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.
IV Botany Progress In this chapter 83 research-doctorate programs in botany are as- sessed. These programs, according to the information supplied by their universities, have accounted for 1.574 doctoral H-ar-~= :awAr~ Front the FY1976-80 period. On the average, 20 full-time and part-time s tudents intending to earn doctorates were enrolled in a program in December 1980, with an average faculty size of 19 members.2 A major- ity of the 83 programs, listed in Table 4.1, are located in botany or botanical science departments. Approximately one-third are found in departments of plant pathology or plant physiology. Four programs were initiated since 1970. Each of 11 institutions--Clemson University, University of Georgia, University of Illinois, Iowa State University, University of Missouri, North Carolina State University, Ohio State University, Oklahoma State University, Pennsylvania State University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and University of Wisconsin (Madison)--has two botany programs evaluated in this study. Each of five institutions--University of California (Berkeley), Uni- versity of California (Davis), University of Kentucky, University of Minnesota, and Texas A&M University--has three botany programs evalu- ated. In addition to the 62 institutions represented in this disci- pline, another 2 were initially identified as meeting the criteria3 for inclusion in the assessment: Brandeis University Harvard University _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ en _ __ _-e~ data from the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates indicate that 1,488 research doctorates in botany, phytopathology, and plant physiology were awarded by U.S. universities between FY1976 and FY1980. Since the NRC figure is based on field of degree and not department, it may ex- clude some doctorates included in the numbers reported by the institu- tional coordinators. 2See the reported means for measures 03 and 01 in Table 4.2. 3AS mentioned in Chapter I, the primary criterion for inclusion was that a university had awarded at least 7 doctorates in botany during the FY1976-78 period. 59
60 Botany programs at these two institutions have not been included in the evaluations in this discipline, since in each case the study coordina- tor indicated that the institution did not at that time have a re- search-doctorate program in botany. Before examining individual program results presented in Table 4.1, the reader is urged to refer to Chapter II, in which each of the 16 measures used in the assessment is discussed. Summary statistics de- scribing every measure are given in Table 4.2. For nine of the mea- sures, data are reported for at least 78 of the 83 botany programs. For measures 04-07, which pertain to characteristics of the program graduates, data are presented for only approximately two-thirds of the programs; the other third had too few graduates on which to base sta- tistics.4 For measure 12, a composite index of the size of a uni- versity library, data are available for 68 programs. With respect to measure 13--the fraction of faculty with research grants from the Na- tional Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, or the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration--data are re- ported for 45 programs that had at least 10 faculty members; for mea- sure 14, the total university expenditures for research in the biolog- ical sciences, data are available for 69 programs. m e programs not evaluated on measures 12, 13, and 14 are typically smaller--in terms of faculty size and graduate student enrollment--than other botany pro- grams. Were data on these two measures available for all 83 programs, it is likely that their reported means would be appreciably lower (and that some of the correlations of these measures with others would be higher). Intercorrelations among the 16 measures (Pearson~product-moment coefficients) are given in Table 4.3. Of particular note are the mod- erately high positive correlations of the measures of the numbers of faculty (01) and students (03) with reputational survey ratings (08, 09~. Figure 4.1 illustrates the relation between the mean rating of the scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) and the number of faculty members (measure 01) for each of 83 programs in botany. Figure 4.2 plots the mean rating of program effectiveness (measure 09) against the total number of FY1976-80 program graduates (measure 02~. Although in both figures there is a significant positive correlation between pro- gram size and reputational rating, it is quite apparent that some of the smaller programs received high mean ratings. Table 4.4 describes the 153 faculty members who participated in the evaluation of botany programs. mese individuals constituted 61 per- cent of those asked to respond to the survey in this discipline and 10 percent of the faculty population in the 83 research-doctorate programs being evaluated.5 Approximately three-fourths of the survey partici- pants were botanists, plant physiologists, or phytopathologists; the 4As mentioned in Chapter II, data for measures 04-07 are not reported if they are based on the survey responses of fewer than 10 FY1975-79 program graduates. s see Table 2.3 in Chapter II.
