The text begins immediately below. If you have not read the description of it, you may want to click here.
If you would like to see the threading, click here.
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 08:16:50 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA31543; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 08:16:50 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id FAA00377; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 05:00:46 -0700
Received: from CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id EAA00326; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 04:59:05 -0700
Received: by cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 19658; Sat, 16 Sep 1995
08:02:46 EST
Message-Id: <00996793.44CC1CE8.19658@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 08:02:44 EST
Reply-To: tfd@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Public Institutions
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
I wonder how many of you saw a report on the latest National Research
Council's assessment of American Ph.D. programs. Lots of you, I'll bet.
I'm sure you noticed the top ten music doctoral programs. How many of
those top ten are PUBLIC institutions!!! How many of the top ten in all
categories are public institutions!
Of course, I am particularly proud that my own place is rated number four
in music.
I am not sure if a lot of you know exactly what that means. Music was the
only program of CUNY's that made the top ten in any discipline, which is
unfortunate. On the other hand, making number four in any category is the
equivalent of a man who's had both arms and legs broken, doing a triathalon
(OK, maybe I exaggerate a little).
So I hope those of you, even in private institutions (even ones who didn't
make the top ten!), quietly celebrate the achievements of these necessary
institutions, and that some of the powers-that-be remember why public education needs to be fought for.
Theresa Muir
CUNY
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 10:42:20 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA30410; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 10:42:18 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA04568; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 07:25:58 -0700
Received: from CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA04521; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 07:25:33 -0700
Received: by cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 19873; Sat, 16 Sep 1995
10:17:23 EST
Message-Id: <009967A6.131ED948.19873@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 10:17:21 EST
Reply-To: tfd@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: National Research Council Report
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status: A
the National Research Council, and independednt organization chartered by
the US COngress published a four-year study, entitled "Research Doctoral
Programs in the United States. The researchers studied 3,634 doctoral
(Ph.D.) programs at 274 institutions: 105 private and 169 public. More
than 8,000 faculty members-- maybe some of you- "participated in evaluating
academic programs on the bases of scholarly quality, edicational
effectiveness and change in program quality over the past five years. Some
of the criterial are evaluated though polling faculty members across the
country about how they regard their peers."
"...Directors of the study said that undergraduates should largely ignore
overall university ratings such as those provided anually by the magazine
U.S. News and World Report, and should focus instead on choosing a suitable
department. Unlike commerically prepared rankings, the National Research
council rankings do not take into account tuition or value for money. They
look strictly at reputation, publications by faculty members, length of
time to graduation, and other academic considerations"
(NY TIMES, September 13, 1995)
The Times published only the top ten in each discipline, so the rankings
under the top ten are not (yet) available to me. But here are the top ten
music doctoral programs, as ranked for "scholarly quality" by the
National Research Council:
1. Harvard
2. U of Chicago
3. UC Berkeley
4. CUNY Graduate School
5. Yale
6. Princeton
7. U of Pennsylvania
8. U of Rochester
9. U of Michigan
10.U. of Illinois
10. (tie) Cornell
Some of you will be surprised at a few changes and "dethronings."
Theresa Muir
CUNY
Next Message in Thread
From dwf4930@is2.NYU.EDU Sat Sep 16 17:33:53 1995
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:33:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David W. Fenton"
To: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: National Research Council Report
In-Reply-To: <009967A6.131ED948.19873@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU wrote (in part):
> . . . But here are the top ten
> music doctoral programs, as ranked for "scholarly quality" by the
> National Research Council:
>
> 1. Harvard
> 2. U of Chicago
> 3. UC Berkeley
> 4. CUNY Graduate School
> 5. Yale
> 6. Princeton
> 7. U of Pennsylvania
> 8. U of Rochester
> 9. U of Michigan
> 10.U. of Illinois
> 10. (tie) Cornell
>
>
> Some of you will be surprised at a few changes and "dethronings."
Well, I don't know about changes or so-called dethronings.
What I do know is that the data as presented in the Times included _two_
methods of rating:
Harvard 1 2
U. Chicago 2 1
Berkeley 3 4*
CUNY 4 9*
Yale 5 4*
Princeton 6 3
Penn 7 9
U. Rochester 8 6* (does this mean Eastman?)
U. Michigan 9 6*
Illinois 10 12
Cornell 11* 8
The first column (the one that Theresa posted) indicates (in the words of
the Times) "scholarly quality as measured in part by a survey of faculty
peers nationwide." The second column rates "effectiveness in teaching
Ph.D. candidates." The asterisks indicate a tie.
My understanding from reading the Times article was that the first rating
was of the _faculty_ at the various institutions, while the second was of
the teaching.
What is most interesting about the first rating is the number of
departments in the top ten which today are comprised almost entirely of
junior faculty (and in several instances, only very recently became that
way). In most of these cases, that is a development of the last five years
or so. Maybe the ratings reflect perceptions developed some years ago.
The other interesting point is that the rating of teaching omits numbers
3, 5, 7, 10 and 11. One wonders who these other institutions with
top-ten teaching are, and where they fall in the rating of "scholarly
quality."
Information about the report, along with downloadable data (in Excel 5
format) can be found at http://www.nas.edu/nap/online/researchdoc. I have
not yet been able to look at it to answer my questions above because I don't
have Excel on the computer I do my web browsing on.
I am also prompted to wonder the extent to which such ratings as these
reflect first-hand knowledge of the programs rated as opposed to simple
reputation.
David W. Fenton
New York University
dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 17:57:13 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA05682; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:57:12 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id OAA27830; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 14:47:30 -0700
Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id OAA27771; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 14:47:02 -0700
Received: from SJSUVM1.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
with BSMTP id 0715; Sat, 16 Sep 95 14:50:33 PDT
Received: from SJSUVM1 (MEREDITH) by SJSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with
BSMTP id 2413; Sat, 16 Sep 95 14:43:01 PDT
Message-Id: <199509162147.OAA27771@franc.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 14:35:05 PDT
Reply-To: MEREDITH%SJSUVM1.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Bill Meredith
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: National Research Council Poll
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The
longest line contained 0 characters
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
I am of two minds about this: while I am pleased to see that CUNY was no. 4
and agree that it is notable that struggling public institutions occupied half
of the top ten positions, the meaning, validity, and point of these kinds of
polls escapes me. Is no. 1 really better than no. 2? What does a tie for no. 10
mean? It should be embarrassing to scholars to go along with a numerical rank-
ing like this. It has always seemed to me that the best doctoral work comes
from students who have a creative, respected advisor who takes a real interest
in their work and in their dissertation. Be they at no. 5, 58, 3,004. Of course
there is some value to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs, but
this type of ranking seems to be about as meaningful as "beauty contests."
Bill Meredith
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 19:09:52 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA06055; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:09:51 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id PAA01404; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:59:35 -0700
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id PAA01305; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:57:15 -0700
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 6425; Sat, 16 Sep 95 19:00:09 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin RAPEN01@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5324; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:00:09 -0400
Message-Id: <950916.190008.EDT.RAPEN01@ukcc.uky.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 95 18:46:26 EDT
Reply-To: RAPEN01@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Ron Pen
To: AMS list
Subject: Top Ten
X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Gentle readers,
I was most interested to follow the conversational thread unravelled from the
National Research Council Poll by Ms. Muir. Such polls bear an uncanny
resemblance to the beauty, er, uh, scholarship pageant currently upon us.
If we may now phone in our objections to the swimsuit portion of the beaut...
er, uh "scholarship pageant" may we not do so figuratively for the results of
this poll. I fail to believe that these rankings say very much of substantive
value about the quality of a specific graduate student education. In fact two
graduate students at exactly the same institution may receive a widely
divergent educational experience based on the complex variables of our
instructional, tutorial, TA/RA, and dissertation processes. I suspect that
in the matter of education, each student should be "their own carver" (as
W. Billings might say) regardless of the pronouncements of the scholarship
pageant lists.
Thank you for your consideration on this rainy day in the bluegrass.
