A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD) (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Faculty Values as Reflected in the Two Illustrative Rankings
5 Faculty Values as Reflected in the Two Illustrative Rankings
Pages 65-72
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 65... ...
The 21 characteristics identified by the committee and in the literature as important were divided into three categories are shown in Box 5-1. BOX 5-1 Characteristics Included in the Faculty Weighting Process CATEGORY I -- Program Faculty Quality a.
|
From page 66... ...
b This variable is a tally of whether the following services are provided to graduate students at either the institutional or program level: orientation for new students, prizes or awards to doctoral students for teaching or research, formal training in academic integrity/ethics, travel funds to attend professional meetings, grievance and dispute resolution procedures, annual review of all enrolled doctoral students, training to improve teaching skills, institutionally supported graduate student association, information about employment outcomes of graduates, and on-campus graduate student research conference. Faculty respondents were asked to choose up to four characteristics in each category that they thought were important.
|
From page 67... ...
R -- - -- - -- - -- - 8.30 -- Percentage of faculty with grants S 1.83 1.15 1.63 1.67 3.20 -- R -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Percentage of interdisciplinary faculty S 5.67 -- - -- - -- - -- - 4.77 R 5.17 5.31 3.63 4.11 3.10 4.54 Awards per allocated faculty S 1.83 1.15 1.63 1.67 3.20 -- Average GRE (GRE-V for the R 5.50 5.69 5.63 7.33 4.20 3.62 humanities, GRE-Q otherwise) S -- - 5.00 -- - -- - -- - -- Percentage of first-year students with R -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - 8.08 full support S -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - 4.77 Average number of Ph.D.'s, 2002– R 1.00 3.46 1.00 1.44 4.20 3.85 2006 S -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Percentage of students in academic R -- - -- - -- - 6.78 -- - 4.77 positions S 3.17 4.23 5.25 4.78 4.20 2.92 R -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Health insurance S -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- R 5.33 -- - 7.63 -- - -- - -- Number of student activities offered S -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Note: Number shown is average rank of the characteristic taken across the disciplines in the broad field.
|
From page 68... ...
Agricultural sciences 45.2 30.5 25.1 Biological and health sciences 45.1 31.9 23.7 Physical and mathematical sciences 48.9 29.7 22.2 Engineering 46.5 31.8 22.5 Social and behavioral sciences 49.1 28.2 23.6 Humanities 46.4 28.9 25.6 DIMENSIONAL MEASURES Despite the relatively moderate importance that faculty placed on the student treatment and program diversity dimensions of doctoral education, the committee felt it was very important to measure and discuss these dimensions, in part because they have figured prominently in national discussions of doctoral education.3 The dimensional measures were obtained by means of the faculty responses to Section G (see Table 5-1) .4 These measures take a subset of all the characteristics and recalculate the weights so that the total of the weights for the subset adds up to 1.
|
From page 69... ...
allocated faculty member,5 average citations per publication, percentage of core and new doctoral faculty respondents holding grants, and awards per allocated faculty member.6 Publishing patterns and the availability of research funding and awards for scholarship vary by field, but the weight placed on publications per faculty member is remarkably consistent -- about 30 percent -- across fields. Research activity is the dimensional measure that most closely tracks the overall measure of program quality, because in all fields both the S measure -- based on abstract faculty preferences -- and the R measure place high weights on these characteristics.
|
From page 70... ...
TABLE 5-2B Average Faculty Importance Weights on Components of the Student Support and Outcomes Dimensional Measure Percentage Percentage of First-Year Completing Degree Time to Degree, Graduates Students with Within Six or Full- and Part- in Broad Field Full Support Eight Yearsa Timeb Academic Positions Agricultural sciences 0.304 0.231 –0.109 0.357 Biological and health sciences 0.259 0.264 –0.135 0.342 Physical and mathematical 0.306 0.221 –0.114 0.359 sciences Engineering 0.346 0.200 –0.099 0.356 Social and behavioral sciences 0.291 0.229 –0.110 0.370 Humanities 0.316 0.245 –0.102 0.337 a For the humanities, eight years are used in the completion measure. This completion measure is measured as the fraction of the entering cohort that has received a Ph.D.
|
From page 71... ...
TABLE 5-2C Average Faculty Importance Weights on Components of the Diversity Dimensional Measure Non Non-Asian Asian Minority Female Minority Female International Broad Field Faculty Faculty Students Students Students Agricultural sciences 0.101 0.124 0.348 0.231 0.196 Biological and health sciences 0.115 0.173 0.362 0.235 0.115 Physical and mathematical 0.059 0.144 0.200 0.318 0.279 sciences Engineering 0.083 0.107 0.281 0.295 0.234 Social and behavioral sciences 0.156 0.150 0.298 0.166 0.230 Humanities 0.172 0.212 0.212 0.192 0.213 The preferences of faculty in the broad fields are very similar across fields. The physical and mathematical sciences place a greater weight on the percentage of students who are female than the percentage of students who from a underrepresented minority.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.