61 remainder were in ecology or other biological science fields. More than two-thirds of the survey participants had earned their-highest degree prior to 1970, and a majority held the rank of full professor. To assist the reader in interpreting results of the survey evalua- tions, estimated standard errors have been computed for mean ratings of the scholarly quality of faculty in 83 botany programs (and are given in Table 4.11. For each program the mean rating and an associ- ated "confidence interval" of 1.S standard errors are illustrated in Figure 4.3 (listed in order of highest to lowest mean rating). In comparing two programs, if their confidence intervals do not overlap, one may conclude that there is a significant difference in their mean ratings at a .05 level of significance.6 From this figure it is also apparent that one should have somewhat more confidence in the accuracy of the mean ratings of higher-rated programs than lower-rated programs. This generalization results primarily from the fact that evaluators are not as likely to be familiar with the less prestigious programs, and consequently the mean ratings of these programs are usually based on fewer survey responses. 6 See pp. 31-33 for a discussion of the interpretation of mean ratings and associated confidence intervals.
62 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Characteristics of Prog Program Size Program Graduates No. University - Department/Academic Unit (01) (02) (03} t04) (05) (06} (07) 001. Arizona, University of-Tucson 9 10 11 NA NA NA NA Botany 43 46 44 002. Auburn University 15 9 3 NA NA NA NA Botany, Plant Pathology, and M ~ crobioJogy 4 7 46 3 8 003. Brigham Young University 12 18 16 .08 5.5 .58 .25 Botany and Range so ~ ence 45 49 4 7 40 63 44 45 004. California, University of-Irvine 9 9 8 NA NA NA NA Dev & Cel l Bio/Eco ~ & Evol ut Bio/Molec Boo 43 46 42 005. California, University of-Berkeley 15 42 40 . 3-4 5. 8 .86 . 60 Botany 47 60 64 60 58 62 70 006. California, University of-Berkeley 16 14 19 .13 5.2 .83 .17 Plant Pathology 48 48 49 44 67 61 39 007. California, University of-Berkeley 35 4 7 .19 6.6 .85 .60 Plaz2t Physiology 62 43 41 48 48 62 70 008. California, University of-Davis 55 38 20 .21 6.8 .61 .34 Botany 76 58 50 50 45 46 52 009. California, University of-Davis 20 29 NA .15 5.4 .81 .46 Plant Pathology 51 54 45 64 59 60 010. California, University of-Davis 85 41 NA .09 6.4 .64 .34 Plant Physiology 98 60 41 50 48 52 011. California, University of-Los Angeles 20 28 21 .31 5.5 .54 .46 Biology 51 54 51 r 5 8 63 41 60 012. California, University of-Riverside 15 31 37 .04 6.2 .70 .30 Plant Pathology 47 55 61 37 54 52 49 013. Chicago, University of 5 8 13 NA NA NA NA Biology 014. Claremont Graduate School 5 4 4 NA NA NA NA Botany 40 43 3g 015. Clemson University 12 8 3 NA NA NA NA PI ant Pathol ogy 45 45 3 8 016. Clemson University 11 6 16 NA NA NA NA Plant Physiology 44 44 47 017. Colorado State University-Fort Collins 27 8 11 .00 5.5 .70 .30 Botany and Plant Pathology 56 45 44 34 63 52 49 018. Colorado, University of 10 11 14 .14 8. 0 .36 .14 Environmental, Population & Organismic Bio 43 46 46 45 29 29 37 019. Connecticut, University of-Storrs 13 9 20 NA NA NA NA Biological Sciences 45 46 50 020. Cornell University-Ithaca 26 59 38 .18 6.5 .78 .42 Botany 55 67 62 47 50 57 5 * indicates program was initiated since 1970. NOTE: On the f irst line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; can the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
