Transcript Proposed NRC Assessment of Doctoral Programs

NRC Assessment of Doctoral Programs
Charlotte Kuh
([email protected])
Study Goals
• Help universities improve their doctoral programs
through benchmarking.
• Expand the talent pool through accessible and
relevant information about doctoral programs.
• Benefit the nation’s research capacity by
improving the quality of doctoral students.
Background
• NRC conducted assessments in 1982, 1993
– The “gold standard” of ranking studies
• In 2000, formed a committee, chaired by Jeremiah
Ostriker, to study the methodology of assessment
– What can be done with modern technology and
improved university data systems?
– How can multiple dimensions of doctoral
programs be presented more accurately?
Findings
(November 2003)
• An assessment was worth doing
• More emphasis and broader coverage needed for
the quantitative measures: a benchmarking study
• Present qualitative data more accurately: “rankings
should be presented as ranges of ratings”
• Study should be made more useful to students
• Analytic uses of data should be stressed
• On-going updates of quantitative variables should
continue after the study was completed.
Committee
• Jeremiah Ostriker, Princeton,
chair (astrophysics)
• Virginia Hinshaw, UC-Davis,
vice-chair (bioscience)
• Elton Aberle, WisconsinMadison (agriculture)
• Norman Bradburn, Chicago
(statistics)
• John Brauman, Stanford
(chemistry)
• Jonathan Cole, Columbia
(social sciences)
• Eric Kaler, Delaware
(engineering)
• Earl Lewis, Emory (history)
• Joan Lorden, UNC-Charlotte
(bioscience)
• Carol Lynch, Colorado
(bioscience)
• Robert Nerem, Georgia Tech
(bioengineering)
• Suzanne Ortega, Washington
(sociology)
• Robert Spinrad, Xerox PARC
(computer science)
• Catharine Stimpson, NYU,
(humanities)
• Richard Wheeler, IllinoisUrbana (English)
Panel on Data Collection
• Norman Bradburn,
Chicago, chair
• Richard Attiyeh, UC-San
Diego
• Scott Bass, UMdBaltimore County
• Julie Carpenter-Hubin,
Ohio State
• Janet L. Greger,
Connecticut
• Dianne Horgan, Arizona
• Marsha Kelman, Texas
• Karen Klomparens,
Michigan State
• Bernard Lentz,
Pennsylvania
• Harvey Waterman,
Rutgers
• Ami Zusman, UC System
Agricultural Fields are Included for the
First Time
•
•
•
•
Fields and Sub-fields (1)
Agricultural Economics
Animal Sciences
– Aquaculture and Fisheries
– Domestic Animal Sciences
– Wildlife Science
Entomology
Food Science and Engineering
– Food Engineering and Processing (sub-fields are not
data collection units)
– Food Microbiology
– Food Chemistry
– Food Biotechnology
Agricultural fields and sub-fields (2)
• Nutrition
– Animal and comparative nutrition
– Human and Clinical Nutrition
– International and Community Nutrition
– Molecular, Genetic, and Biochemical Nutrition
– Nutritional Epidemiology
• Plant Sciences
– Agronomy and Crop Sciences
– Forestry and Forest Sciences
– Horticulture
– Plant Pathology
– Plant Breeding and Genetics
Emerging Fields:
• Biotechnology
• Systems Biology
Next steps
• Process has been widely consultative. Work began in fall,
2005.
• July 2006-May 2007: Fielding questionnaires, follow-up,
quality review and validation. Competition for research
papers.
• December 2007-Data base and NRC analytic essay
released.
• December 2007-March 2008: Data analyses performed
by commissioned researchers
• April 2008-August 2008: Report review and publication
• September 2008: Report and website release. Release
conference
A New Approach to Assessment of Doctoral
Programs
• A unique resource for information about doctoral programs
that will be easily accessible
• Comparative data about:
– Doctoral education outcomes
• Time-to-degree, completion rates
– Doctoral education practices
• Funding, review of progress, student workload, student
services
– Student characteristics
– Linkage to research
• Citations and publications
• Research funding
• Research resources
No pure reputational ratings
• Why not? Rater knowledge
– Fields have become both more
interdisciplinary and more specialized
• Why not? The US News effect—rankings without
understanding what was behind them.
• What to substitute? Weighted quantitative
measures. Possibly along different dimensions.
How will it work?
• Collect data from institutions, doctoral programs, faculty,
and students
– Uniform definitions will yield comparable data in a
number of dimensions
• Examples of data
– Students: demographic characteristics, completion
rates, time to degree
– Faculty: interdisciplinary involvement, postdoc
experience, citations and publications
– Programs: Funding policies, enrollments, faculty size
and characteristics, research funding of faculty, whether
they track outcomes
Program Measures and a Student Questionnaire
• Questions to programs
– Faculty names and characteristics
– Numbers of students
– Student characteristics and financing
– Attrition and time to degree
– Whether they collect and disseminate outcomes
data
Examples of Indicators
•
•
•
•
Publications per faculty member
Citations per faculty member
Grant support and distribution
Library resources (separating out electronic
media)
• Interdisciplinary Centers
• Faculty/student ratios
Some Problems Encountered
• What is a faculty member?
– 3 kinds: Core, Associated, New
– Primarily faculty involved in dissertation
research
– Faculty can be involved with more than one
doctoral program
• Multidisciplinarity can result in problems due to
need to allocate faculty among programs
Rating Exercise: Implicit
• A sample of faculty will be asked to rate a sample
of programs.
• Provided names of program faculty and some
program data
• Ratings will be regressed on other program data
• Coefficients will be used with data from each
program to obtain a range of ratings
Rating Exercise: Explicit
• Faculty will be asked importance to program quality of
program, educational, and faculty characteristics.
• Weights on variables will be calculated from their answers.
• Weights can be applied to program data to produce range
of ratings
• Rankings can be along different dimensions
– Examples: research productivity, education
effectiveness, interdisciplinarity, resources
• Users may access and interpret the data in ways that
depend on their needs.
• Database will be updateable
Project Product
• A database containing data for each program
arrayed by field and university.
• Software to permit comparison among user
selected programs
• In 2008—papers reporting on analyses conducted
with the data
Uses by Universities
• High level administrators
– Understanding variation across programs
– Ability to analyze multiple dimensions of
doctoral program quality
– Enabling comparison with programs in peer
institutions
• Program administrators, Department chairs
– An opportunity to identify areas of
specialization
– Encourages competition to improve educational
practice
Uses by prospective students
• Students can identify what’s important to them
and create their own rankings
• Analytic essay will assist students on using the
data
• Updating will mean the data will be current
• Better matching of student preferences and
program characteristics may lower attrition rates.
Project Website
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/index.html