Ron Pen,
University of Kentucky
Rapen01@ukcc.uky.edu
Next Message in Thread
From tfd@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu Sat Sep 16 19:12:21 1995
Received: from cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA26527; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:12:20 -0400
Received: by cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 21049; Sat, 16 Sep 1995
19:09:54 EST
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:09:51 EST
From: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
To: dwf4930@is2.NYU.EDU
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Message-Id: <009967F0.76935C48.21049@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Subject: Re: National Research Council Report
Status: RO
X-Status:
Mr. Fenton makes it seem as if I deliberately misled with my extract
from the NY Times report. I did not. I thought I, my CUNY colleagues and
faculty were entitled to have a little bit of a gloat, and I still think so.
Whether I might have received the report a good deal _less_
critically if my institution were not listed in the "top 10"-- I really
don't think so, because we CUNY-ites are used to feeling somewhat like
everyone's "poor relations," being looked down upon, and asked questions
like, "What is THAT?" and "Why did you go THERE?" Then when we get around
to naming some of the faculty, we usually get an "Ohhhhh . . . OK." As for
our students, we represent a healthy number of the presenters at the
upcoming barn dance ...
Now if only we could get some respect from the state government.
He raises valid points, however. My question is, "What is the _difference_
between `scholarly quality' and `effectiveness in teaching Ph.D.
candidates'? Both refer, it seems to the quality of the faculty. I can
guess what the criteria are for "scholarly quality"-- the publication
record of the faculty, most likely. But how can "effectiveness in teaching
Ph.D. candidates" be quantified ? Does it mean graduation rate? Does this
have anything to do with whether the faculty can teach? Does it refer to
the _subsequent_ scholarly record of alumni? How _does_ one determine if
a doctoral faculty is "effective " in teaching, and preparing its students
to join the "scholarly community"?
Theresa Muir
CUNY
Next Message in Thread
From schale@indiana.edu Sat Sep 16 19:26:52 1995
Received: from cayman.ucs.indiana.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA22977; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:26:52 -0400
Received: from othello.ucs.indiana.edu (othello.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.45]) by cayman.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.13/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP id SAA20703; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:26:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from schale@localhost) by othello.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.11/1.4shakespeare) id SAA25793; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:25:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:25:04 -0500 (EST)
From: scott thomas hale
X-Sender: schale@othello.ucs.indiana.edu
To: "David W. Fenton"
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: NRC ratings
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: A
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, David W. Fenton wrote:
> Harvard 1 2
> U. Chicago 2 1
> Berkeley 3 4*
> CUNY 4 9*
> Yale 5 4*
> Princeton 6 3
> Penn 7 9
> U. Rochester 8 6* (does this mean Eastman?)
> U. Michigan 9 6*
> Illinois 10 12
> Cornell 11* 8
>
> [...]
>
> The other interesting point is that the rating of teaching omits numbers
> 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11. One wonders who these other institutions with
> top-ten teaching are, and where they fall in the rating of "scholarly
> quality."
As you indicate in a bit i deleted, the asterisks in the "teaching"
column indicate ties. In ranking lists (ie, the NYT bestseller lists),
in cases where two or more items listed tied for a particular ranking,
the following number is omitted (to keep the list to ten or fifteen or
whatever). Thus, in numbering
1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 11 12,
the list is limited to the ten (eleven) schools in the top ten, as well
as telling us that one of the scholarly top ten didn't make the teaching
top ten.
1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 could well be listed as
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This would, however, fail to inform the reader of
tie or near-tie "scores." Thus, the omitted 5, 7 and 10 [3 is included]
are not omitted, but merely non-existent. Teaching school number eleven
is excluded, presumably because emphasis was placed on the scholarly ten
(eleven) and the teaching rankings were considered secondary (not that
this is right, but that's the way it seems, though bear in mind that I
haven't seen the article...).
Hope this helps,
--Scott Hale
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 19:28:08 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA11296; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:28:07 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id QAA02612; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:14:15 -0700
Received: from CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id QAA02522; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:13:35 -0700
Received: by cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 21091; Sat, 16 Sep 1995
19:17:22 EST
Message-Id: <009967F1.82DC8B18.21091@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:17:21 EST
Reply-To: tfd@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Killjoys
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
I was really quite upset to see the number of "debunking" messages about
the NRC report on Ph.D. programs.
Of course I am fully cognizant of the many questions and issues that are
raised by such polls and ratings.
I believe my pleasure, however, was a quite natural reaction, and I hope
that whatever the INVALIDITY of such studies, of which several of you have
now tried your earnest hardest to convince me, it may still be of some
benefit to my institution, which is one I still happen to believe in.
Theresa Muir
CUNY
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 19:32:05 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AB17804; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 19:32:04 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id QAA03139; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:22:18 -0700
Received: from MAX.DCO.PIMA.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id QAA03104; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:22:02 -0700
Received: from pimacc.pima.edu by pimacc.pima.edu (PMDF V4.3-7 #7288)
id <01HVCM9CQ2O0C99T8F@pimacc.pima.edu>; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:25:50 -0700
Message-Id: <01HVCM9CTAEQC99T8F@pimacc.pima.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 16:25:50 -0700
Reply-To: LSOLOMON@pimacc.pima.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: LSOLOMON@pimacc.pima.edu
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Whose College is Best?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Vms-To: IN::"amslist@ucdavis.edu"
X-Vms-Cc: LSOLOMON
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
On 16-Sept-1995, Bill Meredith wrote:
> this type of ranking seems to be about as meaningful as "beauty contests."
Right on! I would also add that they are just plain silly and stupid.
Best!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Larry Solomon [My] way of working was a conscious attempt at for-
The Center for the Arts malizing a disorientation of memory...There is a
Pima College, Tucson suggestion that what we hear is functional and di-
LSOLOMON@pimacc.pima.edu rectional, but we soon realize that this is an
illusion. [Morton Feldman, from Crippled Symmetry]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Next Message in Thread
From dwf4930@is2.NYU.EDU Sat Sep 16 21:02:45 1995
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:02:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David W. Fenton"
To: scott thomas hale
cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: NRC ratings
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, scott thomas hale wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, David W. Fenton wrote:
>
> > Harvard 1 2
> > U. Chicago 2 1
> > Berkeley 3 4*
> > CUNY 4 9*
> > Yale 5 4*
> > Princeton 6 3
> > Penn 7 9
> > U. Rochester 8 6* (does this mean Eastman?)
> > U. Michigan 9 6*
> > Illinois 10 12
> > Cornell 11* 8
> >
> > [...]
> >
> As you indicate in a bit i deleted, the asterisks in the "teaching"
> column indicate ties. In ranking lists (ie, the NYT bestseller lists),
> in cases where two or more items listed tied for a particular ranking,
> the following number is omitted (to keep the list to ten or fifteen or
> whatever). Thus, in numbering
>
> 1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 11 12,
>
> the list is limited to the ten (eleven) schools in the top ten, as well
> as telling us that one of the scholarly top ten didn't make the teaching
> top ten.
>
>
> 1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 could well be listed as
>
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This would, however, fail to inform the reader of
> tie or near-tie "scores." Thus, the omitted 5, 7 and 10 [3 is included]
> are not omitted, but merely non-existent. Teaching school number eleven
> is excluded, presumably because emphasis was placed on the scholarly ten
> (eleven) and the teaching rankings were considered secondary (not that
> this is right, but that's the way it seems, though bear in mind that I
> haven't seen the article...).
Why, then, is Cornell listed as #11 with an asterisk?
David W. Fenton
New York University
dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu
http://pages.nyu.edu/~dwf4930
Next Message in Thread
From mallard@shell1.best.com Sat Sep 16 21:42:46 1995
Received: from blob.best.net by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA30458; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:42:43 -0400
Received: from shell1.best.com (shell1.best.com [204.156.128.10]) by blob.best.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA21541; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:42:41 -0700
Received: from mallard.vip.best.com (mallard.vip.best.com [204.156.156.66]) by shell1.best.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA13077; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:42:40 -0700
Message-Id: <199509170142.SAA13077@shell1.best.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is
From: "Michelle K. Dulak & Geo. Thomson"
Organization: Mallard Leisure Systems
To: dwf4930@is2.NYU.EDU
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:39:43 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: NRC ratings
Reply-To: mallard@best.com
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10)
Status: RO
X-Status:
David Fenton writes:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, scott thomas hale wrote:
[stuff snipped]
> > 1 2 3 4 4 6 6 8 9 9 could well be listed as
> >
> > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This would, however, fail to inform the reader of
> > tie or near-tie "scores." Thus, the omitted 5, 7 and 10 [3 is included]
> > are not omitted, but merely non-existent. Teaching school number eleven
> > is excluded, presumably because emphasis was placed on the scholarly ten
> > (eleven) and the teaching rankings were considered secondary (not that
> > this is right, but that's the way it seems, though bear in mind that I
> > haven't seen the article...).