63 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Prog Survey Results No. (08) (09) (10) (11) 001. 2.2 1.6 1.0 0.4 40 45 3 8 40 002. 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.6 41 42 54 46 003. 2.4 1.7 1.2 0.5 43 4 7 49 44 004. 3.0 1.8 1.1 0.7 50 50 44 49 005. 4.3 2.5 0.9 1.1 65 65 34 66 2.1 1.2 0.7 56 50 49 2.3 1.1 0.9 60 44 5 7 2.6 1.4 1.4 6 7 63 74 2.5 1.2 0.6 66 52 48 2.6 1.5 1.2 68 65 66 2.1 1.2 1.0 5 7 51 62 2.3 1.3 0.8 61 58 54 1.7 0.9 0.6 48 37 46 1.7 0.8 0.7 47 27 52 1.3 NA 0.2 39 35 0.8 27 1.8 50 1.7 46 1.7 47 2.5 65 006. 3.8 59 007. 4.2 64 008. 4.5 68 009. 4.3 66 010. 4.5 68 011. 3.8 60 012. 3.9 61 013. 2.6 45 014. 3.4 55 015. 1.9 36 016. 1.3 29 017. 3.0 49 018. 2.4 42 019. 2.6 45 020. 4.2 65 NA 0.2 32 1.3 0.9 55 57 1.4 0.4 63 40 1.3 0.7 55 49 1.2 1.1 51 66 Univers ~ ty ibrarY (12) 0.9 55 NA 0.6 41 NA 2.2 69 2.2 69 2.2 69 0.6 53 0.6 53 0.6 53 2.0 66 1 . O 37 0.9 55 NA NA NA 1 .1 36 0.9 38 0.5 42 1.6 63 Research Published Supper t Articles (13) (14) (1 5) (16) NA 7828 32 49 45 45 too NA 28 37 44 44 .08 NA 10 41 40 42 NA 6547 16 4 7 41 43 .73 18977 101 71 69 58 56 .06 18977 40 69 .31 18977 52 69 .26 18053 49 67 .20 18053 47 67 .24 18053 48 67 .65 15581 67 63 .40 6232 56 46 NA 17589 66 NA NA .00 1275 37 37 .00 1275 37 37 .04 8863 39 51 .40 11967 56 56 .39 15199 55 62 .31 14597 51 61 101 58 56 101 58 56 208 79 86 208 79 86 208 79 86 25 43 117 61 14 41 38 13 41 ~3 41 47 48 12 41 14 41 169 71 Survey Ratings Standard Error (08) (09) (10) (11) . 13 .11 . 10 .0 6 .15 .09 .11 .12 .08 .09 .13 .07 .11 .07 .06 .07 .08 .06 .09 .08 .12 .06 .12 .09 .08 .08 .10 .08 .07 .06 .08 .08 .11 .08 .10 .09 .07 .06 .08 .08 .09 .06 .08 .08 .13 .07 .09 .09 .15 .10 .12 .06 .15 .12 .07 .08 .18 .11 NA .05 .26 .17 NA 41 .12 .07 .08 .07 48 .18 .14 .15 .07 44 .09 .07 .09 .07 43 68 .07 .06 .09 .08 NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NAT indicates that the value for a measure is not available. Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in standardized form are reported for this measure.
64 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Prog No. University - Department/Academic Unit 021. Duke University Botany 022. Florida, University of-Gainesville Botany/Plant Pathology 023. Georgia, University of-Athens Botany 024. Georgia, University of-Athens Plant Pathology 025. Hawaii, University of Botanical Sciences* 026. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign Botany 027. Illinois, University-Urbana/Champaign Plant Pathology and Plant Physiology 028. Indiana University-Bloomington Biology 029. Iowa State University-Ames Botany 030. Iowa State University-Ames Plant Pathology, Seed and Weed Sciences 031. Iowa, University of-Iowa City Botany 032. Kansas State University-Manhattan Plant Pathology 033. Kansas, University of Botany 034. Kentucky, University of Biological Sciences 035. Kentucky, University of Plant Pathology (College of AgricultureJ 036. Kentucky, University of Plant Physiology (College of AgricultureJ 037. Louisiana State University-Baton