%{search_type} search results

• 3 Taxonomy 19
• 4 Quantitative Measures 25
• 5 Student Education and Outcomes 31
• 6 Reputation and Data Presentation 35
• 7 General Conclusions and Recommendations 61
• A Biographical Sketches: Committee and Panels 69
• B Program-Initiation Consultation with Organizations 79
• C Meetings and Participants 83
• D Sample Questionnaires 105
• Institutions 106
• Programs 109
• Faculty 114
• Students
• Admitted-to-Candidacy Students 118
• Five-Seven Years Post-Ph. D. Students 123
• E Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields 129
• F Fields for Ph. D.s Granted During 1996-2001 133
• G Technical and Statistical Techniques
• Alternate Ways to Present Rankings: Random Halves and Bootstrap 137
• Correlates of Reputation Analysis 146.

How should we assess and present information about the quality of research-doctorate programs? In recommending that the 1995 NRC rankings in Assessing the Quality of Research-Doctorate Programs: Continuity and Change be updated as soon as possible, this study presents an improved approach to doctoral program assessment which will be useful to administrators, faculty, and others with an interest in improving the education of Ph.D.s in the United States. It reviews the methodology of the 1995 NRC rankings and recommends changes, including the collection of new data about Ph.D. students, additional data about faculty, and new techniques to present data on the qualitative assessment of doctoral program reputation. It also recommends revision of the taxonomy of fields from that used in the 1995 rankings.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

• 1 Front Matter-- 2 Summary-- 3 1 Introduction-- 4 2 Context and Motivation-- 5 3 Study Design-- 6 4 The Methodologies Used to Derive Two Illustrative Rankings-- 7 5 Faculty Values as Reflected in the Two Illustrative Rankings-- 8 6 Some Uses of the Data-- 9 7 The Data and Principal Findings-- 10 8 Looking Ahead-- 11 Appendixes-- 12 Appendix A: Committee Biographies-- 13 Appendix B: Taxonomy of Fields-- 14 Appendix C: Participating Institutions-- 15 Appendix D: Questionnaires-- 16 Appendix E: List of Variables-- 17 Appendix F: R and S Coefficients by Fields-- 18 Appendix G: Correlation of the Median R and S Rankings by Broad Field-- 19 Appendix H: Detail for the Rating Study-- 20
• Appendix I: Count of Ranked and Unranked Programs by Field-- 21 Appendix J: A Technical Discussion of the Process of Rating and Ranking Programs in a Field.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

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.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)