The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

9 Music Programs
Pages 129-144

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 129... ... In the instructions to the coordinators they were asked to provide faculty lists and other information for research-doctorate programs in "musicology." This instruction was in error since the committee intended to include all areas of research training in music. Some institutional coordinators furnished faculty lists and other information on only the musicology component of music programs, while some coordinators included other areas as well {e.g., theory and composition) Read the entire page →
From page 130... ... The programs not evaluated on measure 12 are typically smaller -- in terms of faculty size and graduate student enrollment -- than other music programs. Were data on this measure available for all 53 programs, it is likely that the reported mean would be appreciably lower {and that some of the correlations of this measure with others would be higher) Read the entire page →
From page 131... ... First, it should be noted that the program at the Eastman School of Music was identified on the survey form as "University of Rochester -- Music." Also, the program at the Julliard School of Music does not conform with a typical researchdoctorate program in that it is specifically intended for "those students showing greatest promise for a major career as performing artists," but it does involve seminars dealing with a "scholarly approach to the study of music." In addition to these two exceptions, as has been noted earlier, several of the faculty lists included the names of performance teachers who were not involved in the research aspects of a program. In reporting the results in this discipline, the committee wishes to emphasize these deficiencies and the likelihood that they may have influenced the reputational ratings as well as other program measures. Read the entire page →
From page 132... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 133... ... (11) 1.2 0.6 57 39 1.1 0.7 52 44 0.8 1.0 39 51 1.1 1.3 55 58 1.2 1.4 57 63 1.1 54 1.1 51 1.3 62 0.9 43 0.9 43 1.0 49 1.0 47 1.0 47 0.9 40 1.1 50 1.3 65 1.1 53 1.1 51 1.0 47 0.9 44 NA �0.4 40 NA NA 2.2 68 1.4 2.0 62 65 0.6 -0.0 39 44 0.9 -0.1 49 43 0.8 -1.3 44 30 0.8 NA 45 1.3 58 0.7 41 0.6 40 1.2 57 1.3 58 0.9 53 �0.2 41 �0.9 35 1.7 63 1.6 61 0.9 -0.4 49 39 1.6 2.0 67 65 1.5 0.9 66 54 1.1 0.3 53 47 1.2 NA 58 Survey Rat ing s Standard Error (08) Read the entire page →
From page 134... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 135... ... 2.1 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.1 .15 .11 .14 .08 43 44 43 41 45 040. 4.5 2.6 0.7 1.5 0.9 .09 .08 .10 .08 6 7 68 30 66 5 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. Read the entire page →
From page 136... ... indicates program was initiated since 1970. 13 12 45 44 19 16 49 46 48 81 67 72 15 15 47 45 13 13 45 45 19 20 49 48 7 11 42 44 29 84 55 74 8 14 42 45 20 21 50 48 14 5 46 41 11 23 44 49 38 49 23 44 67 58 29 46 50 52 38 49 36 48 40 49 10 40 39 9 39 52 53 NA NA .00 7.2 37 64 .14 12.8 51 36 .00 8.5 37 57 .10 8.8 48 56 .02 12.2 39 39 .33 9.2 72 54 .18 10.3 56 49 .06 7.5 43 62 .16 10.6 54 47 .26 11.0 65 45 .32 6.4 71 68 NA NA .31 .08 24 37 .57 .11 45 39 .82 tog 64 38 .54 .36 42 60 .80 .41 63 65 .41 .12 32 40 .65 .14 51 42 .57 .29 45 54 .71 .06 55 35 .67 .38 52 62 .72 .40 57 64 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. Read the entire page →
From page 137... ... 2.6 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.6 .13 .12 .10 .08 48 46 42 55 61 053. 4.4 2.5 1.0 1.6 2.1 .10 .09 .08 .08 66 67 50 68 66 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. Read the entire page →