Rouge Botany 038. Maryland, University of-College Park Botany 039. Massachusetts, University of-Amherst Botany 040. Miami University-Ohio Botany * indicates program was initiated since 1970. Character ist ics of Program Size Program Graduates (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) 19 35 50 57 42 28 67 54 19 23 50 52 19 10 50 46 41 20 66 50 27 16 56 49 39 29 65 54 14 23 46 52 20 20 51 50 16 11 48 46 12 14 45 48 13 4 45 43 11 7 44 45 7 3 41 43 14 9 46 46 10 5 43 44 7 5 41 44 21 31 51 55 18 20 49 50 14 12 46 47 59 77 60 77 33 59 7 41 21 51 28 55 6 40 22 51 23 52 12 44 18 .19 48 48 10 NA 43 9 42 4 39 11 44 9 42 6 40 59 77 27 55 15 46 43 6.0 66 56 12 7.7 43 34 36 7.0 61 43 36 6.0 61 56 29 7.5 56 36 25 5.9 53 57 05 5.7 37 61 44 5.8 67 58 11 6.5 42 49 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 08 6.8 40 IS 44 6.5 68 49 08 5.5 40 63 6.0 .81 56 59 NA NA NA NA NA NA .59 .41 44 57 .74 .32 55 50 .77 .41 57 57 .36 29 .71 52 .09 34 .18 40 .81 .50 59 63 .74 .26 54 46 .50 .31 38 50 .83 .33 61 51 NA NA .44 59 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .54 .19 41 41 .72 .33 53 51 .91 .46 66 60 NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
65 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Prog Survey Results No. (08) (09) (10) (11) 021. 4.0 2.5 1.2 1.0 62 65 50 62 022. 3.1 1.9 1.3 1.0 51 52 58 62 023. 3.7 2.1 1.5 1.0 58 56 69 62 024. 3.0 1.9 1.4 0.5 50 52 65 44 025. 3.0 1.8 1.3 0.6 ag An 59 48 1.2 1.0 52 63 1.4 1.0 62 62 1.0 1.0 40 62 1.1 0.6 46 46 1.0 0.6 38 45 0.9 0.5 37 45 1.5 0.5 69 42 1.1 0.6 48 46 NA 0.4 39 1.6 0.6 72 48 1.3 0.4 55 41 1.1 0.4 46 40 1.2 0.8 53 52 1.1 0.9 43 56 1.3 0.6 55 49 026. 3.8 60 027. 3.9 60 028. 3.7 58 029. 3.2 52 030. 3.0 50 031. 2.6 45 032. 2.7 46 033. 2.7 46 034. 1.9 36 035. 3.3 53 036. 2.7 45 037. 1.9 36 038. 2.7 47 039. 3.4 54 040. 3.1 51 2.2 58 2.3 61 2.1 57 1.9 52 1.9 51 1.7 47 1.6 44 1.8 49 1.0 31 2.0 54 1.6 45 1.3 38 1.7 48 1.8 50 1.8 50 O . 1 46 0.3 43 0.2 48 -0.7 40 -0.8 39 University Research Library Suppor t (12) (13) (14) 0.3 .84 11320 50 76 55 0.8 .10 3486 54 42 41 0.4 .63 10714 51 66 54 0.4 .05 10714 51 40 54 -0. 1 .20 4440 45 46 43 2.0 .41 6074 66 56 46 2.0 .28 6074 66 50 46 0.9 .57 NA 56 64 0.5 42 -0.5 42 0.3 50 NA 0.1 48 - O . 1 46 O. 1 46 .10 5287 42 45 .00 5287 37 45 .25 7088 49 48 .15 2496 44 40 .55 3161 62 41 NA 484 36 .00 484 37 36 .30 484 46 51 36 47 NA 5116 38 44 46 .24 1623 20 48 38 42 .33 3022 36 53 41 45 .43 NA 14 57 41 43 42 42 46 46 Published Survey Ratings Art icles Standard Error (IS) (16) (08) (09) (10) (11) 22 .10 43 44 94 57 50 126 63 59 126 63 59 63 51 46 134 65 66 134 65 66 24 43 46 57 49 48 57 49 48 10 40 22 43 9 40 46 47 46 47 .07 .09 .05 .08 .06 .16 .11 .13 .09 .07 .05 .10 .07 .09 .06 .10 .06 .15 .06 .13 .09 .16 .12 .09 .09 .09 .07 ·09 .08 .10 .08 .09 .07 ·09 .08 ·09 .08 .08 .09 ·07 .08 .11 .08 .13 .13 .07 .07 .12 .11 .10 .07 .18 .15 NA .07 .11 .07 .09 .08 .15 .10 .12 .07 .17 .13 .12 .06 .12 .08 .11 .07 .11 .07 .13 .09 NOTE: On the f irst 1 ine of clAta fOr - `r~rV nrc~arAm. row cram Il"= freer "AC:h m - A ::~1r" Arm rROOrt~cl. .0 8 .08 .09 .07 on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available. Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in standardized form are reported for this measure.
