%{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 Executive Summary-- 3
• 1. Introduction-- 4
• 2. How the Study Was Conducted-- 5
• 3. Taxonomy-- 6
• 4. Quantitative Measures-- 7
• 5. Student Education and Outcomes-- 8
• 6. Reputation and Data Presentation-- 9
• 7. General Conclusions and Recommendations-- 10
• 8. References-- 11 Appendix A: Biographical Sketches: Committee and Panels-- 12 Appendix B: Program-Initiation Consultation with Organizations-- 13 Appendix C: Meetings and Participants-- 14 Appendix D: Sample Questionnaires-- 15 Appendix E: Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields-- 16 Appendix F: Fields for Ph.D.s Granted During 1996-2001-- 17 Appendix G: Technical and Statistical Techniques.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

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)