Appendix B: Student Data

©1995, David W. Fenton

The data from the NRC study are reprinted with permission from RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES. ©1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. Courtesy of the National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Comments on the data follow the table.

RatingInstitutionStudents Reported*Reported Ph.D.'s*
1Harvard University44290%61%
2University of Chicago56280%7%
3University of California-Berkeley35190%53%
4CUNY - Grad Sch & Univ Center145260%8%
5Yale University55310%9%
6Princeton University32230%18%
7University of Pennsylvania34220%41%
8University of Rochester1191370%12%
9University of Michigan21252%16%
10U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign288993%32%
11.5Columbia University107140%34%
11.5Cornell University17270%71%
13Brandeis University13180%9%
14State U of New York-Stony Brook153710%57%
15Stanford University26113%26%
16U of North Carolina-Chapel Hill35130%19%
17University of Texas at Austin103250%15%
18Univ of California-Los Angeles93470%23%
19New York University2135%8%
20Indiana University680%31%
21University of North Texas1181070%11%
22Duke University4080%0%
23.5Northwestern University25241%21%
23.5Univ of California-Santa Barbara28150%33%
25Univ of California-San Diego35349%53%
26University of Iowa1211072%19%
27Florida State University136940%28%
28Ohio State University202794%41%
29University of Washington31102%6%
30.5Rutgers State Univ-New Brunswick4590%20%
30.5University of Minnesota19440%12%
32University of Wisconsin-Madison28120%33%
33Washington University2790%21%
34University of Cincinnati210890%49%
35University of Maryland College Park103290%12%
36.5University of Southern California900%38%
36.5State Univ of New York-Buffalo61170%29%
38Temple University47220%20%
39University of Arizona87580%14%
40University of Pittsburgh38170%39%
41Louisiana State U & A&M College21143%21%
42University of Miami60170%44%
43Catholic University of America29113%0%
44Brown University1060%100%
45Michigan State University1690%13%
46University of Kansas34290%14%
47University of Oregon49240%6%
48Case Western Reserve Univ14200%6%
49Wesleyan University24120%11%
50Boston University730%13%
51University of Georgia38220%73%
52University of Hartford14140%25%
53University of Colorado14100%16%
54University of Kentucky22120%29%
55West Virginia University510%25%
56Claremont Graduate School52110%0%
57Texas Tech University43220%23%
58Kent State University36210%20%
59University of South Carolina960%27%
60Ball State University34220%7%
61University of Alabama28190%33%
62Southern Baptist Theological Sem20250%11%
63University of Northern Colorado35250%14%
64University of Oklahoma3552%22%
65Univ of Missouri-Kansas City100%12%

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

Comments on Appendix Table B

General Notes:

4The 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. figur e is not cumulative.
8The 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.
10The 288 reported students must surely include all graduate students.
11.5Columbia: 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.
14Given 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.
17A 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.
19The 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 adm itted 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 aw arded 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.
25The 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, 35The number of students reported probably includes all graduate students, and the reported degrees probably include all doctoral programs, not just ones awarding a Ph.D.

[ To Overview of NRC Report Critique. . . ]
[ Back to DWF's home page. . . ]
[ Back to previous page. . . ]

Contact David Fenton
©1995-96, David W. Fenton (last modified Wednesday, April 3, 1996)