A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD) (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7 The Data and Principal Findings
7 The Data and Principal Findings
Pages 81-104
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 81... ...
Within broad fields, however, many programs may exhibit similar characteristics and faculty preferences. Thus because this study covers large numbers of programs, the committee chose to summarize the data for broad fields rather than for individual disciplines.
|
From page 82... ...
Engineering 588 747 457 21 40 20.3 20.0 Physical and mathematical sciences 786 876 552 26 37 17.8 20.1 Social and behavioral sciences 630 759 493 24 33 19.9 23.2 Humanities 656 716 498 23 31 17.2 19.6 a Average over all fields in the broad field. The number of programs grew in all fields and in all disciplines common to the two studies.3 Among the comparable broad fields, the greatest growth in number of programs was in engineering, with bioengineering a relatively new field in 1993, leading the way.
|
From page 83... ...
The growth in the average number of Ph.D.'s per program in all broad fields was generally modest, less than 15 percent over 13 years for all the broad fields except the humanities. Notable field exceptions were music (–8 percent)
|
From page 84... ...
TABLE 7-4 Percentage Change in Number of Doctoral Recipients, Common Programs, 1993 and 2006 1993 2006 Difference Percentage change Engineering 5,061 6,707 1,646 33 Physical and mathematical sciences 6,425 7,283 858 13 Social and behavioral sciences 7,538 8,326 788 10 Humanities 3,174 3,821 647 20 Source: NSF Survey of Doctoral Recipients, 2006 and 1993. Growth in Postdoctoral Scholars One of the major changes in the academic research enterprise since the last study is the increase in the number of postdoctoral scholars, primarily in the sciences.6 Data on postdocs were not collected in the 1995 study; however, it is now clear that, especially in the biological sciences, these young scholars play a major role both in research and in the mentoring of Ph.D.
|
From page 85... ...
Data on racial and ethnic diversity were not collected in 1993, but the NSF data shown in Figure 7-1 reveal a considerable increase in minority Ph.D.'s across the board. However, in some fields, especially engineering, the social and behavioral sciences, and the physical and mathematical sciences, the numbers of non-underrepresented minorities (Asian Americans and whites)
|
From page 86... ...
Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. In summary, the 13 years from 1993 to 2006 saw an increase in the number of doctoral programs in the common broad fields and disciplines, growth in the numbers of faculty and students per program, expanded production of Ph.D.'s per program, and an increase in the gender and ethnic diversity of programs.
|
From page 87... ...
TABLE 7-6 Number of Ph.D.'s in 2006 NRC Study Compared with Ph.D.'s in NSF Doctorate Record File Broad Field DRF 2006 2006 NRC Study % in Study Agricultural sciences 1,470 1,147 78 Biological and health sciencesa 5,737 5,543 97 Physical and mathematical sciences 7,283 7,092 97 Engineering 6,707 6,716 100 Social and behavioral sciencesb 7,783 5,997 77 Humanities 4,624 3,754 81 Total 33,604 30,249 90 Total minus psychology 30,346 28,283 93 Note: The DRF responses are from a questionnaire administered to students at the time of graduation. The NRC data are from responses to the program questionnaire.
|
From page 88... ...
Size and Control For all fields, most doctoral programs, most enrolled doctoral students, and most Ph.D.'s are found in public universities. Programs in public universities are typically larger than those in private universities, and there are far more of them.
|
From page 89... ...
Institution Private Public Cumulative Total University of California, Berkeley 623 623 University of Texas at Austin 533 1,158 University of Michigan–Ann Arbor 523 1,681 University of California, Los Angeles 518 2,198 University of Wisconsin–Madison 513 2,712 Stanford University 505 3,217 University of Minnesota–Twin Cities 455 3,672 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 455 4,128 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 448 4,576 Ohio State University Main Campus 439 5,015 Harvard University 436 5,450 Pennsylvania State University 431 5,882 University of Washington 429 6,311 University of Florida 412 6,723 Purdue University Main Campus 389 7,112 University of Maryland, College Park 378 7,490 Cornell University 373 7,863 Texas A&M University 347 8,210 Columbia University in the City of New York 344 8,554 University of California, Davis 341 8,895 Michigan State University 325 9,220 University of Pennsylvania 312 9,533 Johns Hopkins University 312 9,845 Georgia Institute of Technology 297 10,142 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 294 10,435 Yale University 293 10,729 University of Chicago 292 11,021 University of Southern California 287 11,308 University of California, San Diego 266 11,573 North Carolina State University 264 11,837 Princeton University 260 12,097 University of Arizona 259 12,356 University of Colorado at Boulder 257 12,613 City University of New York Graduate Center 255 12,868 Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick Campus 254 13,122 University of Georgia 244 13,366 Northwestern University 244 13,610 Grand total of average number of Ph.D.'s -- all universities 8,236 19,382 27,618
|
From page 90... ...
