The National Research Council (NRC) is the operating arm of the National Academies of Sciences, of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. One of its responsibilities is to organize studies of doctoral education. The first was conducted in 1982, another in 1995. For the current study the NRC revised the methodology of the 1995 study to replace reputational ratings with quantitative ratings and to update the taxonomy of fields. Data were collected in the 2006-07 academic year.
The study included: (i.) an institutional survey; (ii.) surveys of individual doctoral programs; (iii.) a faculty survey; and (iv.) a student survey. To take each in turn: (i.)The institutional questionnaire was completed by NYU’s Office of Institutional Research. (ii.) NYU submitted data for 46 programs from Courant, IFA, GSAS, Nursing, Sackler, Steinhardt, Tisch, and Wagner, which mapped to the fields in the NRC taxonomy. Of the programs that NYU submitted, eight were not rated or ranked, either because there were too few Ph.D.s granted nationally or because there were too few Ph.D.s granted at NYU during the five year period of data covered in the study. (iii.) Core, new, and associated faculty in programs included in the study were asked to complete the faculty questionnaire. (iv.) At NYU, doctoral students (who were admitted-to-candidacy based on departmental definitions) in English, Economics, Physics, and Neuroscience/ Neurobiology were invited to complete the questionnaire.
The NRC is releasing information from the study in two stages. The methodology guide was released on Thursday, July 9. The final project report and the full database are anticipated to be released at some point in the future. Ultimately a web site containing the quantitative data from the programs included in the study will be made available for users to conduct their own analyses.
Many questions can be answered by visiting the study web site at: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/Resdoc/index.htm
For any questions regarding the study at NYU, please email nrc.study@nyu.edu
FAQs
How will the NRC determine program ratings and rankings? The NRC will use the quantitative data collected during the study to derive program ratings and a range of rankings. A two-step process, based on faculty responses in each field being studied, was used to determine which quantitative measures best estimate program quality in a particular field and the relative contribution or weight of each such measure to program quality. First, as part of the faculty questionnaire, faculty were asked to rate the importance of a number of quantitative variables in determining overall program quality. In the second step, a sample of faculty were provided with faculty lists and other information about a sample of programs in their fields, and they were asked to rank these programs. Regression analysis was then used to determine which quantitative variables most closely predict program ratings.
How many fields did the NRC include in its taxonomy for its study? The NRC identified 61 main fields within Life Sciences, including Agricultural Sciences; Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering; Social and Behavioral Sciences; and Arts and Humanities. The NRC also identified 14 emerging fields that do not currently meet the standards of degree production established for the study, but are perceived to likely be of interest or importance in the future. (Programs mapped to emerging fields will not be rated or ranked.) The criteria for inclusion were that a field must have produced at least 500 Ph.D.s over the most recent 5 years nationally and be offered in at least 25 universities. A few fields in the humanities that were included in previous studies continued to be included even though they no longer met the threshold requirement.
What were NRC criteria for including programs in its study? In order to be considered an eligible program, 3 out of the following 4 criteria must apply to the program: 1) it enrolls students as a program to which students explicitly apply, 2) it has a designated faculty, 3) it develops a curriculum for doctoral study, and 4) it recommends students for the award of a doctoral degree. In addition, a program must have produced 5 Ph.D.s during the period 2001-02 to 2005-06.
Given the NRC taxonomy, which NYU programs participated in the study? American Studies (GSAS), Anthropology (GSAS), Applied Mathematics (GSAS), Cell and Developmental Biology (GSAS), Cellular & Molecular Biology (Sackler), Chemistry (GSAS), Cinema Studies (Tisch) (emerging), Classics (GSAS), Comparative Literature (GSAS), Computer Science (Courant), Culture and Communications (Steinhardt), Developmental Genetics (Sackler), Developmental Psychology (Steinhardt), Economics (GSAS), English and American Literature (GSAS), Environmental Health Science (GSAS), French (GSAS), Genetics, Genomics and Bioinformatics (GSAS), German (GSAS), Hebrew and Judaic Studies (GSAS), History (GSAS), History & Middle Eastern Studies (GSAS), History of Art and Architecture (IFA), Institute for French Studies (GSAS), Italian Studies (GSAS), Linguistics (GSAS), Mathematics (GSAS), Medical Parasitology (Sackler), Microbiology (Sackler), Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (GSAS), Molecular Oncology & Immunology (Sackler), Molecular Pharmacology (Sackler), Music (GSAS), Neural Science (GSAS), Neuroscience and Physiology (Sackler), Nursing (Dental), Nutrition (Steinhardt), Performance Studies (Tisch), Philosophy (GSAS), Physics (GSAS), Politics (GSAS), Psychology (GSAS), Public Administration (Wagner), Sociology (GSAS), Spanish and Portuguese (GSAS), Structural Biology (Sackler) It is important to stress that the only doctoral programs that NRC assessed were those that mapped onto its taxonomy.
Which of the participating NYU programs were not rated or given a range of rankings? Programs in Italian Studies, the Institute for French Studies,
Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Hebrew and Judaic Studies, and the Program in History and Middle Eastern Studies did not get rated/ranked (though their
program information will still be included in the database) because there weren’t enough programs nationally to produce meaningful rankings.
Classics, Nutrition, and Structural Biology in Sackler were not rated/ranked because each programs awarded fewer than five doctorates at NYU in the requisite
time span.
Cinema Studies was not rated/ranked because it is an “emerging field.”
Which faculty members qualify to participate in the study?
Core program faculty: These are faculty members who had served (or were serving) as a chair or member of a program dissertation committee at the time of
the study (2006-2007) or in the prior five academic years (2001-2002 through 2005-2006), or who were serving as a member of the graduate admissions or
curriculum committee at the time of the study (2006-2007). The faculty member must be currently and formally designated as faculty in the program and
may not be an outside reader who read the dissertation but did not contribute substantially to its development. Adjunct faculty could not be classified
as core faculty. In general emeritus faculty were qualified, except for those who, within the three years prior to the study (2003-2004 through 2005-2006),
had either chaired a dissertation committee (i.e., been the PhD supervisor) or been the primary instructor for a doctoral course listed in the catalog for credit.
New program faculty: These are faculty members who were not listed as core faculty members, but were hired in tenured or tenure-track positions in the academic
years 2003-2004 through 2005-2006 and who were expected to become involved in the graduate program subsequently.
Associated faculty: These are faculty who had chaired (or were chairing) or had served (or were serving) on program dissertation committees at the time
of the study (2006-2007) or in the prior five years (2001-2002 through 2005-2006), but who were not designated either core or new faculty in the program.
Outside readers or faculty currently employed at other universities could not be included. Faculty who were not employed by the University
(nor at any other university) may still have been considered associated faculty for a program as long as they held some type of university
appointment at NYU (i.e., a faculty member with an adjunct appointment who worked in industry or at a national lab) and had served on a
dissertation committee in the prior five years. In general emeritus faculty were not to be included except for those who met the same criteria
required to be considered core [within the prior three years, had either chaired a dissertation committee (i.e. been the PhD supervisor) or been
the primary instructor for a doctoral course listed in the catalog for credit.]
How did NYU do in the previous study? Results from the current study cannot be fully compared to the results from 1995, as the methodology was completely different for the current study.
last updated: 07/29/09