> Why, then, is Cornell listed as #11 with an asterisk?
Actually, in the version I read (was it the NYT or our local Daily
Californian? They've both vanished with the recycling, so I'm no
longer sure), Cornell was listed as *#10* with an asterisk
(indicating that it tied with the other listed #10). If it had tied
with another #11, of course, both would have had to have been listed
for fairness' sake. In the event, it seems to have tied with Illinois
(#10).
But, yes, the practice generally is to delete the following place
where two competitors tie for one position. If three tie for #11, the
next will be #14.
Oh, and Scott is right: #3 *is* included...
Michelle Dulak
================================================================
Michelle Dulak & George Thomson, mallard@best.com
URL: http://www.best.com/~mallard/
Next Message in Thread
From schale@indiana.edu Sat Sep 16 21:46:38 1995
Received: from belize.ucs.indiana.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA27812; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:46:37 -0400
Received: from othello.ucs.indiana.edu (othello.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.45]) by belize.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.13/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP id UAA17602; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 20:44:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from schale@localhost) by othello.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.11/1.4shakespeare) id UAA21937; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 20:44:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 20:44:49 -0500 (EST)
From: scott thomas hale
X-Sender: schale@othello.ucs.indiana.edu
To: "David W. Fenton"
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: NRC ratings
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, David W. Fenton wrote:
> Why, then, is Cornell listed as #11 with an asterisk?
a good question, and one i thought myself but ignored. my guess would be
that, again taking the bestseller list as a model, the asterisk for
cornell as #11 indicates that the rating is not equal to #10's, but
barely distinguishable from it. that is, cornell didn't rank quite as
well as #10, but was a very close 11th.
--scott hale
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 22:03:29 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA12681; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 22:03:28 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA09801; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:52:50 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA09530; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:50:23 -0700
Received: from mail.crl.com by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA28604; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:51:12 -0700
Received: from crl8.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA20929
(5.65c/IDA-1.5); Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:52:38 -0700
Received: by crl8.crl.com id AA27968
(5.65c/IDA-1.5); Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:52:36 -0700
Message-Id:
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 18:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: attinell@crl.com
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Paul Attinello
To: Ron Pen
Cc: AMS list
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To: <950916.190008.EDT.RAPEN01@ukcc.uky.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
But hold!
I honestly think these lists, journalistic garbage as they may be, are
strong indicators of certain obliquely useful data. Certainly, one does
not get a guaranteed good education at a prestigious instition - no
question. And one's experience and production are too complex to easily
classify on any given ranking.
However, the first of the 'top ten' lists is essentially a listing of the
opinions of faculty - i.e., the prestige of an institution at its most
professional level, that of fellow professors. This is frankly important,
and not only in 'beauty contest' terms. Much of the important information
exchanged at AMS each year has nothing to do with long-dead composers or
with Schenker graphs; it is about what colleagues are doing interesting
work, what colleagues are falling apart or going on apparently permanent
vacations, who is maintaining, who is running out of funding, etc., etc.
This is gossip, but highly useful gossip. I suggest that all of these
elements, and many more, make up the prestige rankings. Frankly, if I
wanted to know how to rate an institution, I wouldn't look at logistical,
financial or other normally measurable criteria; since the most important
functions of the institution are a product of its network of intellectual
conversations, and their links with outside conversations, I would ask
people involved in such conversations - i.e., other professors. QED.
I think such lists can be quite useful (and my congrats to Theresa, who
seems to be feeling undercongratulated) and quite telling. It's no
surprise that my own institution, UCLA, which ranked quite high in the
late 1980s before the intradepartmental battles which broke it into three
departments and raised so much smoke and idiocy, is no longer on the
list; too bad. Maybe Susan McClary and Rob Walser will help Robert Winter
in putting it, eventually, back on the map.
Cheers,
Paul Attinello
attinell@crl.com
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sat Sep 16 23:13:04 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA13471; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:13:03 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id UAA12722; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 20:03:23 -0700
Received: from post-ofc01.srv.cis.pitt.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id UAA12687; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 20:02:43 -0700
Received: from unixs7.cis.pitt.edu (dxdst6@unixs7.cis.pitt.edu [136.142.185.45])
by post-ofc01.srv.cis.pitt.edu with SMTP (8.6.10/cispo-2.0)
ID for ;
Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:03:35 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: David De Angelo
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: David De Angelo
To: AMS list
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
X-Sender: David De Angelo
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
I am surprised here. Whenever the NYTimes prints something even
remotely disagreeable, one would think (after reading the objections
posted here on the amslist), that The NYTimes is not good enough to
wrap yesterday's fish let alone good enough to be taken seriously on the
subject of musicology.
ON THE OTHER HAND, when it prints a "top ten" suddenly it becomes a
mine of useful information.
All I can say is...HUH?
David (not for very much longer) in Pittsburgh
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sun Sep 17 00:27:03 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA29387; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 00:27:02 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id VAA14451; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:10:15 -0700
Received: from meserv.me.umn.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id VAA14391; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:09:00 -0700
Received: from [134.84.101.33] (dialup-1-33.gw.umn.edu [134.84.101.33]) by meserv.me.umn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id XAA12166 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:12:52 -0500
Message-Id: <199509170412.XAA12166@meserv.me.umn.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 23:12:52 -0500
Reply-To: "Vivian Ramalingam"
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Vivian Ramalingam"
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: NRC & Top Ten
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
NOW, why doesn't someone take the row delineated by the Top Ten ratings and
write a nice serial composition? The text is already provided; the style
would be determined by whether the names of the institutions are taken in the
nominative or the vocative ... (Should I have mentioned the accusative? the
genitive?)
BUT SERI(ALLI)OUSLY, FOLKS, Paul A. is right on. The value of the ratings
lies not in the general perception, but in the estimations of colleagues.
But, these estimations have ramifications that, though difficult to quantify,
are nonetheless palpable. A case in point: many years ago, Yale was ranked
#1 in Medieval English -- until Karl Young moved to UNC, then ranked #3.
As soon as Young relocated, the rankings were reversed. UNC retained its
ranking as a fine place to do medieval studies, even after Young was gone,
because UNC hastened to build the library to support his area of interest,
and because faculty and good students then came along to avail themselves of
the superb collection and the intellectual environment that came of the
richness to be found there. Everyone indeed ought to be his own carver,
but it certainly helps to have lots of the right things to delve into,
right at hand, and agile minds with and against which to hone one's growing
capabilities.
Vivian R. (You can lead a horse to water, but it helps if there's LOTS of
water!)
Vivian S. Ramalingam vivian@me.umn.edu
(612) 636 - 1042
Next Message in Thread
From erandell@email.unc.edu Sun Sep 17 01:57:33 1995
Received: from login0.isis.unc.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA31748; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:57:32 -0400
Received: (from erandell@localhost) by login0.isis.unc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA67684; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:57:30 -0400
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 01:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Elizabeth Randell
X-Sender: erandell@login0.isis.unc.edu
To: "David W. Fenton"
Cc: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU" ,
amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: National Research Council Report
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, David W. Fenton wrote:
> The second column rates "effectiveness in teaching Ph.D. candidates."
> The asterisks indicate a tie.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The other interesting point is that the rating of teaching omits numbers
> 3, 5, 7, 10 and 11. One wonders who these other institutions with
> top-ten teaching are, and where they fall in the rating of "scholarly
> quality."
#3, as noted on your chart, is Princeton. #5 is omitted due to the two
tied #4s. Ditto #7 because of the two tied 6s, and #10 (two 9s). So the
only missing number in the second category is #11.
