WPCO ^jԣkyKO*5RAc ̳',+ v zHF&ҕ&_J[ȭ Z|1O]s` Wu _hs>8,!5`x{2۽ 28һƇE)XAlEFN *83J؆f{n7D $ʃ##-c0{f욘t2}Mc۬@,pBl[Ы}a6xop#}; BQdnʟ.^{peJj='R` ---'-- g 2 8Table 13.3..--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T"Helvetica=- y2 s@LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification<<<7..E..*.7....*.7..*.*...*.*<.....<.***...--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T Helvetica=-  2  Research I0%%%%%)2 d Research II0%%%%%)2 B Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica-  '2 -Reputational Measures0%))%))%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica<- --'- -  12 aQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)4%%"%)%"%"%% HelveticaA- 2 " 2.9%% 2  2.1%% 2 1.8%% 2 t1.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - _ 62 ^aProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)-%%%8-%""%%%""%%- 2 ^" 2.9%% 2 ^ 2.2%% 2 ^1.8%% 2 ^t1.8%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - b .2 aProgram Change (-1 -- +1)-%%%80%%%%%%'%- 2 " 0.2%% 2  0.1%% 2 0.1%% 2 t0.1%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - " "2 Objective Measures4)%%%%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - N 02 MaTotal Faculty Participation)%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2 M 28.0%%% 2 M 17.7%%% 2 M18.1%%% 2 Mb16.1%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - Q <2 a#Percentage of Faculty Participation-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2  54.1%%% 2  51.6%%% 2 50.5%%% 2 b47.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  [2 a8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"0%0%"%%"%-%%%% %% %%- 2  39.4%%% 2  32.8%%% 2 25.7%%% 2 b28.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - d O2 ca0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)0%8%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2 c" 2.5%% 2 c 1.6%% 2 c1.3%% 2 ct1.5%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - g U2 a4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  10.0%%% 2  7.4%% 2 6.7%% 2 t5.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   K2 a-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%%"%%% %% %%- 2  77.8%%% 2  71.7%%% 2 62.0%%% 2 b66.5%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  z  f2 y a?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)0%%%)%"%"-%%"%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2 y " 6.1%% 2 y 4.4%% 2 y 3.2%% 2 y t3.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - } ,  L2 + a.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%-%%"%%%" %% %%- 2 +  11.0%%% 2 + 18.8%%% 2 + 21.0%%% 2 + b23.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - /   a2 a<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)0%%%)%"%"0%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2  32.8%%% 2 15.9%%% 2 9.0%% 2 b10.2%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    H2 a+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  20.1%%% 2 30.5%%% 2 35.6%%% 2 b34.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  B  Q2 A a1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92))%%0%8%%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2 A  60.4%%% 2 A 38.5%%% 2 A 44.3%%% 2 A b32.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - E   X2 a6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)-%"%%%%%%)%8%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2  35.3%%% 2 34.1%%% 2 38.4%%% 2 b34.7%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    @2 a&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)0%8%%%-%0"-%%%"%% %% %%- 2  32.0%%% 2 19.1%%% 2 22.9%%% 2 b13.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - X R2 Wa2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%?%8%% %% %%- 2 W 29.3%%% 2 W 24.9%%% 2 W32.7%%% 2 Wb25.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - [  Z2 a7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%8%%%" %% %%- 2 " 6.2%% 2  7.7%% 2 12.3%%% 2 t9.6%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   2 aRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%0-0"%%"%%%-%8%%%%0%"%%%" %% %%- 2  73.2%%% 2  69.3%%% 2 68.4%%% 2 b72.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - n g2 ma@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%)%%"%%%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2 m 27.4%%% 2 m 32.0%%% 2 m26.5%%% 2 mb26.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - q  g2 a@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%0%"%%"%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2  28.4%%% 2  26.3%%% 2 17.5%%% 2 b27.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - # l2 aCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.8%%%%)8%%%%"%%8-%%%%4%%%%%-"%%%%0%"%%%-%0- 2 " 8.9%% 2  8.9%% 2 10.3%%% 2 t9.4%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f -qU- !q-qf Uf - !qf -q~U~- !q~-    'WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerExcel.Sheet.5ࡱ; -  !"#$%&'()*+,/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZRoot EntryF1L9Ole Book &PCompObj^ࡱ;  FMicrosoft Excel 5.0 WorksheetBiff5Excel.Sheet.5ࡱ; ࡱ;  l BTBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic $ ;;  3 =x$U81Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 MS Sans Serif1 CG Times (W1)1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\) "$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)%""$"#,##0.00_);[Red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ormal_GRAPH 2 Normal_TBL 1table 1 nrc perf var(table 2 qual fac scores"2TBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} \} $8N} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} $ % 4   @ @ a @ Z7@  M@\ R@A 6@ l@ W@ @G @ Z@ @G @.  -@  D@ @ @  ʫ@ ;@D  @ @ @ @ @ 89@  @P @ @ @mTable 1_TOTOTOTO T`LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification`TOTOTOTO \Xv%y%y%y% bfw Research Idw Research IIdw Doctoral Idw Doctoral II e]Reputational Measuresgv%y%y%y. [hv%y%y%y. J$iQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)~ TPr@O~ Tj@O~ Tf@O~ Td@ PJjTQTQTQTP J'iProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)~ T@r@O~ T@k@O~ Tg@O~ Tf@ P Jiv%y%y%y.  J" iProgram Change (-1 -- +1)~ T1@ O~ T@ O~ T"@ O~ T"@ P YgTQTQTOTP  ^Objective Measures kTQTQTOTP  Ygv%y%y%y. J#iTotal Faculty Participation~ T<@S~ T@S~ TH@S~ T(@ PJjTQTQTOTP J+j#Percentage of Faculty Participation~ T$@O~ T$@O~ T@O~ T@ PJiTQTQTOTP J@j8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)~ TȮ@T~ T@T~ T@T~ TX@ PJjTTTTTTTP J8i0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T@T~ Td@T~ T@`@T~ T? PJiTQTQTOTP J<i4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T$@T~ T @T~ T@T~ TЁ@ PJiTQTQTOTP J5j-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)~ Td@T~ T@T~ TO@T~ TP@ PJiTQTQTOTP JGi?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)~ T@Q~ T{@Q~ Ts@O~ Tv@ PJiTQTQTOTP J6j.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)~ T&@T~ T`@T~ T5@T~ T4@ PJiTQTQTOTP JDj<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)~ T@Q~ TИ@Q~ T(@O~ T؏@ PJiTQTQTOTP Dy l/t=: @! @" @# @a$ @% 7@ & M@\' R@A( 6@) l@* W@+ @G, @- @. @G/ @. 