66 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Prog No. University - Department/Academic Unit 041. Michigan State Universit'East Lansing Botany and Pl ant Pathol ogy Q42. Michigan, University of-Ann Arbor Blot ogical Sciences 043. Minnesota, University of Agricul sure/ Biol ogical Sc ~ effaces/ Forestry 044. Minnesota, University of Botany 045. Minnesota, University of Pl ant Pathol ogy 046. Missouri, University of-Columb~a Viol ogical Sciences 047 . Missouri, University of-Columbia Pl ant Patbol ogy * 048. Montana, University of-Missoula Botany 049 . Nebraska, University of-Lincoln Li f e Sciences 050. North Carolina State Un~versity-Raleigh Botany 051. North Carolina State Univers~ty-Raleigh Pl art Patrol of 052. Nor to Carolina, University of-Chapel Hill Botany 053. North Dakota State University-Fargo Botany 054. North Dakota, University of-Grand Forks- B ~ ology 055. Ohio State Univers'ty~olumbus Botany 056. Ohio State University~olumbus Pl ant Pathol ogy 057. Oklahoma State Un~versity-Stil [water Botany 058. Oklahoma State Un~versity-St~llwater Plant Sciences 059. Oklahoma, University of-Norman Botany/Microbiol ogy 060. Oregon State University~orvallis Botany and Pl ant Pathol ogy * indicates program was initiated since 1970. Program Size (01) (02) (03) 28 46 56 62 74 31 go 55 26 8 55 45 18 20 49 50 18 22 49 51 8 7 42 45 10 43 10 10 43 46 24 17 54 49 20 20 51 50 36 19 62 50 19 }5 50 48 8 13 42 47 2 4 37 43 21 22 51 51 22 8 52 45 7 4 41 43 4 ~ 194 65 99 12 12 45 47 27 30 56 55 53 72 41 64 12 44 6 40 17 48 11 44 8 14 45 46 10 43 27 .18 55 48 26 54 36 61 27 55 10 43 10 43 19 49 19 49 4 39 42 65 10 .17 43 46 41 64 Characteristics of Program Graduates (04) (05) (06) (07) .19 6.6 48 48 .41 6.3 65 52 ·40 8.0 64 29 .32 7.5 58 36 .20 7.5 49 36 NA NA NA NA .27 7.0 55 43 6.1 .80 54 59 .17 7.4 46 38 .21 6.8 50 46 .25 6.2 53 54 NA NA NA NA .13 5.5 44 .20 5.D 49 70 NA .03 6.5 36 49 6.9 .67 44 50 .16 6.6 46 48 .83 63 60 NA NA .63 .31 47 50 .57 .32 43 51 .54 .15 41 38 .43 .10 34 34 . 64 .36 48 53 NA NA NA NA .50 .10 38 34 .50 63 .89 .33 64 51 .95 .32 68 50 .65 .40 48 56 NA NA NA NA .30 49 .60 .20 45 42 NA .50 .08 38 33 .08 33 .63 .27 47 46 NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10-- UNA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
67 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany University Research Published Survey Ratings Prog Survey Results Library SuPpOr t Articles Standard Error No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (08) (09) (10) (11) 041. 3.8 2.3 1.1 1.4 0.3 .25 10357 151 .08 .05 .08 .07 60 60 46 75 50 49 53 6 8 71 042. 4.2 2.S 1.1 1.0 1.8 .61 15431 52 .13 .09 .10 .09 64 65 43 62 64 65 62 48 49 043. 3.3 1.9 1.3 0.5 1.2 .35 13696 g8 .12 .09 .10 .07 54 52 57 43 58 53 59 58 53 044. 3.3 1.9 1.L 0.6 1.2 .39 13696 98 .11 .06 .10 .07 54 52 48 46 58 55 59 58 53 045. 3.5 2.3 1.2 O.7 1.2 .11 13696 98 .18 .10 .11 .09 55 60 49 50 58 42 59 58 53 046. 2.2 1.4 0.g 0.4 - 0.2 NA 4628 35 .17 .11 .10 .06 39 39 36 41 45 43 45 45 047. 2.9 1.7 1.1 0.6 -0.2 .20 4628 35 .12 .08 .08 .08 48 47 46 45 45 47 43 45 45 048. 1.8 1.2 0.9 0.4 NA .10 NA ~ .14 .09 .08 .07 35 35 36 42 42 38 40 049. 3.1 1.9 1.4 0.g -0~5 .25 2965 42 .14 .09 .09 .08 51 51 62 57 42 49 40 47 47 050. 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.5 NA .05 6741 115 .13 .08 .10 .07 47 52 52 45 40 47 61 55 051. 3.8 2.3 1.4 0.7 NA .00 6741 115 .13 .10 .12 .09 59 60 60 49 3 7 4 7 61 55 052. 3.7 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.0 .53 984g 15 .09 .06 .08 .08 58 57 59 59 56 61 53 41 42 053. 1.6 1.0 NA O.3 NA NA 5698 27 .16 .12 NA .05 33 30 35 45 44 43 054. 0.6 0.4 NA 0.2 NA NA NA 2 .18 .15 NA .04 20 1 7 31 39 40 055. 3.3 2.0 1.4 1.1 O.9 .29 8330 61 .11 .07 .10 .09 53 54 64 63 55 50 50 50 52 056. 2.8 1.8 1.2 O.5 0.9 .00 8330 61 .17 .09 .12 .08 48 49 52 43 55 37 50 50 52 057. 1.6 1.0 0.9 0.3 - 1.9 NA 3127 22 .15 .11 .07 .05 32 31 33 37 27 41 43 43 058. 2.5 1.7 1.3 0.3 -1 .9 .00 3127 22 .13 .12 .09 .05 43 48 55 37 27 37 41 43 43 059. 3.-1 1.9 1.3 0.8 - 0.6 .33 NA 15 .11 .08 .07 .08 51 50 57 55 42 53 41 45 060. 3.3 2.0 1.2 1.2 NA .33 7108 112 .09 .05 .07 .07 54 54 49 67 53 48 60 56 NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. SNAG indicates that the value for a measure is not available. Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in standardized form are reported for this measure.
