National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 7. General Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"8. References." National Research Council. 2003. Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10859.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"8. References." National Research Council. 2003. Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10859.
×
Page 66

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

References Association of American Universities Committee on Graduate Education. 1998. Report and Recommendations. Washington, D.C. Bowen, W. G., and N. L. Rudenstine. 1992. In Pursuit of the PhD. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cartter, A. M. 1966. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Cole, J., and S. Cole. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). 1995. Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers, Execu- tive Summary. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press. Duderstadt, J. J. 2000. A University for the 21St Century. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press. Ehrenberg, R. G., and P. J. Hurst. 1998. The 1995 Ratings of Doctoral Programs: A Hedonic Model. The Economics of Education Review. 17(2): 137- 148. Ehrenberg, R. G., and P. J. Hurst. 1996. The 1995 Ratings of Doctoral Programs: A Hedonic Model. Change. May/June:46-50. Gaff, J. G., A. S. Pruitt-Logan, and R. Weibl. 2000. Building the Faculty We Need. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Goldberger, M. L., B. A. Maher, and P. E. Flattau. 1995. Research- Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Golde, C. M. July 2001 draft. Overview of Doctoral Education Initiatives, Studies and Reports: 1990-Present. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Report. Golde, C. M., and T. M. Dore. 2001. At Cross Purposes: What the expe- riences of today's doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts. Philadlephia, Pa. Graham, H. D., and N. Diamond. 1997. The Rise of American Research Universities. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Graham, H. D., and N. Diamond. 1999. Academic Departments and the Ratings Game. Chronicle of Higher Education June 18:B6. Jones, L. V., G. Lindzey, and P. E. Coggeshall. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Junn, J., and R. Brooks. 2000. A Brief Analysis of the 1992-93 Reputational Data in the 1995 NRC Report. Report submitted to the NRC, Septem- ber 14. LaPidus, J. 2000. Great Expectations: The Role of the American Univer- sity in the 21St Century in J. Hamblin, ea., A Walk Through Graduate Education: Selected Papers and Speeches of Jules B. LaPidus. Wash- ington, D.C.: Council of Graduate Schools. 65 Lorden, J., and L. Martin. n.d. Toward a Better Way to Rate Research Doctoral Programs. A position paper prepared for the NASULGC's Council on Research Policy and Graduate Education. See http:// www. nasulgc. org/publications/towards_a_better_way. pdf. Maher, B. A. 1996. How to Read the 1995 National Research Council Report Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: A Guide for Students and Others. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. The National Association of Graduate and Professional Students. 2000. 2000 NAGPS Survey. http://www.nagps.org. National Science Foundation. 2001. Employment Preferences and Out- comes of Recent Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders in the Labor Market. NSF-02-304. October 30. Arlington, Va. National Science Foundation. 2002. Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2001. NSF-03-300. Ch. 3:2-3. Arlington, Va. Nerad, M., and J. Cerny. 1999. Postdoctoral Patterns, Career Advance- ment, and Problems. Science 285(3 September):1533-35. Nerad, M., and J. Cerny. 1999. From Rumors to Facts: Career Outcomes of English Ph.D.s: Results from the Ph.D.s Ten Years later Study. Council of Graduate Schools Communicator 32(7, Special Fall Issue): 1-11. Reprinted in Association of Departments of English Bulletin, winter 2000:124. Nerad, M., and J. Cerny. 2002. Postdoctoral Appointments and Employ- ment Patterns of Science and Engineering Doctoral Recipients Ten-plus Years after Ph.D. Completion: Selected Results from the Ph.D.s - Ten Years Later Study. Council of Graduate Schools Communicator September issue. Maresi Nerad, Rebecca Aanerud, and Joseph Cerny, "So You Want to Be a Professor!: Lessons from the 'PhDs-Ten Years Later' Study" Ph.D.s- Ten Years Later: Implication for the Preparation of Future Faculty," in Donald Wulff and Ann Austin. Enriching Graduate Education to Prepare the Next Generation of Faculty: Challenges, Research and Practice, Jossey Bass (forth coming ) Nyquist, J. D., and B. J. Woodford. 2000. Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: What Concerns Do We Have? Booklet produced for Re-envisioning the Ph.D. Conference, April 13-15, 2000. Seattle, Wash.: Center for Instruc- tional Development and Research and the University of Washington. Nyquist, J. D., L. Manning, D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, J. Sprague, P. Fraser, C. Calcagno, and B. Woodford. 1999. On the Road to Becoming a professor: The Graduate Student Experience. Change 31(3):18-27. Peterson. 1999. Peterson's Graduate and Professional Programs: An Over- view, 33r~ edition. Princeton, N.J. Roose, K. D., and C. J. Andersen. 1970. A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

66 Webster, D.S., and T. Skinner. 1996. Rating Ph.D. Programs: What the NRC Report Says ... and Doesn't Say. Change May/June: 23-44. Zuckerman, H., and J. S. Meisel. 2000. The Foundation's Programs for Research Universities and Humanistic Scholarship in the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation 2000 Annual Report (www.mellon.org/Annuat). ASSESSING RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS

Next: Appendix A: Biographical Sketches: Committee and Panels »
Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study Get This Book
×
 Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study
Buy Paperback | $48.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

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.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!