Elizabeth Randell Smoke rises warm green
UNC-Chapel Hill Small inherent jade all blaze
erandell@email.unc.edu Turn inside and smile
--Kerry Lutz
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sun Sep 17 10:16:15 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA20231; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:16:14 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA27702; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:03:10 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA27664; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:02:46 -0700
Received: from acs4.bu.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA05912; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:03:36 -0700
Received: by acs4.bu.edu (8.6.11/BU_SmartClient-1.0)
id KAA22035; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:02:14 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:02:14 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: elizschw@acs.bu.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Elizabeth Schwartz
To: Paul Attinello
Cc: AMS list
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Isn't it also important to ask (when one is looking for a doctoral
program oneself) whether or not YOU PERSONALLY would be happy at a
particular institution, regardless of how well it is ranked? FOr
example, my musical and scholarly interests would not be best served at
U Chicago, since I am interested in women in music and 20th century
issues. U Chicago isn't known for that. I am also not personally suited
to the type of educational experience U Chicago provides. I am
not knocking U Chic-just saying it isn't the place for me. Perhaps this
is unpardonably naive of me, but my own needs take precedence for me over
any school ranking.
BTW, how do other people choose schools? Isn't the other really salient
criteria financial aid? Again, I wouldn't consider a school that does't
offer me a full ride, regardless of how "good" it is. I just can't
afford it otherwise.
I await your thoughts-
Elizabeth Schwartz
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sun Sep 17 10:40:06 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA01304; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:40:05 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA28374; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:30:16 -0700
Received: from virginia.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA28316; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 07:29:30 -0700
Received: from darwin.clas.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa00585;
17 Sep 95 10:33 EDT
Received: (from fem2x@localhost) by darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA155485; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:33:29 -0400
Message-Id: <199509171433.KAA155485@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 10:33:29 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: fem2x@darwin.clas.virginia.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Fred E. Maus"
To: elizschw@acs.bu.edu
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To: from "Elizabeth Schwartz" at Sep 17, 95 10:02:14 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Elizabeth Schwartz:
> Isn't it also important to ask (when one is looking for a doctoral
> program oneself) whether or not YOU PERSONALLY would be happy at a
> particular institution, regardless of how well it is ranked?
I think the single most important piece of advice on choosing a
graduate program is: visit the school, talk with faculty with
whom you might work, talk very frankly with the students, take
enough time in the visit to see how the students live. If you
aren't happy in an environment you won't be productive, or your
productivity will be slowed. And yes, rank has little to say
about the match between an institution and an individual.
> BTW, how do other people choose schools? Isn't the other really salient
> criteria financial aid? Again, I wouldn't consider a school that does't
> offer me a full ride, regardless of how "good" it is. I just can't
> afford it otherwise.
I think, if the match between student and school is right,
financial aid shouldn't be the decisive factor. Finding the
school that will allow you to find your voice as a scholar is
too important to be constrained by relatively short-term
financial issues.
(I say this having chosen partial support, and Princeton, over
a better offer from what was, at the time, "the other" and more
obvious place to study music theory.)
Fred Maus
fem2x@virginia.edu
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sun Sep 17 11:50:18 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA08436; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:50:17 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id IAA01273; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 08:40:06 -0700
Received: from uhura.cc.rochester.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id IAA01221; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 08:39:30 -0700
Received: (esm1@localhost) by uhura.cc.rochester.edu (8.6.12/8.6.4) id LAA10351; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:40:06 -0400
Message-Id: <199509171540.LAA10351@uhura.cc.rochester.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:40:05 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: esm1@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Robert Fink
To: MEREDITH%SJSUVM1.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: National Research Council Poll
In-Reply-To: <199509162147.OAA27771@franc.ucdavis.edu> from "Bill Meredith" at Sep 16, 95 02:35:05 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
>
> I am of two minds about this: while I am pleased to see that CUNY was no. 4
> and agree that it is notable that struggling public institutions occupied half
> of the top ten positions, the meaning, validity, and point of these kinds of
> polls escapes me. Is no. 1 really better than no. 2? What does a tie for no. 10
> mean? It should be embarrassing to scholars to go along with a numerical rank-
> ing like this. It has always seemed to me that the best doctoral work comes
> from students who have a creative, respected advisor who takes a real interest
> in their work and in their dissertation. Be they at no. 5, 58, 3,004. Of course
> there is some value to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs, but
> this type of ranking seems to be about as meaningful as "beauty contests."
> Bill Meredith
>
Bill's comments are well-taken, of course (and especially apposite since I
write on the day after the 75the Miss America Pageant, which I watched in
all its terrifying sociological glory last night--more on that in another
post, perhaps?), but I think there is another side to this.
As a member of a department that leapfrogged from 16 (in 1982) to 8 (and yes,
University of Rochester = Eastman School of Music), I see this as praise
from colleagues, *not* to be used against other colleagues, but in the
constant war for survivial against one's own administration. The U of R is
undergoing disastrous financial struggles, and there is a new administration
looking around the campus with sharpened blade...How nice to be able to
point out that the music PhD programs are the highest ranked programs in the
entire university, and that the 12-year trend is firmly upward! Maybe next
time we need a few extra $$$ for grad awards, this report will come in
handy.
Robert Fink
Eastman School of Music
esm1@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sun Sep 17 12:56:08 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA08663; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 12:56:07 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id JAA04749; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:46:21 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id JAA04697; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:45:33 -0700
Received: from belize.ucs.indiana.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id JAA08310; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 09:46:23 -0700
Received: from hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu (hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.41]) by belize.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7.Beta.13/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP id LAA14289; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:47:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: by hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu
(1.38.110.45/16.2) id AA210806569; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:49:29 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 11:49:29 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: dlieberm@indiana.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: David Lieberman
To: "Fred E. Maus"
Cc: elizschw@acs.bu.edu, amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To: <199509171433.KAA155485@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: dlieberm@hamlet.ucs.indiana.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Fred E. Maus wrote:
> I think, if the match between student and school is right,
> financial aid shouldn't be the decisive factor. Finding the
> school that will allow you to find your voice as a scholar is
> too important to be constrained by relatively short-term
> financial issues.
>
Well, yes, ideally, the potential of the academic experience ought to
outweigh the prospective financial burden, BUT . . .
Part of the rub is that for many of us the financial issues are not
"relatively short-term." Musicology, even for the best and brightest
among us, is a riskier professional choice than I think has ever been the
case. (This phenomenon, I might add, I believe has to do directly with
disintegration of an audience for classical music in this country being
discussed on another thread. I seem to recall making a similar point on
this list at almost exactly the same time last year.) Having already
thrown ourselves into a profession with an uncertain future, I think the
better part of wisdom dictates that we meet that future with the
smallest possible financial burden. I absolutely agree with Elizabeth
that the money package, whether we like it or not, has to be a crucial,
and often the decisive, factor in choosing a program.
David Lieberman
Indiana Univeristy
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Sun Sep 17 16:13:07 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA25766; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 16:13:06 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id NAA12926; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:02:44 -0700
Received: from mail.crl.com by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id NAA12879; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:02:22 -0700
Received: from crl6.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA00649
(5.65c/IDA-1.5); Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:03:05 -0700
Received: by crl6.crl.com id AA06156
(5.65c/IDA-1.5); Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:03:04 -0700
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: attinell@crl.com
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Paul Attinello
To: Elizabeth Schwartz
Cc: AMS list
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Very accurate. Each one's prejudices matter also, here - which does not
mean the whole judging is nonsense, just that it is contingent on certain
prejudices. For instance, I am rather touchy about minority issues
myself, and have been publicly extremely nasty about a former U. Chic.
professor's publicly stated ignorance about such things; but I am also
romantically, even fondly, intellectually elitist, and tend to forgive
such places as Harvard and Yale their ridiculous snobberies because they
have good libraries and good minds. Thus the list does not outrage me as
much as it might someone equally liberal but less easily impressed by the
trappings of traditional success...
But that's not really your question, is it? Sorry. Maundering again.
And as for financial aid, I made a disastrous mistake in that area myself,
entering a subset of a program that couldn't support anyone. I remember
being appalled at
my own folly when I found out how much support was considered normal at
Berkeley... so you will all know what happened to me when, someday, in
the middle of a moonless winter night, the Student Loan people take me
away in one of their black vans.
Admittedly rather intricately,
Paul Attinello
attinell@crl.com
On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
> Isn't it also important to ask (when one is looking for a doctoral
> program oneself) whether or not YOU PERSONALLY would be happy at a
> particular institution, regardless of how well it is ranked? FOr
> example, my musical and scholarly interests would not be best served at
> U Chicago, since I am interested in women in music and 20th century
> issues. U Chicago isn't known for that. I am also not personally suited
> to the type of educational experience U Chicago provides. I am
> not knocking U Chic-just saying it isn't the place for me. Perhaps this
> is unpardonably naive of me, but my own needs take precedence for me over
> any school ranking.