0 -@ 1 D@2 @3 i@  J3 j+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)~ Th@ T~ T>@ T~ TЫ@ T~ T@ P!JiTQTQTOTP "J9"j1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ "T@"S~ "T@C@"S~ "TN@"S~ "T@" P#JiTQTQTOTP $J>$i6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$ P%JiTQTQTOTP &J.&j&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)~ &T@@&S~ &T؝@&S~ &T@&S~ &T@& P'JiTQTQTOTP (J:(j2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)~ (T@(T~ (Tt@(T~ (T@(T~ (Tģ@( P)JiTQTQTOTP *J?*j7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)~ *T@@*Q~ *T@*Q~ *T8@*O~ *T@* P+JiTQTQTOTP ,JZ,jRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,TR@, P-JiTQTQTOTP .JH.j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ .Th@.T~ .T@@.T~ .T:@.T~ .TȤ@. P/JiTQTQTOTP 0JH0j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ 0T0@0T~ 0T@0T~ 0T1@0T~ 0T;@0 P1JiTQTQTOTP 2JK2iCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2O~ 2Tp@2 P3ZlxKzVzVzW , |> 3 " l   dMbP?_*+%MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} m"F} F} $ F    @ @ p Z 7 M R 6 l W @   @  - D )@ xCTable 2DDDDDDDDfG^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationDDDDDDDDEEEn Academic Areac Research Icc Research IIcc Doctoral Icc Doctoral IIoqLLLLLLLMsArts and Humanities~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Oa@O~ Od@Ps~ QG@Q~ Q4@Q~ Q2@Q~ Q@Ps%%N%N%N.sBiological Sciences~ O0s@O~ Ol@O~ Oe@O~ Og@P s~ QM@ Q~ Q9@ Q~ Q0@ O~ Q2@ P s%%N%N%N. s Engineering~ Or@ O~ Oh@ O~ Oh@ O~ R@e@ P s~ QJ@ Q~ Q4@ Q~ Q"@ O~ Q(@ P s%%N%N%N.)t!Physical Sciences and Mathematics~ Or@O~ O@k@O~ O f@O~ Od@Pt~ QL@Q~ Q:@Q~ Q5@O~ Q4@Ps%%N%N%N.&tSocial and Behavioral Sciences~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Og@O~ Oc@Pu~ QJ@Q~ Q9@Q~ Q9@O~ Q(@PrKKUVUVUW,>|-jjwjjj>   " l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?(?)?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} } } } I } } I } } I } } I } } $  <   @   ;" 7@ M@ R@ 6@ l@ W" @@ @ @ @@ @ -" D@ )@@ @ @ @D  @. @ @ @ @ 89@  7@P " @ @Table 3 hH`Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie ClassificationI = >?@ ARES IAARES IIAADOCT IA ADOCT II BTotal R&D (x $1,000) !"""""""# $%#Average~ &@&~ ' d@'~ '@'~  'i@ # $%#Minimum~ &E@&~ 'C@'~ '@^@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &&~ '|7A'~ '/A'~  'ƅ% # $%#Minimum~ &*&~ '0'~ '@Z A'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &\_A&~ '>'~ 'Fv'~  ':G # $% #Total~ &)&~ '6ڶ '~ '>wR'~  '• #$%#&&'''''# $ Expend (x $1,000).&&'''''# $%#Average~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  'ҩ@ # $%#Minimum~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &@&~ '@'~ ' @'~  '@ # $% #Total~ &~1&~ 'A'~ 'д@'~  '0@ #("#&&'''''# Enrollment - 1992)*&&&&&&&# $ /Total.&&'''''# $%0Average~ &=@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ #Dl1 > @ 89 C ;7 @! @" @# @$ @"% 7@& M@' R@( 6") l@* W@"+ @@, @- @. @@/ @0 -@"1 D@2 )@@3 @4 @5 @D 6 @.7 @8 @9 x@: x@; 89@ $% 0Minimum~ &D@ &~ '/@ '~ '@ '~ '@ # !$%!0Maximum~ !& @!&~ !' @!'~ !'@@!'~ ! '@\@! #"120&&'''''# #3 Graduate Students#/4&&'''''# $$%$0Average~ $&@$&~ $'j@$'~ $'Ԭ@$'~ $ '@$ # %$%%0Minimum~ %&|@%&~ %'@%'~ %'@%'~ % '0@% # &$%&0Maximum~ &&@&&~ &'@&'~ &'@&'~ & '@& #'120&&'''''# (3Number of Programs(56&&&&&&&# )$ )71982).&&'''''# *$%*0Average~ *&6@*&~ *'&@*'~ *'@*'~ * '@* # +$%+0Minimum~ +&@+&~ +'@+'~ +'?+'~ + '?+ # ,$%,0Maximum~ ,&C@,&~ ,'9@,'~ ,'4@,'~ , '"@, # -$% -0Total~ -&@@-&~ -'q@-'~ -'[@-'~ - 'I@- #.$%0&&'''''# /$ /71993/.&&'''''# 0$%00Average~ 0&:@0&~ 0'.@0'~ 0' @0'~ 0 '@0 # 1$%10Minimum~ 1&@1&~ 1'@1'~ 1'?1'~ 1 '?1 # 2$%20Maximum~ 2&D@2&~ 2'8@2'~ 2':@2'~ 2 ',@2 # 3$% 30Total~ 3&8@3&~ 3'x@3'~ 3'k@3'~ 3 'a@3 #4("#""#  5Year First Ph.D. Awarded5)*""# 6$%60Average~ 6& @6&~ 6'x@6'~ 6'@6'~ 6 '@6 # 7$%70Minimum~ 7&P@7&~ 7'@7'~ 7'8@7'~ 7 '@7 # 8$%80Maximum~ 8&؞@8&~ 8'̞@8'~ 8'ܞ@8'~ 8 '@8 #989:;;;;;;;: :""""""""""" ;<<< <F  @ <6 6 B >   " ࡱ; BOlePartOlePres000.Y/JMY ,   U'  ' T' f- -qq- !~q-- !~-MM- !~M-'- TArial;E--"System-'-- TArial3N-"Helveticag>---'-- g 2 8Table 13.3..--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T"Helvetica=- y2 s@LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification<<<7..E..*.7....*.7..*.*...*.*<.....<.***...--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T Helvetica=-  2  Research I0%%%%%)2 d Research II0%%%%%)2 B Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica-  '2 -Reputational Measures0%))%))%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica<- --'- -  12 aQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)4%%"%)%"%"%% HelveticaA- 2 " 2.9%% 2  2.1%% 2 1.8%% 2 t1.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - _ 62 ^aProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)-%%%8-%""%%%""%%- 2 ^" 2.9%% 2 ^ 2.2%% 2 ^1.8%% 2 ^t1.8%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - b .2 aProgram Change (-1 -- +1)-%%%80%%%%%%'%- 2 " 0.2%% 2  0.1%% 2 0.1%% 2 t0.1%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - " "2 Objective Measures4)%%%%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - N 02 MaTotal Faculty Participation)%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2 M 28.0%%% 2 M 17.7%%% 2 M18.1%%% 2 Mb16.1%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - Q <2 a#Percentage of Faculty Participation-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2  54.1%%% 2  51.6%%% 2 50.5%%% 2 b47.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  [2 a8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"0%0%"%%"%-%%%% %% %%- 2  39.4%%% 2  32.8%%% 2 25.7%%% 2 b28.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - d O2 ca0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)0%8%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2 c" 2.5%% 2 c 1.6%% 2 c1.3%% 2 ct1.5%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - g U2 a4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  10.0%%% 2  7.4%% 2 6.7%% 2 t5.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   K2 a-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%%"%%% %% %%- 2  77.8%%% 2  71.7%%% 2 62.0%%% 2 b66.5%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  z  f2 y a?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)0%%%)%"%"-%%"%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2 y " 6.1%% 2 y 4.4%% 2 y 3.2%% 2 y t3.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - } ,  L2 + a.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%-%%"%%%" %% %%- 2 +  11.0%%% 2 + 18.8%%% 2 + 21.0%%% 2 + b23.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - /   a2 a<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)0%%%)%"%"0%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2  32.8%%% 2 15.9%%% 2 9.0%% 2 b10.2%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    H2 a+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  20.1%%% 2 30.5%%% 2 35.6%%% 2 b34.