68 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Prog No. University - Department/Academic Unit Characteristics of Program Size Program Graduates (01) (02) (03) (04) (05) (06) (07) 061. Oregon, University of-Eugene 10 2 1 NA NA NA NA Biology 43 42 3 7 062. Pennsylvania State University 13 6 8 NA NA NA NA Botany 45 44 42 063. Pennsylvania State University 33 19 19 .19 7.0 .88 .50 Plant Pathology 60 50 49 48 43 64 63 064. Purdue University-West Lafayette 9 18 21 .46 5.7 .54 .25 Biological Sciences 43 49 51 69 60 41 45 065. Rhode Island, University of 13 10 10 NA 7.2 .40 .30 Botany 45 46 43 40 32 49 066. Rutgers, The State University-New Brunswick 30 17 33 .13 7.5 .44 .19 Botany/Plant Physiology 58 49 59 43 36 34 41 067. SUNY-College of Environ Science & Forestry 11 6 7 NA NA NA NA Environmental and Forest Biology 44 44 41 068. Southern Illinois University-Carbondale 15 17 23 .14 7.8 .71 .21 Botany 47 49 52 45 33 53 43 069. Tennessee, University of-Knoxville 16 19 19 .29 6.3 .69 .06 Botany 48 50 49 56 53 51 32 070. Texas A & M University 7 6 14 NA NA NA NA Biology 41 44 46 071. Texas A & M University 11 8 14 NA NA NA NA Plant Pathology 44 45 46 072. Texas A & M University 11 7 6 NA NA NA NA Plant Physiology 44 45 40 073. Texas, University of-Austin 23 34 33 .50 6.2 .60 .43 Botany 53 56 59 72 53 45 58 074. Vanderbilt University 6 7 5 NA NA NA NA General Biology 40 45 40 075. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Univ 27 18 24 .00 6.1 .57 .14 Plant Pathology & Physiology 56 49 53 34 54 43 3 7 076. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Univ 12 8 13 NA NA NA NA Biology 077. Washington State University-Pullman 12 15 15 .00 6.8 .58 .42 Botany 45 4 8 46 34 46 44 5 7 078. Washington University-Saint Louis 11 6 11 NA NA NA NA Plant Biology* 44 44 44 079. Washington, University of-Seattle 17 19 19 .41 7.5 .65 .47 Botany 48 50 49 65 36 48 61 080. Wisconsin, University of-Madison 17 38 46 .17 6.1 .86 .57 Botany 48 58 68 47 55 62 68 * indicates program was initiated since 1970. NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
69 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany University Research Published Survey Ratings Prog Survey Results Library Support Articles Standard Error No. (08) (O9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (08) (09) (10) (11) 061. 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.6 -0.9 .50 NA 6 .15 .09 .08 .08 43 43 39 45 37 60 39 40 062. 2.3 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 .39 8024 78 .16 .12 .11 .05 42 41 3 8 41 54 55 49 54 4 8 063. 3.7 2.2 1.3 0.6 0.7 .00 8024 78 .13 .11 .12 .09 58 59 56 46 54 37 49 54 48 064. 3~4 2.0 0~9 0.8 -0.5 NA 10337 106 .13 .07 .07 .08 54 54 35 55 41 53 59 60 065. 2.3 1.5 1.1 0.4 NA .23 NA 22 .17 .13 .07 .06 41 42 47 41 48 43 42 066. 3.0 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.8 .13 7505 48 .10 .08 .08 .06 50 50 52 50 55 43 48 48 48 067. 3.1 1.9 1.0 0.3 NA .27 NA 15 .16 .08 .10 .06 51 51 41 37 50 41 42 068. 2.3 1.3 0.9 0.5 - 0.2 .00 NA 19 .14 .09 .10 .06 41 38 37 43 45 37 42 42 069. 2.7 1.8 1.0 0.5 - 0.4 .06 NA 35 .13 .10 .09 .07 46 50 43 45 43 40 45 44 070. 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.5 -0.5 NA 3199 56 .18 .16 .11 ·07 3 7 39 36 43 42 41 49 51 071. 2.2 1.5 1.2 0.5 -0.5 .00 3199 56 .15 .11 .10 .07 40 42 50 43 42 3 7 41 49 51 072. 2.6 1.7 1.0 0.4 -0.5 .18 3199 56 .20 .13 .10 .07 45 47 38 41 42 46 41 49 51 073. 4.5 2.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 .74 5757 36 .08 .06 .08 .08 68 67 60 69 63 71 45 45 46 074. 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.5 -0.7 NA 5204 11 .21 .13 .08 .08 35 37 38 42 39 44 40 43 075. 