>
> BTW, how do other people choose schools? Isn't the other really salient
> criteria financial aid? Again, I wouldn't consider a school that does't
> offer me a full ride, regardless of how "good" it is. I just can't
> afford it otherwise.
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 00:30:44 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA23964; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 00:30:43 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id VAA08930; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 21:23:05 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id VAA08839; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 21:22:08 -0700
Received: from batch1.csd.uwm.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id VAA21936; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 21:22:59 -0700
Received: from alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (brauner@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu [129.89.169.1]) by batch1.csd.uwm.edu (8.6.10/8.6.8) with ESMTP id XAA04865; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:26:11 -0500
Received: (brauner@localhost) by alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (8.6.10/8.6.8) id XAA09152; Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:26:10 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 23:26:09 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: brauner@csd.uwm.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Mitchell P Brauner
To: Paul Attinello
Cc: Elizabeth Schwartz , AMS list
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
It should be noted that these top ten lists, and they have been coming
out for decades now, are more descriptions of schools' and departments'
reputations than what they actually produce either in research or in
student output? Even as august an institution as Harvard has had fallow
periods when its faculty (due to vacant positions) was not producing the
level of research one would have expected by its ratings, or when its
graduate students were not spewing forth with dissertations due to
certain quirks and gaps in the curriculum. Yet Harvard's reputation as a
PhD granting department never diminished.
The one truly solid thing that many of these traditionally strong
departments provide network to success. "Ph.D., Yale," seems to have
meaning to people that the content of a dissertation doesn't. In
considering a program from which to get a PhD one, if one is looking for
gainful employment in the academic world, one should consider how well do
the degree-holders fare in the job market. That may seem cynical, but
for some it may be an important consideration.
The true nature of a degree program is not based on the received opinion
of the field at large, which is most probably out of date, nor by how
many of the top graduate student candidates it attracts. Reputations are
not realities. It is easy to make a top student into a top PhD. The
soundness of a program rests in what it does with those students who show
potential. Can it raise them to the next level of performance? Can it
provide the means by which a potentially excellent scholar-teacher can
become that excellent scholar-teacher.
No one has commented on departments whose reputations may have sagged off
such lists over the last 10 or 20 years? Where are Brandeis, NC-CH,
Duke? just to name three?
Mitchell Brauner
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 14:38:08 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA25780; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:38:07 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id LAA06669; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:23:28 -0700
Received: from CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id LAA06049; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 11:20:37 -0700
Received: by cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 27197; Mon, 18 Sep 1995
13:56:25 EST
Message-Id: <00996956.D472402E.27197@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 13:55:08 EST
Reply-To: iqu@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: fuzzhead
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: top ten flap
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Apparently, everyone who goes to a school that is or has been on the list
is happy with it, and everyone who does not is not. Hardly suprising, and
hardly as interesting as the volume of discussion might suggest.
Ian Quinn
CUNY Graduate Center
We're number four!
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 17:59:06 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA26525; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:59:00 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id MAA19835; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:45:12 -0700
Received: from franklin.seas.gwu.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id MAA19626; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 12:43:48 -0700
Received: from gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (gwis2.circ.gwu.edu [128.164.127.252]) by franklin.seas.gwu.edu (v8) with ESMTP id PAA05086; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:47:58 -0400
Received: (from ahlquist@localhost) by gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03152; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:47:56 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 15:47:56 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: ahlquist@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Karen Ahlquist
To: fuzzhead
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: top ten flap
In-Reply-To: <00996956.D472402E.27197@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
A few years ago, the American Historical Association newsletter surveyed
history department chairs in order to rank Ph.D.-granting institutions on
"scholarly quality." The authors then listed the numbers of chairs from
each of the top-ranked schools and the percentage of faculty members from
these schools history departments in general had hired. The circularity
of the system was evident--in fact, it was the point of the article.
Historians from the top-ranked institutions were positioned both to rank
their own schools highly and hire others from this small group.
None of this was particularly surprising, although it was fun to see it
carefully analyzed in another field. (I'd post the citation but I've
given the issue of the *AHA Perspectives* away.) Of some concern,
however, is the question of whose voice in our crowded field will be
listened to first or with greatest attention. I've often thought that if
I were at Harvard (or another consistently top-ranked institution), I
could be audacious, radical, or whatever because my school's reputation
would guarantee me a fair hearing. The power of reputation (exemplified
here by the current institution ranking) can make it hard to find the
interesting or worthwhile voice from the "lesser" source.
With best wishes,
Karen Ahlquist
George Washington University
202-994-6270
ahlquist@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 18:04:51 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA07649; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:04:48 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id OAA07181; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:55:02 -0700
Received: from meserv.me.umn.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id OAA06035; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:49:12 -0700
Received: from [134.84.101.107] (dialup-2-107.gw.umn.edu [134.84.101.107]) by meserv.me.umn.edu (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id QAA24780 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:53:21 -0500
Message-Id: <199509182153.QAA24780@meserv.me.umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 16:53:21 -0500
Reply-To: "Vivian Ramalingam"
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Vivian Ramalingam"
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: storming the rank(ing)s
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Karen Ahlquist raises a very delicate issue. Does innovative work get shot down
a-bornin' or ignored because its "source" has been "weighed"? And where does
this happen?
I'd like to hear more on this. -- Vivian R.
Of some concern,
> however, is the question of whose voice in our crowded field will be
> listened to first or with greatest attention. I've often thought that if
> I were at Harvard (or another consistently top-ranked institution), I
> could be audacious, radical, or whatever because my school's reputation
> would guarantee me a fair hearing. The power of reputation (exemplified
> here by the current institution ranking) can make it hard to find the
> interesting or worthwhile voice from the "lesser" source.
Vivian S. Ramalingam vivian@me.umn.edu
(612) 636 - 1042
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 20:17:45 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA15275; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:17:44 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA28040; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:09:39 -0700
Received: from CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA27899; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:08:36 -0700
Received: by cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (MX V3.3 VAX) id 28888; Mon, 18 Sep 1995
20:11:39 EST
Message-Id: <0099698B.34FD87EE.28888@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:10:04 EST
Reply-To: tfd@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
To: ahlquist@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: top ten flap
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
The point of my posting-- and of my gloating-- was that these things can
change. Of course Harvard is in the top ten. Zzzzzz. I was _surprised_
to see my place do so well in such a poll, _not_ complacent. I have spent
years thinking about "if I went to Harvard or Princeton," and wondred if
people understood why I and my colleagues chose CUNY, instead of assuming
we couldn't "do better." If _all_ this is about is "reputation," well
then, shucks folks, I'm happy about my place's reputation. And if all it
is is a "beauty contest"-- I suppose I can't ask you not to hate me because
I'm beautiful! What a lot of you don't seem to get is that we're NOT LIKE
a lot of other places. If we _are_ "beautiful," we didn't know about it,
and it's damn nice to be told that someone thinks so.
I really don't think that this rating is going to change much in _that_
sense-- I think that people are probably going to continue to say "huh,"
and even express sympathy when I tell them where I go, or where I went!
We are going to have to consistently perform up to the expectations that
such a rating evokes before we can really get the respect that some other
programs get, just on name recognition..
If anything at all, it is an eye-opener in the sense of another
viewpoint.
I was surprised to see, for example, that Indiana had dropped out of the
top ten. Someone there will surely notice, and say , "Hey, look guys,
let's get our butts in gear." Someone at your place will notice where you
finished, and say something like that too.
I don't think a lot of people can possibly understand the shot in the arm
that something like this is for CUNY, because the entire institution
probably has the worst reputation of any university in the country; we are
tarred with the brushes of our city, with the undergraduate
"open-enrollment" policy; and with the disastrous budget cuts that are
giving us less and less to work with. We don't have ANYTHING a respectable
music school should have. We have two classrooms in an urban office
building, a few pianos. MUSIC was the _only_ doctoral program at CUNY that
was ranked in the top ten. The political current of the times has its hand
against an institution like CUNY. We need all the good feedback and all
the good press we can get. Maybe now _someone somewhere_ who might have
turned his/her nose up at my CV and my recommendations will think twice.