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  B  Q2 A a1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92))%%0%8%%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2 A  60.4%%% 2 A 38.5%%% 2 A 44.3%%% 2 A b32.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - E   X2 a6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)-%"%%%%%%)%8%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2  35.3%%% 2 34.1%%% 2 38.4%%% 2 b34.7%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    @2 a&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)0%8%%%-%0"-%%%"%% %% %%- 2  32.0%%% 2 19.1%%% 2 22.9%%% 2 b13.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - X R2 Wa2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%?%8%% %% %%- 2 W 29.3%%% 2 W 24.9%%% 2 W32.7%%% 2 Wb25.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - [  Z2 a7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%8%%%" %% %%- 2 " 6.2%% 2  7.7%% 2 12.3%%% 2 t9.6%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   2 aRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%0-0"%%"%%%-%8%%%%0%"%%%" %% %%- 2  73.2%%% 2  69.3%%% 2 68.4%%% 2 b72.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - n g2 ma@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%)%%"%%%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2 m 27.4%%% 2 m 32.0%%% 2 m26.5%%% 2 mb26.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - q  g2 a@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%0%"%%"%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2  28.4%%% 2  26.3%%% 2 17.5%%% 2 b27.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - # l2 aCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.8%%%%)8%%%%"%%8-%%%%4%%%%%-"%%%%0%"%%%-%0- 2 " 8.9%% 2  8.9%% 2 10.3%%% 2 t9.4%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f -qU- !q-qf Uf - !qf -q~U~- !q~-    'ࡱ;  METAFILEPICT/JeY/JM ,   U'  ' T' f- -qq- !~q-- !~-MM- !~M-'- TArial;E--"System-'-- TArial3N-"Helveticag>---'-- g 2 8Table 13.3..--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T"Helvetica=- y2 s@LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification<<<7..E..*.7....*.7..*.*...*.*<.....<.***...--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T Helvetica=-  2  Research I0%%%%%)2 d Research II0%%%%%)2 B Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica-  '2 -Reputational Measures0%))%))%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica<- --'- -  12 aQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)4%%"%)%"%"%% HelveticaA- 2 " 2.9%% 2  2.1%% 2 1.8%% 2 t1.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - _ 62 ^aProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)-%%%8-%""%%%""%%- 2 ^" 2.9%% 2 ^ 2.2%% 2 ^1.8%% 2 ^t1.8%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - b .2 aProgram Change (-1 -- +1)-%%%80%%%%%%'%- 2 " 0.2%% 2  0.1%% 2 0.1%% 2 t0.1%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - " "2 Objective Measures4)%%%%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - N 02 MaTotal Faculty Participation)%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2 M 28.0%%% 2 M 17.7%%% 2 M18.1%%% 2 Mb16.1%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - Q <2 a#Percentage of Faculty Participation-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2  54.1%%% 2  51.6%%% 2 50.5%%% 2 b47.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  [2 a8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"0%0%"%%"%-%%%% %% %%- 2  39.4%%% 2  32.8%%% 2 25.7%%% 2 b28.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - d O2 ca0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)0%8%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2 c" 2.5%% 2 c 1.6%% 2 c1.3%% 2 ct1.5%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - g U2 a4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  10.0%%% 2  7.4%% 2 6.7%% 2 t5.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   K2 a-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%%"%%% %% %%- 2  77.8%%% 2  71.7%%% 2 62.0%%% 2 b66.5%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  z  f2 y a?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)0%%%)%"%"-%%"%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2 y " 6.1%% 2 y 4.4%% 2 y 3.2%% 2 y t3.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - } ,  L2 + a.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%-%%"%%%" %% %%- 2 +  11.0%%% 2 + 18.8%%% 2 + 21.0%%% 2 + b23.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - /   a2 a<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)0%%%)%"%"0%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2  32.8%%% 2 15.9%%% 2 9.0%% 2 b10.2%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    H2 a+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  20.1%%% 2 30.5%%% 2 35.6%%% 2 b34.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  B  Q2 A a1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92))%%0%8%%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2 A  60.4%%% 2 A 38.5%%% 2 A 44.3%%% 2 A b32.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - E   X2 a6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)-%"%%%%%%)%8%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2  35.3%%% 2 34.1%%% 2 38.4%%% 2 b34.7%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    @2 a&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)0%8%%%-%0"-%%%"%% %% %%- 2  32.0%%% 2 19.1%%% 2 22.9%%% 2 b13.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - X R2 Wa2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%?%8%% %% %%- 2 W 29.3%%% 2 W 24.9%%% 2 W32.7%%% 2 Wb25.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - [  Z2 a7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%8%%%" %% %%- 2 " 6.2%% 2  7.7%% 2 12.3%%% 2 t9.6%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   2 aRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%0-0"%%"%%%-%8%%%%0%"%%%" %% %%- 2  73.2%%% 2  69.3%%% 2 68.4%%% 2 b72.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - n g2 ma@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%)%%"%%%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2 m 27.4%%% 2 m 32.0%%% 2 m26.5%%% 2 mb26.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - q  g2 a@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%0%"%%"%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2  28.4%%% 2  26.3%%% 2 17.5%%% 2 b27.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - # l2 aCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.8%%%%)8%%%%"%%8-%%%%4%%%%%-"%%%%0%"%%%-%0- 2 " 8.9%% 2  8.9%% 2 10.3%%% 2 t9.4%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f -qU- !q-qf Uf - !qf -q~U~- !q~-    '*OLE*WPC'lB lB 9!lB B!ƚO O     '  ' ' - -qq- !q-- !-- !-'- ArialE--"System-'-- ArialkG- Helvetica?---'-- g 2 eTable 23.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helveticag>- 2 s6^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationA..*.3.*.*7*..*.7..*.*...*.*7*...E*7.....