Phd program rankings nrc

To help you get started, we've compiled an overview of the major ranking sources and their methodologies, strengths and weaknesses. Also, a word of caution: don't focus too much on rankings.

We're not saying that they're unimportant. All we're saying is that they're just one way to think about school selection. So here's what you need to know about the imperfect world of rankings The granddaddy of American university rankings is U. These folks have compiled rankings since and exert significant influence each year on applicants' school selection.

While the publication's ranking methodology has it shortcomings, it establishes a useful basis for comparing the relative attractiveness of hundreds of academic programs. For purposes of graduate school, we'd point you in the direction of two of their rankings: "America's Best Graduate Schools" and "Best Colleges". America's Best Graduate Schools is U. News' ranking of graduate schools. The first thing to note is that their rankings do not follow a uniform methodology for all programs.

The five graduate programs with the largest enrollment -- business, education, engineering, law, and medicine -- are ranked using a combination of peer assessment and statistical data. The criteria and weight assigned to each varies by discipline, and a complete explanation can be found on U.

News' web site. Basically, U. News sends questionnaires asking respondents to rate the "academic quality" of programs in their field on a 5-point scale. Sounds imperfect, doesn't it? News has also compiled information to let you view rankings based on sub-fields. For example, if you're interested in History, you can rank programs according to their strength in sub fields like European History or U.

Colonial History. This is a nice feature, but you should take it with a grain of salt as it's probably less than exact. Now, let's shift gears and talk about the Best Colleges ranking. This is simply a ranking of undergraduate programs, split into national and regional rankings. At this point, you might be asking yourself: "Why should I care about undergraduate rankings when I'm applying to graduate school?

The university threshold is retained. Two fields in the humanities, Classics and German language and literature, had been included in earlier studies but have since fallen below the threshold size for inclusion in terms of Ph. Adequate numbers of faculty remain, however, to assess the scholarly quality of programs. In the interests of continuity with earlier studies and the historical importance of these fields, the Committee felt that they should still be included. Continuity is a particularly important consideration.

In the biological sciences, where the Committee redefined fields, the fields themselves had changed in a way that could not be ignored. Smaller fields in the humanities have a different problem. A number of them are experiencing shrinking enrollments, but it can be argued that inclusion in the NRC study may assist the higher-quality programs to survive.

The number of degrees awarded in a field is determined by the number of new Ph. However, there is no external validation that these fields correctly reflect the current organization of doctorate programs. The Committee sought to investigate this question by requesting input from a large number of scholarly and professional societies. Beginning in December , the proposed taxonomy was also presented in a public Website and suggestions were invited.

As of mid-June , over suggestions had been received, and both the taxonomy and the list of subfields were discussed with the relevant scholarly societies. The taxonomy was also used in the pilot trials, and although the correspondence was not exact, the pilot sites found a reasonable fit with their graduate programs.

This taxonomy included new fields that had grown or been overlooked in the last study. It also reflected the continuing reorganization of the biological sciences.

The taxonomy put forward by the Committee; compared with the taxonomy for the Study is found in table 3. Inclusion of the arts and sciences and engineering fields preserves continuity with previous studies. Inclusion of agriculture recognizes the increasing convergence of research in those fields with research in the traditional biological sciences and the legitimacy of the research in these fields, separate and independent of other traditional biological disciplines.

The biological sciences presented special problems. The past decade has seen an expansion of research and doctoral training in the basic biomedical sciences. However, these Ph. Many of them are located in medical schools and were overlooked in earlier studies.

The Committee sought input from basic biomedical science programs in medical schools through the Graduate Research Education and Teaching Group of the American Association of Medical Colleges to assure systematic inclusion the next time the study is conducted.

This study will assess the quality and characteristics of research-doctorate programs at institutions in the United States. The study will be conducted by a 15 person committee, and their work will be supported by an 11 person panel that will address data collection issues See BHEW-QB for information on the Data panel.

The study will consist of:1 the collection of quantitative data through questionnaires administered to institutions, programs, faculty, and admitted to candidacy students in selected fields ,2 the collection of additional program data on publications, citations, and dissertation keywords, and3 the design and construction of program ratings using the collected data. Procedures for data collection will also be developed. The next stage will be devoted to data collection at the institutions.

This will begin with an institutional questionnaire to identify programs and will be followed by a program questionnaire that gathers information about the programs and the faculty participating in the programs.

The faculty will then be surveyed concerning their activities, and students in selective fields will be asked to information related to their studies and career development. In the final stage the data will be analyzed and an on-line database will be developed and made available to the public in September of In conjunction with the availability of the database the committee will issue a report describing how the database can be used.

The committee will conduct a second phase of the study during when a group of experts will analyze the data and write essays that will be part of a final report. Mellon FoundationAlfred P. The release of the Methodology Guide is now estimated for late October or early November The release schedule for the project report and its database will be announced when we have precise dates. Update The release of the Methodology Guide is now estimated for December 15, Update The release of the Methodology Guide will occur at least one month before the final project report is released.

The planned release procedure is that universities will receive results for their programs 72 hours before the public release of the report and database. If you have questions about this, contact the Board on Higher Education and the Workforce for assistance at Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry, request a list of the public access file materials, or obtain a copy of the materials found in the file.

An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs. View Report. In recommending that the 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.

It reviews the methodology of the NRC rankings and recommends changes, including the collection of new data about Ph. It also recommends revision of the taxonomy of fields from that used in the rankings. Read Full Description. Awards and Honors. Data Collection and Methodology Because awards and honors reflect external assessment of the perceived quality of doctoral program faculty, NRC staff collected data on a total of awards and honors in all fields: in the arts and humanities, in social sciences, in physical sciences and engineering and in life sciences.

In any assessment of doctoral programs, a key question is: Which programs should be included? The task of constructing taxonomy of programs is to provide a framework for the analysis of research-doctorate programs as they exist today, with an eye to the future. A secondary question is: Which programs should be grouped together across universities for purposes of comparison and what names should be given to these aggregations?

Show the Taxonomy List. Criteria for Inclusion. There were five questionnaires: one for the institution, one for each program, another for each faculty member in a program, a fourth for doctoral students in each program, and lastly, a questionnaire for faculty members willing to rate programs in their field. At UC Berkeley, with encouragement from the Graduate Division, from the chancellor and from the deans, some 89 percent of the faculty responded, significantly higher than the 70 percent faculty response rate nationwide for all participating schools.

Sloan Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the participating universities, which paid on a sliding scale based on the number of Ph.

This graphic shows the rankings by department. Reaction from campus deans and chairs. Hellman, who took over as chair in , has focused on hiring outstanding young faculty and finding ways to help the current faculty and graduate students flourish, despite the budget challenges faced by the university. The department continues to improve, he said, thanks in part to privately sponsored professorships such as the Hewlett Foundation Endowed Chairs, which provide money for research and graduate student support, and other private donations.

Comparative literature is one of the most interdisciplinary departments on campus, encompassing ancient and modern Greek, Latin and Hebrew; Chinese and Japanese; Renaissance French, Spanish and German; and even film. Most departments ranked at the top in have retained their excellence despite decreased state support over the past decade and deep budget cuts in recent years.

Despite this, many areas within the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology fared extremely well. Genetics, genomics and development, ranked 10th in , is now between first and fourth, while biochemistry and molecular biology, fourth in , is now ranked between first and fourth. Biomedical areas, in particular, ranked high. Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.