2.4 1.4 1.3 0.6 -0.0 .00 3108 42 .13 .10 .12 .08 43 40 56 45 46 3 7 41 4 7 45 076. 2.6 1.6 1.3 0.6 -0.0 .33 3108 42 .17 .11 .16 .08 45 45 59 47 46 53 41 47 45 071. 2.9 1.9 1.4 0.6 -0.3 .50 998 107 .11 .07 .11 .07 48 52 63 48 44 60 37 59 56 078. 3.6 2.0 1.5 0.8 -0.4 .55 16825 12 .14 .08 .11 .08 56 53 66 55 43 62 65 41 43 079. 3.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 1.5 .53 14164 40 .08 .04 .08 .08 58 55 59 62 61 62 60 46 49 080. 3.8 2.3 1.0 1.1 1.6 .65 19738 132 .08 .06 .09 .08 60 60 38 66 62 67 70 64 64 NOTE. On the f irst line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. GINA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available. Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in standardized form are reported for this measure.
70 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany Prog No. University- Department/Academic Unit 081. Wisconsin, University of-Madison Pl ant Patrol ogy 082. Wisconsin, University of-Milwaukee Botany * 083. Yale University Biology/Forestry and Environmental Studies * indicates program was initiated since 1970. Program Size (Oft (02) (03) 27 24 45 56 52 6 7 9 NA NA 43 21 49 57 51 63 75 Characteristics of Program Graduates (04) (05) NA NA .32 6.1 58 54 6.1 .73 54 (06) (07) .37 54 NA NA .92 .41 66 56 NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. GINA" indicates that the value for a measure is not available.
71 TABLE 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Botany University Research Published Survey Ratings Prog Survey Results Library Support Articles Standard Error No. (08) (09) (10) (11) (12) (13)- (14) (15) (16) (08) t09) (10) (11) 081. 4.3 2.6 1.1 0.9 1.6 .22 19738 132 .12 .08 .08 .10 65 66 45 57 62 48 70 64 64 082. 2.1 1.2 1.1 0.4 NA NA NA NA .17 .13 .13 .06 38 36 44 38 NA 083. 4.1 2.3 1.1 1.0 2.1 .48 4337 25 .09 .07 .08 .07 63 61 43 60 68 59 43 43 46 NOTE: On the first line of data for every program, raw values for each measure are reported; on the second line values are reported in standardized form, with mean = 50 and standard deviation = 10. "NAT indicates that the value for a measure is not available Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only values in standardized form are reported for this measure. l .
72 TABLE 4.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Botany Number of Programs Measure Evaluated Program Size 01 Raw Value 83 Std Value 83 02 Raw Value 82 Std Value 82 03 Raw Value 80 Std Value 80 Program Graduates 04 Raw Value Std Value 05 Raw Value Std Value 06 Raw Value Std Value 07 Raw Value Std Value Survey Results 08 Raw Value Std Value 09 Raw Value Std Value 10 Raw Value Std Value 11 Raw Value Std Value University Library 12 Raw Value Std Value Research Support 13 Raw Value Std Value 14 Raw Value Std Value Publication Records 69 69 69 69 15 Raw Value 82 Std Value 82 16 Std Value 82 Standard Mean Deviation 19 14 50 10 19 23 50 10 20 IS 50 10 52 .21 52 50 53 6.5 53 50 53 .67 53 50 53 .32 53 50 83 3.0 83 50 83 1.8 83 50 78 1.2 78 50 83 83 68 .3 68 50 .13 10 .8 10 .15 10 .14 10 .8 10 .4 10 .2 10 .7 .3 50 10 1.0 10 .28 .22 50 10 8406 5704 50 ;0 60 50 50 51 10 10 D E C I L E S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 41 43 5 7 44 45 6 8 40 42 .04 .10 37 42 7.5 7.3 36 39 .46 .54 36 41 .10 .17 34 39 1.9 2.3 36 41 1.3 1.5 38 43 .9 1.0 35 41 .4 .4 40 40 _ · 9 - · 5 37 42 .00 .05 37 40 1588 3127 4 38 41 11 15 40 41 42 43 11 13 44 46 8 10 45 46 10 13 43 45 .13 .17 44 47 6.8 6.6 45 48 .58 .63 44 47 .25 .30 45 49 2.6 2.8 45 47 1.7 1.7 47 47 1.1 1.1 46 46 .5 44 47 -.4 .1 43 46 .10 .20 42 46 409 5534 43 45 22 34 43 45 44 45 15 47 