<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica<-  2 . Academic Area0%%)%<%0%%2  Research I0%%%%%)2 $ Research II0%%%%%)2  Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - "Helvetica+<-  $2 AArts and Humanities-"%%%0%8%%%" Helvetica{@- 2 A,2.82%%% 2 A 2.14%%% 2 A 1.42%%% 2 Aj1.66%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(46)%% 2  (20)%% 2  (18)%% 2 (6)%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  $2 WBiological Sciences-%%%"%-"%%"%"- 2 W,3.07%%% 2 W 2.28%%% 2 W 1.68%%% 2 Wj1.91%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(58)%% 2  (25)%% 2  (16)%% 2 p(18)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  2 m Engineering-%%%%%%%- 2 m,3.01%%% 2 m 1.97%%% 2 m 1.97%%% 2 mj1.70%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(52)%% 2  (20)%% 2  (9)% 2 p(12)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  92 !Physical Sciences and Mathematics-%"""%-"%%"%"%%%8%%%8%""- 2 ,2.98%%% 2  2.18%%% 2  1.77%%% 2 j1.66%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(57)%% 2  (26)%% 2  (21)%% 2 p(20)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  42 Social and Behavioral Sciences-%"%%%%-%%%"%%-"%%"%"- 2 ,2.82%%% 2  2.15%%% 2  1.84%%% 2 j1.52%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(52)%% 2  (25)%% 2  (25)%% 2 p(12)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- ! q-q00- ! q0-q- ! q-   'themidtolate70'sledtheWPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerExcel.Sheet.5ࡱ; -  !"#$%&'()*+,/0123456789:;<=>Root EntryFt9Ole Book &PCompObj^ࡱ;  FMicrosoft Excel 5.0 WorksheetBiff5Excel.Sheet.5ࡱ; ࡱ;  l BTBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic $ ;;  =x$U81Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 MS Sans Serif1 CG Times (W1)1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\) "$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)%""$"#,##0.00_);[Red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ormal_GRAPH 2 Normal_TBL 1table 1 nrc perf var(table 2 qual fac scores"2TBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} \} $8N} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} $ % 4   ީ@ @&C a @ Z6e@# g@C @ ^A@0 @o@ '@ @G @ Z@ @G @.  .<@  &L@ fL@ @  ʫ@ ;@pF @ @ @ @ @ 89@  @P @ @ @mTable 1_TOTOTOTO T`LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification`TOTOTOTO \Xv%y%y%y% bfw Research Idw Research IIdw Doctoral Idw Doctoral II e]Reputational Measuresgv%y%y%y. [hv%y%y%y. J$iQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)~ TPr@O~ Tj@O~ Tf@O~ Td@ PJjTQTQTQTP J'iProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)~ T@r@O~ T@k@O~ Tg@O~ Tf@ P Jiv%y%y%y.  J" iProgram Change (-1 -- +1)~ T1@ O~ T@ O~ T"@ O~ T"@ P YgTQTQTOTP  ^Objective Measures kTQTQTOTP  Ygv%y%y%y. J#iTotal Faculty Participation~ T<@S~ T@S~ TH@S~ T(@ PJjTQTQTOTP J+j#Percentage of Faculty Participation~ T$@O~ T$@O~ T@O~ T@ PJiTQTQTOTP J@j8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)~ TȮ@T~ T@T~ T@T~ TX@ PJjTTTTTTTP J8i0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T@T~ Td@T~ T@`@T~ T? PJiTQTQTOTP J<i4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T$@T~ T @T~ T@T~ TЁ@ PJiTQTQTOTP J5j-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)~ Td@T~ T@T~ TO@T~ TP@ PJiTQTQTOTP JGi?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)~ T@Q~ T{@Q~ Ts@O~ Tv@ PJiTQTQTOTP J6j.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)~ T&@T~ T`@T~ T5@T~ T4@ PJiTQTQTOTP JDj<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)~ T@Q~ TИ@Q~ T(@O~ T؏@ PJiTQTQTOTP Dy l/t=: @! ީ@" @&C# @a$ @% 6e@#& g@C' @( ^A@0) @o@* '@+ @G, @- @. @G/ @. 0 .<@ 1 &L@2 fL@3 i@  J3 j+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)~ Th@ T~ T>@ T~ TЫ@ T~ T@ P!JiTQTQTOTP "J9"j1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ "T@"S~ "T@C@"S~ "TN@"S~ "T@" P#JiTQTQTOTP $J>$i6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$ P%JiTQTQTOTP &J.&j&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)~ &T@@&S~ &T؝@&S~ &T@&S~ &T@& P'JiTQTQTOTP (J:(j2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)~ (T@(T~ (Tt@(T~ (T@(T~ (Tģ@( P)JiTQTQTOTP *J?*j7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)~ *T@@*Q~ *T@*Q~ *T8@*O~ *T@* P+JiTQTQTOTP ,JZ,jRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,TR@, P-JiTQTQTOTP .JH.j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ .Th@.T~ .T@@.T~ .T:@.T~ .TȤ@. P/JiTQTQTOTP 0JH0j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ 0T0@0T~ 0T@0T~ 0T1@0T~ 0T;@0 P1JiTQTQTOTP 2JK2iCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2O~ 2Tp@2 P3ZlxKzVzVzW , |> 3 " l   dMbP?_*+%MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} m"F} F} $ F    ީ@ @&C p Z 6e g@  ^A @ ' @   @  .< &L )@ xCTable 2DDDDDDDDfG^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationDDDDDDDDEEEn Academic Areac Research Icc Research IIcc Doctoral Icc Doctoral IIoqLLLLLLLMsArts and Humanities~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Oa@O~ Od@Ps~ QG@Q~ Q4@Q~ Q2@Q~ Q@Ps%%N%N%N.sBiological Sciences~ O0s@O~ Ol@O~ Oe@O~ Og@P s~ QM@ Q~ Q9@ Q~ Q0@ O~ Q2@ P s%%N%N%N. s Engineering~ Or@ O~ Oh@ O~ Oh@ O~ R@e@ P s~ QJ@ Q~ Q4@ Q~ Q"@ O~ Q(@ P s%%N%N%N.)t!Physical Sciences and Mathematics~ Or@O~ O@k@O~ O f@O~ Od@Pt~ QL@Q~ Q:@Q~ Q5@O~ Q4@Ps%%N%N%N.&tSocial and Behavioral Sciences~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Og@O~ Oc@Pu~ QJ@Q~ Q9@Q~ Q9@O~ Q(@PrKKUVUVUW,>|-jjwjjj> " l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?(?)?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} } } } I } } I } } I } } I } } $  <   ީ@ @  ;" 6e@ g@@ @ ^A@ @@ '" @@ @ @ @@ @ .<" &L@ )@@ @ @ @pF @. @ @ @ @ 89@  7@P " @ @Table 3 hH`Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie ClassificationI = >?@ ARES IAARES IIAADOCT IA ADOCT II BTotal R&D (x $1,000) !"""""""# $%#Average~ &@&~ ' d@'~ '@'~  'i@ # $%#Minimum~ &E@&~ 'C@'~ '@^@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &&~ '|7A'~ '/A'~  'ƅ% # $%#Minimum~ &*&~ '0'~ '@Z A'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &\_A&~ '>'~ 'Fv'~  ':G # $% #Total~ &)&~ '6ڶ '~ '>wR'~  '• #$%#&&'''''# $ Expend (x $1,000).&&'''''# $%#Average~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  'ҩ@ # $%#Minimum~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &@&~ '@'~ ' @'~  '@ # $% #Total~ &~1&~ 'A'~ 'д@'~  '0@ #("#&&'''''# Enrollment - 1992)*&&&&&&&# $ /Total.&&'''''# $%0Average~ &=@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ #Dl1 > @ 89 C ;7 @! ީ@" @@# @$ @"% 6e@& g@@' @( ^A") @@* '@"+ @@, @- @. @@/ @0 .<@"1 &L@2 )@@3 @4 @5 @pF6 @.7 @8 @9 x@: x@; 89@ $% 0Minimum~ &D@ &~ '/@ '~ '@ '~ '@ # !$%!0Maximum~ !& @!&~ !' @!'~ !'@@!'~ ! '@\@! #"120&&'''''# #3 Graduate Students#/4&&'''''# $$%$0Average~ $&@$&~ $'j@$'~ $'Ԭ@$'~ $ '@$ # %$%%0Minimum~ %&|@%&~ %'@%'~ %'@%'~ % '0@% # &$%&0Maximum~ &&@&&~ &'@&'~ &'@&'~ & '@& #'120&&'''''# (3Number of Programs(56&&&&&&&# )$ )71982).&&'''''# *$%*0Average~ *&6@*&~ *'&@*'~ *'@*'~ * '@* # +$%+0Minimum~ +&@+&~ +'@+'~ +'?+'~ + '?+ # ,$%,0Maximum~ ,&C@,&~ ,'9@,'~ ,'4@,'~ , '"@, # -$% -0Total~ -&@@-&~ -'q@-'~ -'[@-'~ - 'I@- #.