From page 138... ... 138 TABLE 9.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure -- Music Number of Programs Standard D E C I L E S Measure Evaluated Mean Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Program Size 01 Raw Value 53 20 16 7 10 12 13 15 19 19 27 38 Std Value 53 50 10 42 43 45 45 47 49 49 54 61 02 Raw Value 53 26 25 9 11 13 16 18 21 26 29 44 Std Value 53 50 10 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 57 03 Raw Value 53 42 31 11 19 25 31 34 38 41 59 76 Std Value 53 50 10 40 42 44 46 47 49 50 55 61 Program Graduates 04 Raw Value 49 .12 .09 .00 .03 .05 .08 .11 .14 .16 .19 .26 Std Value 49 50 10 37 40 42 46 49 52 54 58 66 05 Raw Value 48 10.0 2.0 12.8 11.9 11.0 10.5 10.1 9.5 9.1 8.0 7.3 Std Value 48 50 10 36 40 45 47 49 52 54 60 63 06 Raw Value 48 .64 .13 .43 .53 .57 .61 .65 .70 .72 .75 .78 Std Value 48 50 10 34 42 45 48 51 55 56 58 61 07 Raw Value 48 .24 .12 .09 .13 .16 .19 .21 .25 .28 .32 .39 Std Value 48 50 10 38 41 43 46 48 51 53 57 63 Survey Results 08 Raw Value 53 2.8 1.0 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.6 3.8 4.0 Std Value 53 50 10 37 41 43 47 49 52 58 60 62 09 Raw Value 53 1.6 .6 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 Std Value 53 50 10 40 42 43 45 49 51 56 60 62 10 Raw Value 50 1.1 .2 .8 .9 .9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 Std Value 50 50 10 37 42 42 47 47 53 53 58 58 11 Raw Value 53 1.0 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Std Value 53 50 10 37 40 43 45 51 54 56 59 6 University Library 12 Raw Value 41 .6 .9 -.6 -.4 -.1 .2 .4 .8 1.0 1.6 1.9 Std Value 41 50 10 37 40 43 46 48 52 55 61 6 NOTE: Standardized values reported in the preceding table have been computed from of the mean and standard deviation and not the rounded values reported here. exact values Read the entire page →
From page 139... ... 139 TABLE 9.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 53 Programs in Music Measure 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Program Size 01 .54 .44 -.21 -.07 .15 -.18 -.02 -.02 .17 .01 .11 02 .61 -.02 -.03 .12 -.17 .12 .13 .08 .17 .12 03 .06 -.03 .11 .03 .17 .21 .12 .25 .18 Program Graduates 04 .21 -.20 .21 .44 .46 -.08 .35 .26 05 -.26 .05 .17 .16 -.13 .14 .34 06 .46 -.26 -.23 .33 -.14 -.06 07 .28 .30 -.04 .30 .24 Survey Results 08 .99 .16 .94 .73 09 .14 .91 .72 10 .23 -.01 11 74 University Library 12 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. Read the entire page →
From page 140... ... C O +/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/++++++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 Measure 01 (square root scale) Read the entire page →
From page 141... ... r = .14 O O +/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/++++++++/ 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 121 144 Measure 02 (square root scale) Read the entire page →
From page 142... ... 142 TABLE 9.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Music Respondents N % Field of Specialization Musicology 3S 51 Music Theory & Composition 13 19 Other/Unknown 21 30 Faculty Rank Professor 34 49 Associate Professor 22 32 Assistant Professor 9 13 Other/Unknown 4 6 Year of Highest Degree Pre-1950 2 3 1950-59 15 22 1960-69 27 39 Post-1969 24 35 Unknown 1 1 Evaluator Selection Nominated by Institution 60 87 Other 9 13 Survey Form With Faculty Names 61 88 Without Names 8 12 Total Evaluators 69 100 Read the entire page →
From page 143... ... indicate a confidence interval of i1.5 standard errors around the reported mean (x) of each program. Read the entire page →

From page 129...

... In the instructions to the coordinators they were asked to provide faculty lists and other information for research-doctorate programs in "musicology." This instruction was in error since the committee intended to include all areas of research training in music. Some institutional coordinators furnished faculty lists and other information on only the musicology component of music programs, while some coordinators included other areas as well {e.g., theory and composition)

9 Music Programs Pages 129-144

9 Music Programs
Pages 129-144