Theresa Muir
CUNY
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 20:43:12 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA22668; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 20:43:08 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA00478; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:32:08 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA00410; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:31:27 -0700
Received: from belize.ucs.indiana.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA29659; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 17:32:18 -0700
Received: from ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu (ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu [129.79.181.44]) by belize.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7.Beta.11/8.7/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP id TAA05324 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:33:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu
(1.38.110.45/16.2) id AA264980854; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:34:14 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 19:34:14 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: lneff@indiana.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Lyle Neff
To: AMSlist
Subject: Re: Top Ten
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: lneff@ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
The listings in this week's _Chronicle of Higher Education_ got me to
wondering what value there is in combining the doctoral sub-disciplines
together in a general ranking (not that that procedure doesn't have value
in certain contexts). The larger the department or school, the less the
broad area of "music" in the statistics tells anyone, let alone the
prospective student, about what the subareas are like (e.g. music
performance, music study and analysis, music education) in that particular
institution, despite the fact that faculty can and do teach courses to
students in the other areas, even in the largest schools. An institution
with a subunit that is "outstanding" in the performance area may not be as
strong in "scholarly" subunits, for instance, or vice versa; one could not
necessarily tell from the combined rankings. But maybe it doesn't matter.
Perhaps this observation stems from having had a most positive experience
in an undergraduate program in which the music faculty not only had to
cross what in larger programs would be considered boundary lines
(performance instructors teaching also music history, theory, or
education) but also were combined with the visual arts faculty in one
department, and segments of both taught the arts sections of the required
humanities curriculum along with the English department.
Lyle Neff, lneff@ucs.indiana.edu
Ph.D. Candidate, Musicology; CONSER/NACO Cataloger, I.U.
http://copper.ucs.indiana.edu/~lneff/home.html (with Libretto Homepage)
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Mon Sep 18 21:47:45 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA04775; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:47:44 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA06377; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:36:37 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA06295; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:35:55 -0700
Received: from login1.isis.unc.edu by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA02092; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 18:36:46 -0700
Received: (from mebuja@localhost) by login1.isis.unc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA142930; Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:40:01 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 1995 21:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: mebuja@email.unc.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Maureen Buja
To: Lyle Neff
Cc: AMSlist
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: mebuja@login1.isis.unc.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Perhaps one of the criteria we, as students in a department, are best
equiped to ask is:
Could you recommend your department to an interested senior?
What do you tell the visiting students?
Where do you suggest, other than your school, that they look?
Why do you feel this way?
This, in the end, will probably mean more and may carry more weight than
any top 10 list.
Maureen Buja
New York, NY
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 08:36:17 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA10442; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:36:17 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id FAA05658; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 05:26:20 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id EAA03857; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:44:15 -0700
Received: from netaxs.com by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id EAA15630; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:45:06 -0700
Received: from pacs.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by netaxs.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with UUCP id HAA24431 for ucdavis.edu!amslist; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 07:48:29 -0400
Received: by pacs.pha.pa.us (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.16)
id ; Mon, 18 Sep 95 22:02 EDT
Message-Id:
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 95 22:02:53 EDT
Reply-To: kallisti@pacs.pha.pa.us
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Andrew Stiller
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: The "music" umbrella (was: top 10)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
what the subareas are like (e.g. music
performance, music study and analysis, music education) in that
particular
institution
-----------------------
Is there any other academic discipline as centrifugal as music? In
explaining the politics of music depts. to non-musicians I have often
used the analogy of Physics, Engineering, and History of Science--all
combined in one department...
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
kallisti@pacs.pha.pa.us
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 09:12:55 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA32030; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:12:54 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id GAA08897; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 06:04:00 -0700
Received: from guilder.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id GAA08734; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 06:02:09 -0700
Received: from polar.Bowdoin.EDU by guilder.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id GAA17222; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 06:02:42 -0700
Received: by polar.Bowdoin.EDU (5.65/Bowdoin-V1.6c)
id AA23518; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:07:28 -0400
Message-Id: <9509191307.AA23518@polar.Bowdoin.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 09:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: jmccalla@polar.Bowdoin.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "James W McCalla"
To: kallisti@pacs.pha.pa.us
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: The "music" umbrella (was: top 10)
In-Reply-To: from "Andrew Stiller" at Sep 18, 95 10:02:53 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
We have tried to explain to our current dean that a music department
is like art history, studio art, and a museum all rolled into one.
(We have a full-time staff of 4 for this.) He remains unimpressed,
and just continues intoning "Why is the Music Department so
expensive? Something must be done." If he'd come spend a few hours
over here, he might learn something. But he'd rather not....
Jim McCalla
Bowdoin College
jmccalla@polar.bowdoin.edu
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 10:51:05 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA00298; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:51:04 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA19288; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 07:40:32 -0700
Received: from virginia.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id HAA18882; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 07:36:37 -0700
Received: from darwin.clas.virginia.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa05193;
19 Sep 95 10:40 EDT
Received: (from fem2x@localhost) by darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA107769; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:40:49 -0400
Message-Id: <199509191440.KAA107769@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:40:48 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: fem2x@darwin.clas.virginia.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: "Fred E. Maus"
To: ahlquist@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: top ten flap
In-Reply-To: from "Karen Ahlquist" at Sep 18, 95 03:47:56 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Karen Ahlquist:
> . . . I've often thought that if
> I were at Harvard (or another consistently top-ranked institution), I
> could be audacious, radical, or whatever because my school's reputation
> would guarantee me a fair hearing. The power of reputation (exemplified
> here by the current institution ranking) can make it hard to find the
> interesting or worthwhile voice from the "lesser" source.
It's striking to be around groups of scholars in a relatively
"marginal" field of music studies--for instance, at the
feminist conferences, or Sonneck Society meetings, or the Dvorak
and Janacek conferences I attended a few years ago. (Let me be
clear: I mean "marginal" in relation to the dominant concerns of
AMS or SMT, *not* uninteresting or unimportant.) Such subfields
have their own hierarchies of scholars, their own stars, but
the distribution of "authority" seems quite independent of the
"ranking" of the institutions at which the scholars teach. This
is no surprise, in subfields that have had relatively low
priority at the high-ranking institutions. Indeed, some of the
stars in these fields are graduate students or independent
scholars.
--
Fred Everett Maus Dept phone (804) 924-3052
Department of Music Home phone (804) 974-6039
University of Virginia Fax to dept (804) 924-6033
Charlottesville VA 22903 e-mail fem2x@virginia.edu
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 14:16:14 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA00601; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:16:12 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id KAA19506; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:39:09 -0700
Received: from shiva.hunter.cuny.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id KAA18566; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:33:33 -0700
Received: (from bhampton@localhost) by shiva.hunter.cuny.edu (8.6.12/george) id NAA02574; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:38:02 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:38:02 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: bhampton@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Barbara Hampton
To: "Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU"
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Public Institutions
In-Reply-To: <00996793.44CC1CE8.19658@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
With the exception of CUNY,, all of the institutions in the top ten have,
according to the Chronicle of Higher Education's Almanac issue, 1 September 1995, endowments of much
over $47 million even those, like Berkeley, that are public
institutions. In fact, all of them are in the top 20 in terms of
endowments. CUNY is not even on the "richly endowed list".
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Theresa Muir TFD@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU wrote:
> I wonder how many of you saw a report on the latest National Research
> Council's assessment of American Ph.D. programs. Lots of you, I'll bet.
> I'm sure you noticed the top ten music doctoral programs. How many of
> those top ten are PUBLIC institutions!!! How many of the top ten in all
> categories are public institutions!
>
> Of course, I am particularly proud that my own place is rated number four
> in music.
> I am not sure if a lot of you know exactly what that means. Music was the
> only program of CUNY's that made the top ten in any discipline, which is
> unfortunate. On the other hand, making number four in any category is the
> equivalent of a man who's had both arms and legs broken, doing a triathalon
> (OK, maybe I exaggerate a little).
>
> So I hope those of you, even in private institutions (even ones who didn't
> make the top ten!), quietly celebrate the achievements of these necessary
> institutions, and that some of the powers-that-be remember why public education needs to be fought for.