$%0&&'''''# /$ /71993/.&&'''''# 0$%00Average~ 0&:@0&~ 0'.@0'~ 0' @0'~ 0 '@0 # 1$%10Minimum~ 1&@1&~ 1'@1'~ 1'?1'~ 1 '?1 # 2$%20Maximum~ 2&D@2&~ 2'8@2'~ 2':@2'~ 2 ',@2 # 3$% 30Total~ 3&8@3&~ 3'x@3'~ 3'k@3'~ 3 'a@3 #4("#""#  5Year First Ph.D. Awarded5)*""# 6$%60Average~ 6& @6&~ 6'x@6'~ 6'@6'~ 6 '@6 # 7$%70Minimum~ 7&P@7&~ 7'@7'~ 7'8@7'~ 7 '@7 # 8$%80Maximum~ 8&؞@8&~ 8'̞@8'~ 8'ܞ@8'~ 8 '@8 #989:;;;;;;;: :""""""""""" ;<<< <F  @ <6 6 B >   " ࡱ; BOlePartOlePres000.H!4C !     '  ' ' - -qq- !q-- !-- !-'- ArialE--"System-'-- ArialkG- Helvetica?---'-- g 2 eTable 23.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helveticag>- 2 s6^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationA..*.3.*.*7*..*.7..*.*...*.*7*...E*7.....<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica<-  2 . Academic Area0%%)%<%0%%2  Research I0%%%%%)2 $ Research II0%%%%%)2  Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - "Helvetica+<-  $2 AArts and Humanities-"%%%0%8%%%" Helvetica{@- 2 A,2.82%%% 2 A 2.14%%% 2 A 1.42%%% 2 Aj1.66%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(46)%% 2  (20)%% 2  (18)%% 2 (6)%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  $2 WBiological Sciences-%%%"%-"%%"%"- 2 W,3.07%%% 2 W 2.28%%% 2 W 1.68%%% 2 Wj1.91%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(58)%% 2  (25)%% 2  (16)%% 2 p(18)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  2 m Engineering-%%%%%%%- 2 m,3.01%%% 2 m 1.97%%% 2 m 1.97%%% 2 mj1.70%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(52)%% 2  (20)%% 2  (9)% 2 p(12)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  92 !Physical Sciences and Mathematics-%"""%-"%%"%"%%%8%%%8%""- 2 ,2.98%%% 2  2.18%%% 2  1.77%%% 2 j1.66%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(57)%% 2  (26)%% 2  (21)%% 2 p(20)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  42 Social and Behavioral Sciences-%"%%%%-%%%"%%-"%%"%"- 2 ,2.82%%% 2  2.15%%% 2  1.84%%% 2 j1.52%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(52)%% 2  (25)%% 2  (25)%% 2 p(12)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- ! q-q00- ! q0-q- ! q-   'themidtolate70'sledtheࡱ;  METAFILEPICT4C(!4C      '  ' ' - -qq- !q-- !-- !-'- ArialE--"System-'-- ArialkG- Helvetica?---'-- g 2 eTable 23.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helveticag>- 2 s6^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationA..*.3.*.*7*..*.7..*.*...*.*7*...E*7.....<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica<-  2 . Academic Area0%%)%<%0%%2  Research I0%%%%%)2 $ Research II0%%%%%)2  Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - "Helvetica+<-  $2 AArts and Humanities-"%%%0%8%%%" Helvetica{@- 2 A,2.82%%% 2 A 2.14%%% 2 A 1.42%%% 2 Aj1.66%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(46)%% 2  (20)%% 2  (18)%% 2 (6)%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  $2 WBiological Sciences-%%%"%-"%%"%"- 2 W,3.07%%% 2 W 2.28%%% 2 W 1.68%%% 2 Wj1.91%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(58)%% 2  (25)%% 2  (16)%% 2 p(18)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  2 m Engineering-%%%%%%%- 2 m,3.01%%% 2 m 1.97%%% 2 m 1.97%%% 2 mj1.70%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(52)%% 2  (20)%% 2  (9)% 2 p(12)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  92 !Physical Sciences and Mathematics-%"""%-"%%"%"%%%8%%%8%""- 2 ,2.98%%% 2  2.18%%% 2  1.77%%% 2 j1.66%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(57)%% 2  (26)%% 2  (21)%% 2 p(20)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - -  42 Social and Behavioral Sciences-%"%%%%-%%%"%%-"%%"%"- 2 ,2.82%%% 2  2.15%%% 2  1.84%%% 2 j1.52%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -   2 2(52)%% 2  (25)%% 2  (25)%% 2 p(12)%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- ! q-q00- ! q0-q- ! q-   'themidtolate70'sledtheWPC'UU9!Ubeƚ[ 2    '  ' ' - -qq- !zq-- !z-- !z-'- ArialF--"System-'-- ArialF- Helvetica@---'-- g 2 Table 33.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica?- 2 s `Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie Classification<...*.***.7..*.*...*7.*.......<<<7..*.*<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica@-  2 RES I0--2 RES II0--2  DOCT I040)2  DOCT II040)--'- - --'- - --'- -  %2 ?Total R&D (x $1,000)))%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -  Helveticao@- --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 113,054%%%%%%2  33,569%%%%%2  6,118%%%%2  12,498%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - E 2 Minimum8%8%82 P7,493%%%%2 05,955%%%% 2 H 121%%%2  1,253%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - M 2 LMaximum8%"8%82 L266,703%%%%%%2 L 55,965%%%%%2 L 16,679%%%%%2 L 52,392%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2  6,358,043%%%%%%%2 872,799%%%%%%2  159,074%%%%%%2  299,961%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - l (2 iFederal R&D (x $1,000))%)%%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 +62,100%%%%%2  13,256%%%%%2  2,437%%%%2  5,659%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - o 2 Minimum8%8%82 P3,974%%%%2 03,430%%%% 2 m 39%% 2 (392%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - w 2 vMaximum8%"8%82 v171,308%%%%%%2 v 24,937%%%%%2 v 6,137%%%%2 v 24,768%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - ! 2  Total)%%2  3,479,057%%%%%%%2 344,652%%%%%%2  63,362%%%%%2  135,824%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Library - 1992))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - @ 2 Volumes-))<%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - H 2 GAverage-"%%%%2 G 2,980,047%%%%%%%2 G 1,567,100%%%%%%%2 G 1,019,882%%%%%%%2 G 614,769%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Minimum8%8%82 700,389%%%%%%2 797,997%%%%%%2  224,072%%%%%%2  109,196%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 Maximum8%"8%82  8,281,456%%%%%%%2  2,576,311%%%%%%%2  1,949,073%%%%%%%2 n 1,173,710%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - S 2 RTotal)%%2 R 174,899,705%%%%%%%%%2 R 40,744,589%%%%%%%%2 Ri 26,516,943%%%%%%%%2 RI 15,983,984%%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - ?  !2 Expend (x $1,000)-%)%))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  G  2 F Average-"%%%%2 F +13,855%%%%%2 F 07,139%%%%2 F  4,837%%%%2 F 3,305%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -    2 Minimum8%8%82 P4,375%%%%2 03,188%%%%2  1,313%%%%2 1,028%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - J   2 Maximum8%"8%82 +32,382%%%%%2 10,588%%%%%2  9,240%%%%2 7,572%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  R  2 Q Total)%%2 Q 811,167%%%%%%2 Q 185,619%%%%%%2 Q 125,773%%%%%%2 Q 85,923%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - i   !2  Enrollment - 1992-))<%)%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  q  2 n Total))%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -    2 Average-"%%%%2 +26,868%%%%%2 20,020%%%%%2 17,410%%%%%2 12,644%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - t #  2 " Minimum8%8%82 " P3,746%%%%2 " 08,799%%%%2 "  1,264%%%%2 " 1,656%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  |  2 { Maximum8%"8%82 { +49,253%%%%%2 { 34,145%%%%%2 { 28,501%%%%%2 { 21,873%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - h   (2   Graduate Students4%))%%-))%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  p  2 o Average-"%%%%2 o P6,074%%%%2 o 03,637%%%%2 o  3,690%%%%2 o 2,383%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -   2 Minimum8%8%82 P2,238%%%% 2 h945%%%2  1,221%%%% 2 (582%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - s" 2 !Maximum8%"8%82 !