 2 and 6, Tables 3 and 4 (citizenship)

Technical Note 2: Figures 3 and 7, Tables 5–7 (race/ethnicity)

Technical Note 3: Figures 8 and 9, Tables 9 and 10 (time-to-doctorate)

Technical Note 4: Figure 10, Table 11 (primary source of graduate school support)

Technical Note 5: Figure 11, Tables 12 and 13 (educational debt)

Technical Note 6: Figures 12–14, Tables 14–19 (postgraduation plans)

The 1993 nonresponse rates for items discussed in this report are shown below.

1. Figures 2 and 6; Tables 3 and 4: Percentages in Figure 6 are based on the number of doctorate recipients who reported their citizenship status. Nonresponses are excluded from the computations (see below).

Table 3 displays the numbers of Ph.D.s in each citizenship group. See the table above for rates of nonresponse to the question on citizenship status. Table 4 lists the leading countries of origin of non-U.S. Ph.D.s. Of the 12,173 non-U.S. Ph.D.s in 1993, 172 (or 1.4 percent) did not report their country of citizenship.

2. Figures 3 and 7; Tables 5–7: Figure 3 compares the representation of minorities among U.S. citizen Ph.D.s in 1993 with their representation in 1978. Nonresponses are excluded from the percentage computations. The nonresponse rate among U.S. citizens to the question on race/ethnicity was 6.0 percent in 1978 and 0.9 percent in 1993. Nonresponse to race/ethnicity for the 1989 –1993 period shown in Tables 6 and 7 was 1.5 percent. Note that response has improved since 1990, when race/ethnicity was first followed up if not reported on the survey form. (See Appendix Table B-2 for total numbers of U.S. Ph.D.s; see technical note 1 for rates of nonresponse to citizenship status.)

Table 5 distributes the U.S. racial/ethnic groups in 1993 among the major fields. Figure 7 shows the percentage of whites versus minorities in each broad field. Rates of nonresponse to race/ethnicity by broad field are given on the next page. A historical discussion of the racial/ethnic question and important information on recent adjustments to racial/ethnic data follow the nonresponse tables.

History of the racial/ethnic question: Although the item on race/ethnicity was first introduced to the Survey of Earned Doctorates in 1973, over 25 percent of recipients in 1973 and about 13 percent in 1974 either completed earlier questionnaires or provided unusable responses. The racial/ethnic data have been more reliable since 1975, with response rates ranging between 91 and 97 percent. The information on race/ethnicity presented in this report is limited to the period 1978 to 1993.

The racial/ethnic question has undergone several revisions over the years. In 1977, it was modified to correspond to a standard question format recommended by the Federal Interagency Committee on Education and adopted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use in federally sponsored surveys; an explanation of the effect of these changes is detailed on page 13 of Summary Report 1977. (Note: Changes in the OMB guidelines prompted the reclassification of persons having origins in the Indian subcontinent from the white category to the Asian category.) In 1980, the question was further revised in two ways: (1) the Hispanic category was subdivided into Puerto Rican, Mexican American, and other Hispanic to provide more detail for users of the racial/ethnic data, and (2) respondents were asked to check only one racial category. (Before 1980, doctorate recipients could check more than one category to indicate their race.) The item was modified again in 1982 to separate the questions on race and ethnicity. Since then, respondents have been asked to first check one of the four racial group categories (American Indian, Asian, black, or white) and then indicate whether or not they are Hispanic. In this report, Ph.D.s who reported Hispanic heritage are classified as Hispanic regardless of their racial designations; the remaining Ph.D.s are then counted in the respective racial groups. (Note: Doctorate recipients who checked the category “American Indian or Alaskan Native ” are identified as “Native American” in this report.)

3. Figures 8 and 9; Tables 9 and 10: Registered time-to-degree (RTD) measures the actual time in attendance at colleges and universities between receipt of the baccalaureate and the doctorate; enrollment may include years of attendance not related to a recipient's doctoral program. RTD cannot be computed for individuals who have not provided all years of college attendance after earning the baccalaureate. Total time-to-degree (TTD) measures the elapsed time from baccalaureate to doctorate (including time not enrolled in school). TTD can be computed only for individuals whose baccalaureate year is known. (Note: Baccalaureate year is often obtained from commencement programs or doctorate institutions when not reported by the recipient.)