>
>
> Theresa Muir
> CUNY
>
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 14:24:47 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA04890; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:24:45 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id KAA22677; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:59:29 -0700
Received: from shiva.hunter.cuny.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id KAA22120; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:55:31 -0700
Received: (from bhampton@localhost) by shiva.hunter.cuny.edu (8.6.12/george) id OAA03451; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:00:15 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: bhampton@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Barbara Hampton
To: Bill Meredith
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: National Research Council Poll
In-Reply-To: <199509162147.OAA27771@franc.ucdavis.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
It might be helpful to note that all the institutions listed in the top
ten for music also rank at the top nationwide for having endowments in
excess of $47 million, with the exception of CUNY (but including other
"struggling public institutions"). Source: the annual ALMANAC issue of
the Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 September 1995
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, Bill Meredith wrote:
> I am of two minds about this: while I am pleased to see that CUNY was no. 4
> and agree that it is notable that struggling public institutions occupied half
> of the top ten positions, the meaning, validity, and point of these kinds of
> polls escapes me. Is no. 1 really better than no. 2? What does a tie for no. 10
> mean? It should be embarrassing to scholars to go along with a numerical rank-
> ing like this. It has always seemed to me that the best doctoral work comes
> from students who have a creative, respected advisor who takes a real interest
> in their work and in their dissertation. Be they at no. 5, 58, 3,004. Of course
> there is some value to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs, but
> this type of ranking seems to be about as meaningful as "beauty contests."
> Bill Meredith
>
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 14:31:52 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA24047; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:31:50 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id LAA24658; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:12:36 -0700
Received: from shiva.hunter.cuny.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id LAA24307; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:09:40 -0700
Received: (from bhampton@localhost) by shiva.hunter.cuny.edu (8.6.12/george) id OAA03911; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:14:23 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 14:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: bhampton@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Barbara Hampton
To: David De Angelo
Cc: AMS list
Subject: Re: Top Ten
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
This was a publication of the National Research Council, the agency that
did the rankings. The NYTimes, about which I agree with you, simply
reported and quoted the NRC study.
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, David De Angelo wrote:
>
> I am surprised here. Whenever the NYTimes prints something even
> remotely disagreeable, one would think (after reading the objections
> posted here on the amslist), that The NYTimes is not good enough to
> wrap yesterday's fish let alone good enough to be taken seriously on the
> subject of musicology.
>
> ON THE OTHER HAND, when it prints a "top ten" suddenly it becomes a
> mine of useful information.
>
> All I can say is...HUH?
>
> David (not for very much longer) in Pittsburgh
>
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Tue Sep 19 22:27:26 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA06028; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 22:27:25 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA22891; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:06:53 -0700
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id SAA22778; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 18:05:35 -0700
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 2576; Tue, 19 Sep 95 21:03:56 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin MUSGLIX@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7757; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 20:51:24 -0400
Message-Id: <950919.205123.EDT.MUSGLIX@ukcc.uky.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 20:28:12 EDT
Reply-To: MUSGLIX@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Jonathan Glixon
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: All 65 (Was Top 10)
X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Following is the complete ranking of PhD programs in music recently
published by the NRC (though I am only giving the rawest data from two
of 12 columns). I am doing this ourely for informational purposes not
in any way to brag, as you can see by my own institution's ranking. My
only consolation for UK's ranking is that this is not just musicology,
but also theory and music ed (and that's not much consolation). This
ranking was based entirely, as far as I can tell, on a 5-question
survey, asking selected faculty nationwide their peceptions of the
programs, ranking faculty and students from "distinguished" on down. No
actual evaluation was done. I should also point out that some of the
data leads me to question the accuracy of the report (though this
wouldn't change the rankings). For instance, the number of faculty for
Illinois is listed as 74, with 288 students (288 PhD students? 74
faculty in PhD areas?), while the corresponding numbers for Indiana are
6 and 6 (sic)!
Anyway, here goes (if my fingers hold out--and please pardon my typos
and non-standard abbreviations). The first column is for "scholarly
quality of program faculty", the second for "program effectiveness in
educating research scholars and scientists", whatever that means.
Harvard 1 2
Chicago 2 1
Berkeley 3 4.5
CUNY 4 9.5
Yale 5 4.5
Princeton 6 3
Penn 7 9.5
Rochester 8 6.5
Michigan 9 6.5
Illinois 10 12
Columbia 11.5 13
Cornell 11.5 8
Brandeis 13 11
SUNY Stony Br14 16
Stanford 15 14.5
UNC 16 14.5
U Texas 17 18
UCLA 18 25
NYU 19 17
Indiana 20 27
North texas 21 22
Duke 22 19
Northwestern 23.5 20
UCSB 23.5 29.5
UCSDiego 25 40
Iowa 26 24
FSU 27 21
Ohio State 28 34
U of Washing 29 29.5
Rutgers 30.5 28
Minnesota 30.5 34
Wisconsin 32 26
Washing. U 33 23
Cincinnati 34 31
USouth Cal. 36.5 37
SUNY Buffalo 36.5 36
Temple 38 41
Arizona 39 44.5
Pitt 40 38.5
LSU 41 34
Miami 42 44.5
Catholic U 43 42.5
Brown 44 42.5
Michigan St 45 38.5
Kansas 46 46.5
Oregon 47 50
Case Western 48 49
BU 50 46.5
Georgia 51 53
Hartford 52 51
Colorado 53 48
Kentucky 54 52
West Virginia 55 64
Claremont 56 61
Texas Tech 57 62.5
Kent State 58 56
USouth Carolin59 55
Ball State 60 62.5
Alabama 61 59
Southern Baptist 62 60
UNorth Colorado 63 58
Oklahoma 64 57
Missouri-KC 65 65
Let the moaning begin.
Apologies for typos.
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Wed Sep 20 10:00:25 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA04450; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:00:24 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id GAA01087; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 06:47:46 -0700
Received: from polaris.net by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id GAA29853; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 06:36:24 -0700
Received: by polaris.net (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
id AA07214; Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:39:01 -0400
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 09:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: eburns@polaris.net
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Ellen Burns
To: Jonathan Glixon
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: all 65/top 10
In-Reply-To: <950919.205123.EDT.MUSGLIX@ukcc.uky.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: eburns@nexus
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Perhaps Jonathan Glixon has hit the nail on the head RE rankings. Before
this thread started, certainly most everyone was vaguely aware--if not
always completely comfortable--about rankings. Rather than being
passively ranked, it might be constructive to follow his lead:
investigate the methods of the rankers (rancor?). Who determines the
questions? The statistical procedures used to interpret the data? And,
importantly, who determines the participants in the survey?
Does AMS have a mechanism to make an inquiry to NRC regarding policies and
procedures of rankings? Would an AMS committee tracking the progress of
such a procedure and reporting to the membership allay doubt or
misgivings?
Thanks to JG for taking the time to do some research on the topic! The
facts clarified the issue...
Chordially,
Ellen Burns
eburns@polaris.net
On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Jonathan Glixon wrote:
> but also theory and music ed (and that's not much consolation). This
> ranking was based entirely, as far as I can tell, on a 5-question
> survey, asking selected faculty nationwide their peceptions of the
> programs, ranking faculty and students from "distinguished" on down. No
> actual evaluation was done. I should also point out that some of the
> data leads me to question the accuracy of the report (though this
> wouldn't change the rankings). For instance, the number of faculty for
> Illinois is listed as 74, with 288 students (288 PhD students? 74
> faculty in PhD areas?), while the corresponding numbers for Indiana are
> 6 and 6 (sic)!
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 21 08:06:27 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA04521; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 08:06:26 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id EAA18185; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:54:29 -0700
Received: from UKCC.uky.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id EAA18104; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:51:40 -0700
Received: from UKCC.UKY.EDU by UKCC.uky.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 8848; Thu, 21 Sep 95 07:55:43 EDT
Received: from ukcc.uky.edu (NJE origin MUSGLIX@UKCC) by UKCC.UKY.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9941; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 07:54:53 -0400
Message-Id: <950921.075452.EDT.MUSGLIX@ukcc.uky.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 07:53:24 EDT
Reply-To: MUSGLIX@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Jonathan Glixon
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: All 65 - Correction
X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
My apologies to the list for having omitted the two following schools
from the NRC rankings I posted the other day:
Maryland 35 32
Wesleyan 49 54
I think that's now everything.