+12,284%%%%%2 !08,469%%%%2 ! 6,820%%%%2 ! 7,067%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - 9 "2 Number of Programs0)<)%)-))%<%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - A  2 >1982%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 22%% 2 11%% 2  5% 2 r3%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - D 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 3% 2 3% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - L 2 KMaximum8%"8%8 2 K38%% 2 K25%% 2 Km 20%% 2 Kr9%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,296%%%% 2 h284%%% 2 H 110%%% 2 M50%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - @  2 =1993%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 26%% 2 15%% 2  8% 2 r5%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - C 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 2% 2 7% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 JMaximum8%"8%8 2 J41%% 2 J24%% 2 Jm 26%% 2 JM14%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,550%%%% 2 h398%%% 2 H 222%%% 2 (136%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - j +2 gYear First Ph.D. Awarded-%%)%-)004%)%)--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 P1,928%%%%2 01,950%%%%2  1,963%%%%2  1,963%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - m 2 Minimum8%8%82 P1,876%%%%2 01,891%%%%2  1,934%%%%2  1,914%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - u 2 tMaximum8%"8%82 tP1,974%%%%2 t01,971%%%%2 t 1,975%%%%2 t 1,983%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- !q-q- !q-qzz- !qz-  'WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerExcel.Sheet.5ࡱ; -  !"#$%&'()*+,/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`Root EntryF}5:Ole Book &PCompObj^ࡱ;  FMicrosoft Excel 5.0 WorksheetBiff5Excel.Sheet.5ࡱ;  ࡱ;  l BTBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic $ ;;  9 =x$U81Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 MS Sans Serif1 CG Times (W1)1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\) "$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)%""$"#,##0.00_);[Red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ormal_GRAPH 2 Normal_TBL 1table 1 nrc perf var(table 2 qual fac scores"2TBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} \} $8N} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} $ % 4   ީ@ @&C a @ Zf@# g@C @ vC@A @o@ '@ @G @ Z@ @G @.  -@  hT@ T@ @  ʫ@ ;@hD @ @ @ @ @ 89@  @P @ @ @mTable 1_TOTOTOTO T`LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification`TOTOTOTO \Xv%y%y%y% bfw Research Idw Research IIdw Doctoral Idw Doctoral II e]Reputational Measuresgv%y%y%y. [hv%y%y%y. J$iQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)~ TPr@O~ Tj@O~ Tf@O~ Td@ PJjTQTQTQTP J'iProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)~ T@r@O~ T@k@O~ Tg@O~ Tf@ P Jiv%y%y%y.  J" iProgram Change (-1 -- +1)~ T1@ O~ T@ O~ T"@ O~ T"@ P YgTQTQTOTP  ^Objective Measures kTQTQTOTP  Ygv%y%y%y. J#iTotal Faculty Participation~ T<@S~ T@S~ TH@S~ T(@ PJjTQTQTOTP J+j#Percentage of Faculty Participation~ T$@O~ T$@O~ T@O~ T@ PJiTQTQTOTP J@j8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)~ TȮ@T~ T@T~ T@T~ TX@ PJjTTTTTTTP J8i0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T@T~ Td@T~ T@`@T~ T? PJiTQTQTOTP J<i4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T$@T~ T @T~ T@T~ TЁ@ PJiTQTQTOTP J5j-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)~ Td@T~ T@T~ TO@T~ TP@ PJiTQTQTOTP JGi?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)~ T@Q~ T{@Q~ Ts@O~ Tv@ PJiTQTQTOTP J6j.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)~ T&@T~ T`@T~ T5@T~ T4@ PJiTQTQTOTP JDj<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)~ T@Q~ TИ@Q~ T(@O~ T؏@ PJiTQTQTOTP Dy l/t=: @! ީ@" @&C# @a$ @% f@#& g@C' @( vC@A) @o@* '@+ @G, @- @. @G/ @. 0 -@ 1 hT@2 T@3 i@  J3 j+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)~ Th@ T~ T>@ T~ TЫ@ T~ T@ P!JiTQTQTOTP "J9"j1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ "T@"S~ "T@C@"S~ "TN@"S~ "T@" P#JiTQTQTOTP $J>$i6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$ P%JiTQTQTOTP &J.&j&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)~ &T@@&S~ &T؝@&S~ &T@&S~ &T@& P'JiTQTQTOTP (J:(j2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)~ (T@(T~ (Tt@(T~ (T@(T~ (Tģ@( P)JiTQTQTOTP *J?*j7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)~ *T@@*Q~ *T@*Q~ *T8@*O~ *T@* P+JiTQTQTOTP ,JZ,jRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,TR@, P-JiTQTQTOTP .JH.j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ .Th@.T~ .T@@.T~ .T:@.T~ .TȤ@. P/JiTQTQTOTP 0JH0j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ 0T0@0T~ 0T@0T~ 0T1@0T~ 0T;@0 P1JiTQTQTOTP 2JK2iCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2O~ 2Tp@2 P3ZlxKzVzVzW , |> 3 " l   dMbP?_*+%MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} m"F} F} $ F    ީ@ @&C p Z f g@  vC@ @ ' @   @  - hT )@ xCTable 2DDDDDDDDfG^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationDDDDDDDDEEEn Academic Areac Research Icc Research IIcc Doctoral Icc Doctoral IIoqLLLLLLLMsArts and Humanities~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Oa@O~ Od@Ps~ QG@Q~ Q4@Q~ Q2@Q~ Q@Ps%%N%N%N.sBiological Sciences~ O0s@O~ Ol@O~ Oe@O~ Og@P s~ QM@ Q~ Q9@ Q~ Q0@ O~ Q2@ P s%%N%N%N. s Engineering~ Or@ O~ Oh@ O~ Oh@ O~ R@e@ P s~ QJ@ Q~ Q4@ Q~ Q"@ O~ Q(@ P s%%N%N%N.)t!Physical Sciences and Mathematics~ Or@O~ O@k@O~ O f@O~ Od@Pt~ QL@Q~ Q:@Q~ Q5@O~ Q4@Ps%%N%N%N.&tSocial and Behavioral Sciences~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Og@O~ Oc@Pu~ QJ@Q~ Q9@Q~ Q9@O~ Q(@PrKKUVUVUW,>|-jjwjjj> " l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?(?)?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} } } } I } } I } } I } } I } } $  <   ީ@ @  ;" f@ g@@ @ vC@@ @@ '" @@ @ @ @@ @ -" hT@ )@@ @ @ @hD @. @ @ @ @ 89@  7@P " @ @Table 3 hH`Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie ClassificationI = >?@ ARES IAARES IIAADOCT IA ADOCT II BTotal R&D (x $1,000) !"""""""# $%#Average~ &@&~ ' d@'~ '@'~  'i@ # $%#Minimum~ &E@&~ 'C@'~ '@^@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &&~ '|7A'~ '/A'~  'ƅ% # $%#Minimum~ &*&~ '0'~ '@Z A'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &\_A&~ '>'~ 'Fv'~  ':G # $% #Total~ &)&~ '6ڶ '~ '>wR'~  '• #$%#&&'''''# $ Expend (x $1,000).