Appendix B: Student Data

©1995, David W. Fenton

The data itself is from the NRC, and their copyright may apply.

Comments on the data follow the table.

Rating Institution Students Reported* Reported Ph.D.'s*
Assistantships
RA%** TA%**
1 Harvard University 44 29 0% 61%
2 University of Chicago 56 28 0% 7%
3 University of California-Berkeley 35 19 0% 53%
4 CUNY - Grad Sch & Univ Center 145 26 0% 8%
5 Yale University 55 31 0% 9%
6 Princeton University 32 23 0% 18%
7 University of Pennsylvania 34 22 0% 41%
8 University of Rochester 119 137 0% 12%
9 University of Michigan 21 25 2% 16%
10 U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 288 99 3% 32%
11.5 Columbia University 107 14 0% 34%
11.5 Cornell University 17 27 0% 71%
13 Brandeis University 13 18 0% 9%
14 State U of New York-Stony Brook 153 71 0% 57%
15 Stanford University 26 11 3% 26%
16 U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 35 13 0% 19%
17 University of Texas at Austin 103 25 0% 15%
18 Univ of California-Los Angeles 93 47 0% 23%
19 New York University 2 13 5% 8%
20 Indiana University 6 8 0% 31%
21 University of North Texas 118 107 0% 11%
22 Duke University 40 8 0% 0%
23.5 Northwestern University 25 24 1% 21%
23.5 Univ of California-Santa Barbara 28 15 0% 33%
25 Univ of California-San Diego 35 34 9% 53%
26 University of Iowa 121 107 2% 19%
27 Florida State University 136 94 0% 28%
28 Ohio State University 202 79 4% 41%
29 University of Washington 31 10 2% 6%
30.5 Rutgers State Univ-New Brunswick 45 9 0% 20%
30.5 University of Minnesota 19 44 0% 12%
32 University of Wisconsin-Madison 28 12 0% 33%
33 Washington University 27 9 0% 21%
34 University of Cincinnati 210 89 0% 49%
35 University of Maryland College Park 103 29 0% 12%
36.5 University of Southern California 9 0 0% 38%
36.5 State Univ of New York-Buffalo 61 17 0% 29%
38 Temple University 47 22 0% 20%
39 University of Arizona 87 58 0% 14%
40 University of Pittsburgh 38 17 0% 39%
41 Louisiana State U & A&M College 21 14 3% 21%
42 University of Miami 60 17 0% 44%
43 Catholic University of America 29 11 3% 0%
44 Brown University 10 6 0% 100%
45 Michigan State University 16 9 0% 13%
46 University of Kansas 34 29 0% 14%
47 University of Oregon 49 24 0% 6%
48 Case Western Reserve Univ 14 20 0% 6%
49 Wesleyan University 24 12 0% 11%
50 Boston University 7 3 0% 13%
51 University of Georgia 38 22 0% 73%
52 University of Hartford 14 14 0% 25%
53 University of Colorado 14 10 0% 16%
54 University of Kentucky 22 12 0% 29%
55 West Virginia University 5 1 0% 25%
56 Claremont Graduate School 52 11 0% 0%
57 Texas Tech University 43 22 0% 23%
58 Kent State University 36 21 0% 20%
59 University of South Carolina 9 6 0% 27%
60 Ball State University 34 22 0% 7%
61 University of Alabama 28 19 0% 33%
62 Southern Baptist Theological Sem 20 25 0% 11%
63 University of Northern Colorado 35 25 0% 14%
64 University of Oklahoma 3 55 2% 22%
65 Univ of Missouri-Kansas City 1 0 0% 12%