TABLE 7-8 Research Measures and Program Size Row Labels Number of Average of Average Average of Average of Average of Average of Programs Number of Average Percent of Awards per Tenured Faculty Publications (2000- Citations per Faculty with Allocated as a Percent of 2006) per Allocated Publication Grants, Faculty Total Faculty, Faculty, 2006 Member, 2006 2006 Agricultural 312 1.32 1.66 81.8% 0.35 71.3% Sciences Largest Quartile 33 1.61a 2.10a 85.0%a 0.50a 68.7% by Program Size Biological and 1168 1.54 3.48 82.3% 1.10 66.0% Health Sciences Largest Quartile 101 1.95a 4.46a 87.8%a 2.43a 64.3% by Program Size Engineering 759 1.62 1.45 80.9% 0.61 72.2% a a a a Largest Quartile 39 2.42 1.54 86.4% 1.21 76.0%a by Program Size Physical and 911 2.05 2.05 75.2% 1.04 72.8% Mathematical Sciences Largest Quartile 54 3.98a 3.00a 86.6%a 4.54a 73.8% by Program Size Social and 924 0.52 1.40 44.3% 0.62 72.9% Behavioral Sciences Largest Quartile 83 0.81a 2.10a 54.7%a 1.20a 71.7% by Program Size Humanities 764 11.62 n.a 14.5% 2.00 76.2% a a a Largest Quartile 55 12.86 n.a 16.0% 3.42 77.8%a by Program Size Note: "n.a." indicates not available a The fourth quartile is different from the average at the p= 0.05 level.
|
From page 91... ...
The data on completion rates and average time to degree raise important questions about the proportion of students entering doctoral programs who actually complete a degree. The completion rate in six years ranges from nearly 60 percent (agricultural sciences)
|
From page 92... ...
Median of Collects Scores, Percent Completion Time to Percent Data About of First Percentage: Degree with Post Year (Full- and Academic Graduation Students Part-Time Plans Employment with Full Graduates) , Financial Support, Agricultural Sciences 312 656 88.0% 58.0% 4.81 56.0% 47.0% b b Largest Quartile by Program Size 33 680 83.0% 58.0% 5.12 54.0% 41.0% Biological and Health Sciences 1168 686 91.0% 49.0% 5.50 69.0% 55.0% b b Largest Quartile by Program Size 101 708 92.0% 50.0% 5.63 69.0% 62.0%b Engineering 759 760 83.0% 51.0% 4.88 35.0% 25.0% Largest Quartile by Program Size 39 789b 77.0% 55.0%b 5.13b 27.0% 44.0%b Physical and Mathematical 911 745 92.0% 43.0% 5.47 56.0% 56.0% Sciences Largest Quartile by Program Size 54 755b 98.0%b 49.0%b 5.51 54.0% 59.0% Social and Behavioral Sciences 924 662 81.0% 37.0% 6.16 57.0% 67.0% Largest Quartile by Program Size 83 700b 84.0%b 45.0%b 6.07 55.0% 61.0% Humanities 764 610 83.0% 43.0% 7.11 59.0% 67.0% Largest Quartile by Program Size 55 653b 77.0% 46.0%b 7.38b 59.0% 66.0% a For the humanities, the time to completion is eight years and the GRE score is for GRE-V.
|
From page 93... ...
TABLE 7-10 Diversity Measures Average of Non-Asian Average of Minority Non-Asian Average of Faculty as a Minority Female Percent of Students as a Faculty as a Average of Average of Total Core Percent of Percent of Female International and New Total Total Core Students as a Students as a Domestic Domestic and New Percent of Percent of Number of Faculty, Students, Faculty, Total Total Row Labels Programs 2006 Fall 2005 2006 Students, Students, Agricultural Sciences 312 4.3% 9.1% 9.3% 47.8% 42.2% Largest Quartile by Program Size 33 3.6% 8.5% 3.0% 49.5% 34.3% Biological and Health Sciences 1168 3.9% 11.5% 8.9% 55.0% 29.1% Largest Quartile by Program Size 101 3.9% 12.7%a 7.9% 54.7% 24.0% Engineering 759 5.2% 12.6% 0.5% 23.9% 61.0% Largest Quartile by Program Size 39 4.4% 11.5% 0.0% 18.4% 58.6% Physical and Mathematical Sciences 911 3.3% 8.4% 0.5% 32.2% 45.3% Largest Quartile by Program Size 54 2.7% 7.4% 0.0% 30.3% 35.8% Social and Behavioral Sciences 924 7.6% 13.3% 15.7% 55.0% 27.2% a Largest Quartile by Program Size 83 7.2% 13.5% 10.8% 58.3% 23.9% Humanities 764 10.8% 13.0% 23.3% 53.1% 17.5% Largest Quartile by Program Size 55 9.7% 12.6% 10.9% 53.3% 13.5% a The largest quartile value is different from the average at the p = 0.05 level. Increasing gender and racial and ethnic diversity has been a goal of the graduate community for many years.
|
From page 94... ...