&&'''''# $%#Average~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  'ҩ@ # $%#Minimum~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &@&~ '@'~ ' @'~  '@ # $% #Total~ &~1&~ 'A'~ 'д@'~  '0@ #("#&&'''''# Enrollment - 1992)*&&&&&&&# $ /Total.&&'''''# $%0Average~ &=@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ #Dl1 > @ 89 C ;7 @! ީ@" @@# @$ @"% f@& g@@' @( vC"@) @@* '@"+ @@, @- @. @@/ @0 -@"1 hT@2 )@@3 @4 @5 @hD6 @.7 @8 @9 x@: x@; 89@ $% 0Minimum~ &D@ &~ '/@ '~ '@ '~ '@ # !$%!0Maximum~ !& @!&~ !' @!'~ !'@@!'~ ! '@\@! #"120&&'''''# #3 Graduate Students#/4&&'''''# $$%$0Average~ $&@$&~ $'j@$'~ $'Ԭ@$'~ $ '@$ # %$%%0Minimum~ %&|@%&~ %'@%'~ %'@%'~ % '0@% # &$%&0Maximum~ &&@&&~ &'@&'~ &'@&'~ & '@& #'120&&'''''# (3Number of Programs(56&&&&&&&# )$ )71982).&&'''''# *$%*0Average~ *&6@*&~ *'&@*'~ *'@*'~ * '@* # +$%+0Minimum~ +&@+&~ +'@+'~ +'?+'~ + '?+ # ,$%,0Maximum~ ,&C@,&~ ,'9@,'~ ,'4@,'~ , '"@, # -$% -0Total~ -&@@-&~ -'q@-'~ -'[@-'~ - 'I@- #.$%0&&'''''# /$ /71993/.&&'''''# 0$%00Average~ 0&:@0&~ 0'.@0'~ 0' @0'~ 0 '@0 # 1$%10Minimum~ 1&@1&~ 1'@1'~ 1'?1'~ 1 '?1 # 2$%20Maximum~ 2&D@2&~ 2'8@2'~ 2':@2'~ 2 ',@2 # 3$% 30Total~ 3&8@3&~ 3'x@3'~ 3'k@3'~ 3 'a@3 #4("#""#  5Year First Ph.D. Awarded5)*""# 6$%60Average~ 6& @6&~ 6'x@6'~ 6'@6'~ 6 '@6 # 7$%70Minimum~ 7&P@7&~ 7'@7'~ 7'8@7'~ 7 '@7 # 8$%80Maximum~ 8&؞@8&~ 8'̞@8'~ 8'ܞ@8'~ 8 '@8 #989:;;;;;;;: :""""""""""" ;<<< <F  @ <6 6 B > &9 " ࡱ; BOlePartOlePres000.heAX@e 2    '  ' ' - -qq- !zq-- !z-- !z-'- ArialF--"System-'-- ArialF- Helvetica@---'-- g 2 Table 33.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica?- 2 s `Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie Classification<...*.***.7..*.*...*7.*.......<<<7..*.*<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica@-  2 RES I0--2 RES II0--2  DOCT I040)2  DOCT II040)--'- - --'- - --'- -  %2 ?Total R&D (x $1,000)))%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -  Helveticao@- --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 113,054%%%%%%2  33,569%%%%%2  6,118%%%%2  12,498%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - E 2 Minimum8%8%82 P7,493%%%%2 05,955%%%% 2 H 121%%%2  1,253%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - M 2 LMaximum8%"8%82 L266,703%%%%%%2 L 55,965%%%%%2 L 16,679%%%%%2 L 52,392%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2  6,358,043%%%%%%%2 872,799%%%%%%2  159,074%%%%%%2  299,961%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - l (2 iFederal R&D (x $1,000))%)%%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 +62,100%%%%%2  13,256%%%%%2  2,437%%%%2  5,659%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - o 2 Minimum8%8%82 P3,974%%%%2 03,430%%%% 2 m 39%% 2 (392%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - w 2 vMaximum8%"8%82 v171,308%%%%%%2 v 24,937%%%%%2 v 6,137%%%%2 v 24,768%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - ! 2  Total)%%2  3,479,057%%%%%%%2 344,652%%%%%%2  63,362%%%%%2  135,824%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Library - 1992))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - @ 2 Volumes-))<%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - H 2 GAverage-"%%%%2 G 2,980,047%%%%%%%2 G 1,567,100%%%%%%%2 G 1,019,882%%%%%%%2 G 614,769%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Minimum8%8%82 700,389%%%%%%2 797,997%%%%%%2  224,072%%%%%%2  109,196%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 Maximum8%"8%82  8,281,456%%%%%%%2  2,576,311%%%%%%%2  1,949,073%%%%%%%2 n 1,173,710%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - S 2 RTotal)%%2 R 174,899,705%%%%%%%%%2 R 40,744,589%%%%%%%%2 Ri 26,516,943%%%%%%%%2 RI 15,983,984%%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - ?  !2 Expend (x $1,000)-%)%))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  G  2 F Average-"%%%%2 F +13,855%%%%%2 F 07,139%%%%2 F  4,837%%%%2 F 3,305%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -    2 Minimum8%8%82 P4,375%%%%2 03,188%%%%2  1,313%%%%2 1,028%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - J   2 Maximum8%"8%82 +32,382%%%%%2 10,588%%%%%2  9,240%%%%2 7,572%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  R  2 Q Total)%%2 Q 811,167%%%%%%2 Q 185,619%%%%%%2 Q 125,773%%%%%%2 Q 85,923%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - i   !2  Enrollment - 1992-))<%)%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  q  2 n Total))%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -    2 Average-"%%%%2 +26,868%%%%%2 20,020%%%%%2 17,410%%%%%2 12,644%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - t #  2 " Minimum8%8%82 " P3,746%%%%2 " 08,799%%%%2 "  1,264%%%%2 " 1,656%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  |  2 { Maximum8%"8%82 { +49,253%%%%%2 { 34,145%%%%%2 { 28,501%%%%%2 { 21,873%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - h   (2   Graduate Students4%))%%-))%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  p  2 o Average-"%%%%2 o P6,074%%%%2 o 03,637%%%%2 o  3,690%%%%2 o 2,383%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -   2 Minimum8%8%82 P2,238%%%% 2 h945%%%2  1,221%%%% 2 (582%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - s" 2 !Maximum8%"8%82 !+12,284%%%%%2 !08,469%%%%2 ! 6,820%%%%2 ! 7,067%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - 9 "2 Number of Programs0)<)%)-))%<%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - A  2 >1982%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 22%% 2 11%% 2  5% 2 r3%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - D 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 3% 2 3% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - L 2 KMaximum8%"8%8 2 K38%% 2 K25%% 2 Km 20%% 2 Kr9%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,296%%%% 2 h284%%% 2 H 110%%% 2 M50%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - @  2 =1993%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 26%% 2 15%% 2  8% 2 r5%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - C 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 2% 2 7% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 JMaximum8%"8%8 2 J41%% 2 J24%% 2 Jm 26%% 2 JM14%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,550%%%% 2 h398%%% 2 H 222%%% 2 (136%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - j +2 gYear First Ph.D. Awarded-%%)%-)004%)%)--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 P1,928%%%%2 01,950%%%%2  1,963%%%%2  1,963%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - m 2 Minimum8%8%82 P1,876%%%%2 01,891%%%%2  1,934%%%%2  1,914%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - u 2 tMaximum8%"8%82 tP1,974%%%%2 t01,971%%%%2 t 1,975%%%%2 t 1,983%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- !q-q- !q-qzz- !qz-  'ࡱ;  METAFILEPICTA"HeAX 2    '  ' ' - -qq- !zq-- !z-- !z-'- ArialF--"System-'-- ArialF- Helvetica@---'-- g 2 Table 33.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica?- 2 s `Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie Classification<...*.***.7..*.*...*7.*.......<<<7..*.