Months are excluded from all computations because they are rarely reported by the respondent. Nonresponse rates for the two measures of time-to-degree are presented on the next page.

4. Figure 10; Table 11: The percentages given in Figure 10 and Table 11 are based on the numbers of doctorate recipients in 1993 who reported their primary source of support in graduate school. The numbers shown in Table 11 are the base for these percentages; they represent only those Ph.D.s whose primary support is known—not the total cohort of Ph.D.s in 1993. Because many recipients answered the support question but failed to designate a primary source, nonresponse was quite high in 1993. The reader should note that while nonresponse to primary support has consistently been greater than nonresponse to other variables, it was especially high in the last two years (probably a result of revisions to the questionnaire format). The nonresponse rate for the total cohort of Ph.D.s in 1993 was 33.9 percent, compared to 22.5 percent in 1991 (as reported in Summary Report 1991). See next page for nonresponse rates in 1993, as applicable to Figure 10 and Table 11.

5. Figure 11; Tables 12 and 13: Percentages are based on the numbers of doctorate recipients who reported debt related to their combined undergraduate and graduate education. Nonresponses are excluded from percentage and median computations.

6. Figures 12–14; Tables 14–19: The question on postgraduation status asks recipients to indicate whether they have made a “definite” commitment, are in the process of “negotiating” with one or more organizations, or are seeking a position but with no prospects. Because Ph.D.s sometimes complete the survey form months ahead of graduation, it is not possible to determine the final plans of many recipients. It is quite likely, however, that some individuals who check “negotiating” or “seeking” have obtained positions by the time of graduation. Because many outcomes are unknown, data on postgraduation plans in this report are restricted to the group of Ph.D.s who reported “definite” plans (see next page).²

The proportions of Ph.D.s with “definite” commitments are given in the next two tables. These percentages are based on the number of Ph.D.s who responded to the question on postgraduation status (see table on previous page for rates of nonresponse to this question).

The table below displays the proportions of Ph.D.s with “definite” commitments in 1993 by field and demographic group, and the range of proportions for the five years included in Figures 12–14and Tables 14–19(i.e., 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993).

Figure 12; Tables 14 and 15: These tables and figure present data on the type of plans (employment or study) for only those Ph.D.s who reported definite postgraduation commitments; therefore, they do not reflect the entire Ph.D. population. (See page 90 and the tables above for nonresponses to the question on postgraduation status and the proportions of Ph.D.s with definite commitments.)

Nonresponses to the question on type of postdoctoral plans (employment or study) are excluded from the percentage calculations in Figure 12 and Tables 14 and 15. As is evident from the table on the next page, rates of nonresponse were very low in every year and for all fields and demographic groups.

Figure 13; Table 16: Figure 13 gives the proportions of non-U.S. citizens who reported plans to stay in the United States after graduation. Table 16 shows the percentages of both those who planned to stay in the United States and those who planned to leave. Only Ph.D.s who reported definite commitments are included (see page 90 for rates of nonresponse to the question on postgraduation status). Nonresponses to the question on postdoctoral location are excluded from the percentage calculations in Figure 13 and Table 16 (see table on next page).

Table 17: This table presents data on the postdoctoral location and type of plans (employment or study) for only those non-U.S. citizens who reported definite commitments (see page 90 for nonresponses to the question on postgraduation status). Percentages in Table 17 are based on the number of non-U.S. Ph.D.s who reported both postdoctoral location and type of plans. Nonresponse rates for these questions are given below.

Figure 14; Tables 18 and 19: As with the other tables on postgraduation plans, Figure 14 and Tables 18 and 19 do not include data on the entire Ph.D. cohort. Rather, they display the type of employer (i.e., sector) for only those Ph.D.s who reported definite commitments in the United States. (See pages 90–92 for rates of nonresponse to the questions on postgraduation status and type of plans.)

The table below shows the proportions of all Ph.D.s with definite commitments (and known type of plans) who reported employment in the United States.

Nonresponses to the question on employment sector are excluded from the percentages in Figure 14 and Tables 18 and 19. As can be seen in the following two tables, nonresponse was very low in all years.

Figure 14; Table 18

Table 19