14 48 16 47 .19 48 6.4 51 .66 49 .32 50 3.0 50 1.8 49 1.2 52 .6 .6 47 .2 49 .25 49 6741 47 42 47 46 18 49 18 49 19 49 .20 49 6.2 53 .71 53 .34 51 3.3 53 1.9 52 1.2 52 .7 51 .6 53 .31 51 8146 50 56 49 48 7 ~ 20 26 51 55 20 2B 50 54 23 33 52 59 .28 .34 55 60 6.1 5.8 55 59 .77 .82 57 60 .41 .43 56 58 3.5 3.8 56 59 2.0 2.2 54 58 1.3 1.3 57 57 .8 1.0 54 61 .9 1.2 56 59 .39 .48 55 59 10714 14251 54 60 78 104 54 59 52 56 9 34 61 35 57 41 64 .41 65 5.5 63 .86 63 .49 62 4.1 63 2.4 63 1.4 63 1.1 64 1.8 65 .58 64 18053 67 131 64 63 NOTE: Standardized values reported in the preceding table have been computed from exact values of the mean and standard deviation and not the rounded values reported here. Since the scale used to compute measure 16 is entirely arbitrary, only data in standardized form are reported for this measure.
73 TABLE 4.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 83 Programs in Botany Measure 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 ~ 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 Program Size 01 .42 . 48 -.10 -. 08 .04 .04 . 56 .57 . 36 .52 . 31 -. 04 . 31 . 55 . 55 02 .5S -.14 .04 -.06 -.07 .29 .34 .11 .27 -.01 .03 .09 .23 .24 03 .04 .02 .21 .24 .51 .54 .09 .60 .29 .26 .17 .33 .32 Program Graduates 04 -.07 -.18 .11 . 31 . 23 -. 24 .25 . 34 . 54 . 20 -. 12 -. 11 05 . 2S .24 .26 . 2S -. 13 .21 .11 .12 .12 .04 .16 06 .S8 .36 .32 -.07 .23 .24 -.03 .04 .24 .18 07 .59 . S6 -. 09 .51 .43 .50 .28 .24 . 26 Survey Results 08 .97 .29 .83 .66 .49 .62 .60 .62 09 .32 .80 .62 .45 .61 .61 .63 10 .24 .02 -.05 -.07 .26 .24 11 .54 .54 .48 .51 .56 University Library 12 .34 .5S .40 .37 Research Suppor t 13 14 Publ ication Records 15 .36 -.02 .04 .47 .52 .96 NOTE: Since in computing correlation coefficients program data must be available for both of the measures being correlated, the actual number of programs on which each coefficient is based varies.
74 s.o++ + + 4.0++ + Measure + 3.0++ 08 + + + + + + - + 2.0++ + + + + 1. 0++ + + O.O +/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ** * r * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * r Measure 01 tsquare root scale) FIGURE 4.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01)--83 programs in botany.
75_ 3. 0++ + 2.0++ + + + * Measure + + ~ 09 + * + * + 1. 0++ * * + * + + * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * *** * *** * *** * * * * *** * ** * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ~ * * r = .56 0.0 +~++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++~++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 ~ 00 }21 144 169 196 Measure 02 tSquare root scale) FIGI}RE 4.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02)--82 programs in botany.
76 TABLE 4.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Botany Respondents N % Field of Specialization Botany 45 29 Ecology 16 11 Plant Physiology 35 23 Phytopathology 35 23 Other/Unknown 22 14 Faculty Rank Professor 85 56 Associate Professor 51 33 Assistant Professor 16 11 Other/Unknown 1 1 Year of Highest Degree l Pre-1950 9 6 1950-59 25 16 1960-69 79 52 Post-1969 39 26 Unknown 1 1 Evaluator Selection l Nominated by Institution 131 86 Other 22 14 Survey Form With Faculty Names 136 89 Without Names 17 11 Total Evaluators 153 100
77 s.o 3.0 Mean Survey Rating (measure 08) FIGURE 4.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 83 programs in botany. _ , O NOTE: Programs are listed in sequence of mean rating, with the highest-rated program appearing at the top of the page. The broken lines (---) indicate a confidence interval of +1.5 standard errors around the reported mean (x) of each program. 0.0