94 A DATA-BASED ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. FIGURE 7-2 Percentage of Underrepresented Minority Faculty and Students by broad field, 2006.
|
From page 95... ...
20.7 Materials science and engineering 12.1 Mechanical engineering 14.6 Operations research, systems engineering, and industrial engineering 17.0 Engineering total 12.6 Social and behavioral sciences Anthropology 14.7 Communication 13.3 Linguistics 10.6 Political science 12.8 Psychology 13.0 Public affairs, public policy, and public administration 20.0 Sociology 19.0 Social and behavioral sciences total 13.3 Humanities American studies 28.0 Comparative literature 14.0 English language and literature 10.0 History 12.0 Religion 10.0 Spanish and Portuguese language and literature 46.0 Theater and performance studies 13.0 Humanities total 13.0 Some of these fields are training students who will work with underrepresented minority populations or specialize in studies related to the history and culture of underrepresented minorities, but all have focused on increasing minority participation and have, to some extent, succeeded.
|
From page 96... ...
fields in which more than 15 percent of the doctoral faculty is female are shown in Table 7-12. TABLE 7-12 Science and Engineering Fields with More than 15 Percent of Doctoral Faculty Female Total Broad Field Field % Agricultural sciences Entomology 15.4 Food science 27.1 Nutrition 50.6 Plant sciences 20.4 Agricultural sciences total 23.2 Biological and health sciences All fields Biological and health sciences Total 29.2 Engineering Biomedical engineering and bioengineering 15.2 Operations research, systems engineering, and industrial engineering 15.8 Engineering total 11.4 Physical and mathematical sciences Earth sciences 15.8 Oceanography, atmospheric sciences, and meteorology 16.1 Statistics and probability 19.1 Physical and mathematical sciences total 13.3 Social and behavioral sciences All programs Social and behavioral sciences total 33.5 Humanities All programs Humanities total 37.7 One other aspect of diversity is the percentage of students who are from outside the United States.
|
From page 97... ...
Program size is positively associated with most measures of the research productivity of doctoral programs, even when productivity is measured on a per capita basis.13 As for student characteristics, the larger programs are also more likely to have higher average GRE scores, except in the humanities. There is a size difference for median time to degree; students in the larger programs take about half a year longer to complete their degrees.
|
From page 98... ...
White 76 72 63 72 78 77 Asian 8 10 21 14 6 4 Underrepresented Minority 5 4 5 4 8 10 Nonresponse 11 13 11 10 8 9 Gender (%) Male 66 59 77 76 59 53 Female 19 25 10 12 30 34 Nonresponse 16 16 13 12 11 13 The agricultural and the biological and health sciences appear to have fewer doctoral faculty under the age of 40 than the other broad fields.
|
From page 99... ...
Despite the high cost of sending questionnaires to all these students, the committee believed that the voices of the students should be heard. It surveyed students in disciplines in five of the broad fields: engineering, the physical and mathematical sciences, the biological and health sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities.
|
From page 100... ...
However, the survey did not collect data at this level of detail. TABLE 7-15 Student Satisfaction: Programs with More Than 10 Students Responding, 2006 Intellectual Computer Research Work Overall Quality Environment Social Interaction Resources Facilities Space Very satisfied with Rating Rating Rating Benefiting a lot the [program- computer research work from program's sponsored]
|
From page 101... ...
It is clear from Table 7-16 that students produce papers in refereed journals while studying in their doctoral programs. The data for individual programs (not shown)
|
From page 102... ...
Program Provides Assessment of Assessment of Timely Feedback Dissertation Highly Highly Mentor in Academic Academic Progress on Dissertation Feedback is Supportive Supportive Other Field Program Progress Is Helpful Research Helpful Adviser Faculty Chemical engineering 80 50 90 90 90 50 20 Economics 80 60 80 90 90 50 20 English 90 50 80 80 80 50 20 Neuroscience 92 87 90 87 86 51 24 Physics 83 52 81 81 79 50 19 Doctoral students enter programs with career goals in mind, but in most fields that were queried these goals undergo modification during the course of graduate study. Doctoral students learn what kind of scholarly work they enjoy, and they also learn how good they are at it.
|
From page 103... ...
These findings suggest that as students learn what is actually involved in research and teaching, they become more interested in other, untried undertakings. To summarize, the student questionnaire reveals that students are generally pleased with their doctoral programs and that the programs are successful at improving student research productivity, but that by the time students are working at an advanced level at least some of them have shifted their career objectives away from research.
|
From page 104... ...
104 A DATA-BASED ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. The great deal of data to be made available from the faculty and student questionnaires can be used to explore relationships among program characteristics and the characteristics of faculty and of students in the five fields studied.
|
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.