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 21 16:45:14 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA11922; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:45:12 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id NAA17711; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:27:33 -0700
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id NAA15013; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:17:43 -0700
Received: from charles.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id NAA11536; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:22:20 -0700
Received: by charles.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.03)
id AA20507; Thu, 21 Sep 95 13:29:13 PDT
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: Christopher Reynolds
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Christopher Reynolds
To: amslist@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Program rankings
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
X-Sender: Christopher Reynolds
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status: A
Dear all,
One problem with last week's rankings of academic programs that has yet to
be noted:
departments that did not have graduate programs for much of the review
period were not ranked. Thus our department at UC Davis is not to be
found at all, because our Ph.D. program emerged in 1989, towards the
end of the review. So despite having a very active research faculty,
despite our superior composition faculty, despite the fact that all
four of our completed Ph.D.s have jobs (a 100% employment rate), despite
having a very supportive Dean (Kern Holoman, no less), we must wait
until the next review for the honor of earning a number.
For more details about our program, see our home page:
http://musdra.ucdavis.edu/Documents/Music.html
Going as far as ucdavis.edu will get you there.
Chris Reynolds
Chair, Department of Music
UC Davis
Next Message in Thread
From dwf4930@is2.NYU.EDU Thu Sep 21 17:46:15 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:46:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David W. Fenton"
To: Christopher Reynolds
cc: amslist@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Program rankings
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Christopher Reynolds wrote:
> departments that did not have graduate programs for much of the review
> period were not ranked.
Note also that a "University of California-San Diego" is listed. I cannot
find a listing for such a school in the CMS Directory. If they mean San
Diego State, the CMS Directory indicates that their program awards no
Ph.D.'s.
David W. Fenton
New York University
dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu
http://pages.nyu.edu/~dwf4930
Next Message in Thread
From iraykoff@sdcc3.ucsd.edu Thu Sep 21 18:34:13 1995
Received: from sdcc3.ucsd.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA06147; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:34:12 -0400
Received: (from iraykoff@localhost) by sdcc3.ucsd.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07140; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:34:11 -0700
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ivan Raykoff
To: "David W. Fenton"
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Program rankings
In-Reply-To:
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, David W. Fenton wrote:
> Note also that a "University of California-San Diego" is listed. I cannot
> find a listing for such a school in the CMS Directory. If they mean San
> Diego State, the CMS Directory indicates that their program awards no
> Ph.D.'s.
Greetings from UC San Diego, where I'm in the PhD program as a
pianist-musicologist; we are also currently formulating a DMA program. Our
department focuses on new music, especially as we have a number of
composers on the faculty, and a large technology program.
San Diego State is musically noted for its piano pedagogy program, and
there's also a University of San Diego. UCSD, SDSU, and USD -- confusing
enough?!
Ivan Raykoff
Next Message in Thread
From dwf4930@is2.NYU.EDU Thu Sep 21 20:09:28 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:09:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David W. Fenton"
To: Ivan Raykoff
cc: amslist@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Program rankings
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Thanks to all for setting me straight on UCSD.
However, given the faculty listing in the CMS Directory, how does the NRC
report come up with a reported "Research-Doctorate" faculty of 24? It
looks more like 16 to me.
David W. Fenton
New York University
dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu
http://pages.nyu.edu/~dwf4930
Next Message in Thread
From <@gaudi.CSUFresno.EDU:steveng@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU> Thu Sep 21 18:46:26 1995
Received: from gaudi.csufresno.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA03033; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:46:25 -0400
Received: from zimmer.csufresno.edu by gaudi.CSUFresno.EDU with SMTP
(5.65c/CSUF 1.1 from IDA-1.2.8) id AA03072; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:45:40 -0700
Received: by zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU (4.1/CSUF 1.14 from Berkeley 1.34)
id AA11747; Thu, 21 Sep 95 15:45:38 PDT
From: steven_gilbert@csufresno.edu (Steven Gilbert)
Message-Id: <9509212245.AA11747@zimmer.CSUFresno.EDU>
Subject: Re: Program rankings
To: dwf4930@is2.nyu.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: car@charles.ucdavis.edu, amslist@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
In-Reply-To: from "David W. Fenton" at Sep 21, 95 05:46:14 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 379
Status: RO
X-Status:
The University of California at San Diego is in La Jolla. San Diego
State is another institution.
--
Steven E. Gilbert "Upper berth, lower berth:
Department of Music That's the difference between
California State University, Fresno talent and genius."
steveng@csufresno.edu --Oscar Levant to George Gershwin
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 21 19:41:31 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA28681; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:41:30 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id QAA25271; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:31:14 -0700
Received: from cmsa.Berkeley.EDU by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id QAA24946; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:29:59 -0700
Received: from SJSUVM1.BITNET by cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
with BSMTP id 6049; Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:34:18 PDT
Received: from SJSUVM1 (MEREDITH) by SJSUVM1.BITNET (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with
BSMTP id 7462; Thu, 21 Sep 95 16:34:21 PDT
Message-Id: <199509212329.QAA24946@franc.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 95 15:56:16 PDT
Reply-To: MEREDITH%SJSUVM1.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Bill Meredith
To: amslist@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Program rankings
X-Truncated: *NOTE* Lines longer than 80 have been truncated. The
longest line contained 0 characters
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
Chris Reynolds' posting inspired me to explain why I early on complained that
this type of ranking seemed silly to me. If I think about how to rank a pro-
gram, I would probably draw up a list consisting of the following:
(1) faculty publications (books, articles, reviews, etc.) published during the
period under review
(2) graduate student publications appearing during the review period
(3) faculty papers read at the national meeting
(4) graduate student papers read at the national meeting
(5) faculty papers and presentations at other forums (local AMS chapters, con-
ferences)
(6) graduate student papers and presentations at other forums
(7) number of PhD candidates graduated during the period and the number which
were employed as musicologists
(8) the music library at the institution and the institional support for it
(9) other services the faculty contributes (AMS board, etc.)
These are things which it MIGHT be possible to evaluate objectively. But how
would one compare schools which have experienced (through no "fault" of their
own) a turnover of faculty? While I was at Chapel Hill, I had the privilege of
studying with William Newman, Howard Smither, James Pruett, and Jim Haar (all
senior scholars with established reputations). Upon the retirement of the first
three, two were replaced with "junior" or mid-career musicologists. This ex-
plains, at least to me, why Chapel Hill was not ranked in the top ten, but then
makes impressive, to me, that it was in the teens.
But lots of other things are just too intangible. Is one school having a strik-
ing effect on the field at large? How would one evaluate graduate student re-
sponses to their faculty? What about programs started in 1989? Etc., etc.
I just end up with the feeling that, even if there were a way to evaluate pro-
grams objectively, there would be surprises. And given the subjective nature of
the rankings, it's hard to give them much serious value, EVEN though they may
be used by administrators to crack the whip, deny, or raise funds.
I still think we should be very cautious in participating in such surveys.
Cheers, Bill Meredith
Next Message in Thread
From owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu Thu Sep 21 20:47:21 1995
Received: from franc.ucdavis.edu by is2.NYU.EDU; (5.65/1.1.8.2/23Sep94-1121PM)
id AA32246; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:47:20 -0400
Received: from host by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA05048; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:37:59 -0700
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by franc.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA04928; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:37:19 -0700
Received: from kuhub.cc.ukans.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (8.6.12/UCD3.4)
id RAA18003; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 17:41:58 -0700
Received: from falcon.cc.ukans.edu by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (PMDF V5.0-4 #9008)
id <01HVJSNPNBCW8XZBBC@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>; Thu,
21 Sep 1995 19:41:12 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by falcon.cc.ukans.edu; id AA02867; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:41:07 -0500
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:41:07 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: [Bunker Clark]@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU
Sender: owner-amslist@ucdavis.edu
From: Bunker Clark <[Bunker Clark]@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU>
To: Christopher Reynolds
Cc: amslist@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Program rankings
In-Reply-To:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN
Status: RO
X-Status:
[NOTE: My request for permission has not been answered. What follows is a paraphrase. -- DWF]
[wonders if doctorates in "music" in the rankings included D.M.A. and Ph.D., or just the Ph.D.]
Next Message in Thread