Rating	Institution	Students Reported*	Reported Ph.D.'s*
Assistantships
RA%**	TA%**
1	Harvard University	44	29	0%	61%
2	University of Chicago	56	28	0%	7%
3	University of California-Berkeley	35	19	0%	53%
4	CUNY - Grad Sch & Univ Center	145	26	0%	8%
5	Yale University	55	31	0%	9%
6	Princeton University	32	23	0%	18%
7	University of Pennsylvania	34	22	0%	41%
8	University of Rochester	119	137	0%	12%
9	University of Michigan	21	25	2%	16%
10	U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	288	99	3%	32%
11.5	Columbia University	107	14	0%	34%
11.5	Cornell University	17	27	0%	71%
13	Brandeis University	13	18	0%	9%
14	State U of New York-Stony Brook	153	71	0%	57%
15	Stanford University	26	11	3%	26%
16	U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill	35	13	0%	19%
17	University of Texas at Austin	103	25	0%	15%
18	Univ of California-Los Angeles	93	47	0%	23%
19	New York University	2	13	5%	8%
20	Indiana University	6	8	0%	31%
21	University of North Texas	118	107	0%	11%
22	Duke University	40	8	0%	0%
23.5	Northwestern University	25	24	1%	21%
23.5	Univ of California-Santa Barbara	28	15	0%	33%
25	Univ of California-San Diego	35	34	9%	53%
26	University of Iowa	121	107	2%	19%
27	Florida State University	136	94	0%	28%
28	Ohio State University	202	79	4%	41%
29	University of Washington	31	10	2%	6%
30.5	Rutgers State Univ-New Brunswick	45	9	0%	20%
30.5	University of Minnesota	19	44	0%	12%
32	University of Wisconsin-Madison	28	12	0%	33%
33	Washington University	27	9	0%	21%
34	University of Cincinnati	210	89	0%	49%
35	University of Maryland College Park	103	29	0%	12%
36.5	University of Southern California	9	0	0%	38%
36.5	State Univ of New York-Buffalo	61	17	0%	29%
38	Temple University	47	22	0%	20%
39	University of Arizona	87	58	0%	14%
40	University of Pittsburgh	38	17	0%	39%
41	Louisiana State U & A&M College	21	14	3%	21%
42	University of Miami	60	17	0%	44%
43	Catholic University of America	29	11	3%	0%
44	Brown University	10	6	0%	100%
45	Michigan State University	16	9	0%	13%
46	University of Kansas	34	29	0%	14%
47	University of Oregon	49	24	0%	6%
48	Case Western Reserve Univ	14	20	0%	6%
49	Wesleyan University	24	12	0%	11%
50	Boston University	7	3	0%	13%
51	University of Georgia	38	22	0%	73%
52	University of Hartford	14	14	0%	25%
53	University of Colorado	14	10	0%	16%
54	University of Kentucky	22	12	0%	29%
55	West Virginia University	5	1	0%	25%
56	Claremont Graduate School	52	11	0%	0%
57	Texas Tech University	43	22	0%	23%
58	Kent State University	36	21	0%	20%
59	University of South Carolina	9	6	0%	27%
60	Ball State University	34	22	0%	7%
61	University of Alabama	28	19	0%	33%
62	Southern Baptist Theological Sem	20	25	0%	11%
63	University of Northern Colorado	35	25	0%	14%
64	University of Oklahoma	3	55	2%	22%
65	Univ of Missouri-Kansas City	1	0	0%	12%

* = "Institutional Coordinator Response Data"
** = "Doctorate Records File"

Comments on Appendix Table B

General Notes:

The column "Reported Ph.D.'s" may refer to all doctorate degrees, including DMAs, DMus's and others.
The source for the numbers of students and Ph.D.'s (Institutional Coordinators) is different from the source for the number of Assistantships ("Doctorate Records File"), and may not be based on the same definitions of the student population(s).
Fellowships without teaching or research duties do not appear to be accounted for in the report. Correlations with the amount of time students took to get degrees (data omitted here) must be considered in this light.

Rank	Comment
4	The ratio of 145 Ph.D. candidates enrolled in 1992-93 to 26 Ph.D.'s in the past 10 years suggests either that the number of students includes all graduate students, or that the reported Ph.D. figure is not cumulative.
8	The ratio of 119 Ph.D. candidates enrolled in 1992-93 to 137 Ph.D.'s in the past 10 years suggests that both numbers must include all doctoral programs.
10	The 288 reported students must surely include all graduate students.
11.5	Columbia: the number of reported students seems high, even if all graduate students are counted. The number of Ph.D.'s is, conversely, remarkably low, whether the reported number of students is correct or not.
14	Given that only one person was admitted into the Musicology program in 1988-89, both the number of students and the number of Ph.D.'s awarded seem exaggerated.
17	A ratio of 25 Ph.D.'s between 1982 and 1993 to 103 students in 1992-93 seems too large, suggesting that all enrolled graduate students may have been reported.
19	The reported number of students is unquestionably in error. In 1992-93, more than 10 students were actively conducting research and writing dissertations, while at least 10 more were already admitted to earlier stages of the Ph.D. program. Likewise, the reported number of Ph.D.'s (1.3 per year) is well below the average for the last 5 years, where two to four Ph.D.'s have been awarded each year. It may be that the first number is for Ph.D.'s awarded that year, while the second represents the number of active Ph.D. candidates (although that would seem low). The percentages for Assistantships are also not consistent with the reported number of students or Ph.D.'s granted. With 13 students, the lowest possible percentage (except 0) would be 7.6%, and with 2 students, the lowest would be 50%. It is curious that the two percentages (5 and 8) add up to 13, the number of reported Ph.D.'s. The percentages of support are unquestionably incorrect. More than 50% of the students in this department receive some form of financial award, either tuition remission, assistantships, or fellowships carrying significant stipends.
25	The 34 reported Ph.D.'s for the period 1983-93 is nearly equal to the number of students reported for 1992-93. This is at variance with the pattern in nearly all the other institutions.
27, 28, 34, 35	The number of students reported probably includes all graduate stu dents, and the reported degrees probably include all doctoral programs, not just ones awarding a Ph.D.