| Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study Contributor(s): National Research Council (Author), Policy and Global Affairs (Author), Committee to Examine the Methodology for (Author) |
|
 |
ISBN: 030909058X ISBN-13: 9780309090582 Publisher: National Academies Press OUR PRICE: $45.60 Product Type: Paperback Published: December 2003 Annotation: How should we assess and present information about the quality of research-doctorate programs? In recommending that the 1995 NRC rankings "(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 programs. It also recommends revision of the taxonomy of fields from that used in the 1995 rankings. |
| Additional Information |
| BISAC Categories: - Education | Higher - Education | Research - Education | Reference |
| Dewey: 507.207 |
| Physical Information: 0.45" H x 8.56" W x 10.92" (1.08 lbs) 153 pages |
| Descriptions, Reviews, Etc. |
| Publisher Description: 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. |