*<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica@-  2 RES I0--2 RES II0--2  DOCT I040)2  DOCT II040)--'- - --'- - --'- -  %2 ?Total R&D (x $1,000)))%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -  Helveticao@- --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 113,054%%%%%%2  33,569%%%%%2  6,118%%%%2  12,498%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - E 2 Minimum8%8%82 P7,493%%%%2 05,955%%%% 2 H 121%%%2  1,253%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - M 2 LMaximum8%"8%82 L266,703%%%%%%2 L 55,965%%%%%2 L 16,679%%%%%2 L 52,392%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2  6,358,043%%%%%%%2 872,799%%%%%%2  159,074%%%%%%2  299,961%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - l (2 iFederal R&D (x $1,000))%)%%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 +62,100%%%%%2  13,256%%%%%2  2,437%%%%2  5,659%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - o 2 Minimum8%8%82 P3,974%%%%2 03,430%%%% 2 m 39%% 2 (392%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - w 2 vMaximum8%"8%82 v171,308%%%%%%2 v 24,937%%%%%2 v 6,137%%%%2 v 24,768%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - ! 2  Total)%%2  3,479,057%%%%%%%2 344,652%%%%%%2  63,362%%%%%2  135,824%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Library - 1992))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - @ 2 Volumes-))<%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - H 2 GAverage-"%%%%2 G 2,980,047%%%%%%%2 G 1,567,100%%%%%%%2 G 1,019,882%%%%%%%2 G 614,769%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Minimum8%8%82 700,389%%%%%%2 797,997%%%%%%2  224,072%%%%%%2  109,196%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 Maximum8%"8%82  8,281,456%%%%%%%2  2,576,311%%%%%%%2  1,949,073%%%%%%%2 n 1,173,710%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - S 2 RTotal)%%2 R 174,899,705%%%%%%%%%2 R 40,744,589%%%%%%%%2 Ri 26,516,943%%%%%%%%2 RI 15,983,984%%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - ?  !2 Expend (x $1,000)-%)%))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  G  2 F Average-"%%%%2 F +13,855%%%%%2 F 07,139%%%%2 F  4,837%%%%2 F 3,305%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -    2 Minimum8%8%82 P4,375%%%%2 03,188%%%%2  1,313%%%%2 1,028%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - J   2 Maximum8%"8%82 +32,382%%%%%2 10,588%%%%%2  9,240%%%%2 7,572%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  R  2 Q Total)%%2 Q 811,167%%%%%%2 Q 185,619%%%%%%2 Q 125,773%%%%%%2 Q 85,923%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - i   !2  Enrollment - 1992-))<%)%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  q  2 n Total))%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -    2 Average-"%%%%2 +26,868%%%%%2 20,020%%%%%2 17,410%%%%%2 12,644%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - t #  2 " Minimum8%8%82 " P3,746%%%%2 " 08,799%%%%2 "  1,264%%%%2 " 1,656%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  |  2 { Maximum8%"8%82 { +49,253%%%%%2 { 34,145%%%%%2 { 28,501%%%%%2 { 21,873%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - h   (2   Graduate Students4%))%%-))%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  p  2 o Average-"%%%%2 o P6,074%%%%2 o 03,637%%%%2 o  3,690%%%%2 o 2,383%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -   2 Minimum8%8%82 P2,238%%%% 2 h945%%%2  1,221%%%% 2 (582%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - s" 2 !Maximum8%"8%82 !+12,284%%%%%2 !08,469%%%%2 ! 6,820%%%%2 ! 7,067%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - 9 "2 Number of Programs0)<)%)-))%<%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - A  2 >1982%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 22%% 2 11%% 2  5% 2 r3%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - D 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 3% 2 3% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - L 2 KMaximum8%"8%8 2 K38%% 2 K25%% 2 Km 20%% 2 Kr9%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,296%%%% 2 h284%%% 2 H 110%%% 2 M50%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - @  2 =1993%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 26%% 2 15%% 2  8% 2 r5%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - C 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 2% 2 7% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 JMaximum8%"8%8 2 J41%% 2 J24%% 2 Jm 26%% 2 JM14%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,550%%%% 2 h398%%% 2 H 222%%% 2 (136%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - j +2 gYear First Ph.D. Awarded-%%)%-)004%)%)--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 P1,928%%%%2 01,950%%%%2  1,963%%%%2  1,963%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - m 2 Minimum8%8%82 P1,876%%%%2 01,891%%%%2  1,934%%%%2  1,914%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - u 2 tMaximum8%"8%82 tP1,974%%%%2 t01,971%%%%2 t 1,975%%%%2 t 1,983%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- !q-q- !q-qzz- !qz-  '(\ Y`Symbol(3$ !  \  `$Times NewRoman&'*OLE*WPC'UU9!Ubeƚ[ 2    '  ' ' - -qq- !zq-- !z-- !z-'- ArialF--"System-'-- ArialF- Helvetica@---'-- g 2 Table 33.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica?- 2 s `Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie Classification<...*.***.7..*.*...*7.*.......<<<7..*.*<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica@-  2 RES I0--2 RES II0--2  DOCT I040)2  DOCT II040)--'- - --'- - --'- -  %2 ?Total R&D (x $1,000)))%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -  Helveticao@- --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 113,054%%%%%%2  33,569%%%%%2  6,118%%%%2  12,498%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - E 2 Minimum8%8%82 P7,493%%%%2 05,955%%%% 2 H 121%%%2  1,253%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - M 2 LMaximum8%"8%82 L266,703%%%%%%2 L 55,965%%%%%2 L 16,679%%%%%2 L 52,392%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2  6,358,043%%%%%%%2 872,799%%%%%%2  159,074%%%%%%2  299,961%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - l (2 iFederal R&D (x $1,000))%)%%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 +62,100%%%%%2  13,256%%%%%2  2,437%%%%2  5,659%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - o 2 Minimum8%8%82 P3,974%%%%2 03,430%%%% 2 m 39%% 2 (392%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - w 2 vMaximum8%"8%82 v171,308%%%%%%2 v 24,937%%%%%2 v 6,137%%%%2 v 24,768%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - ! 2  Total)%%2  3,479,057%%%%%%%2 344,652%%%%%%2  63,362%%%%%2  135,824%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Library - 1992))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - @ 2 Volumes-))<%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - H 2 GAverage-"%%%%2 G 2,980,047%%%%%%%2 G 1,567,100%%%%%%%2 G 1,019,882%%%%%%%2 G 614,769%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Minimum8%8%82 700,389%%%%%%2 797,997%%%%%%2  224,072%%%%%%2  109,196%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 Maximum8%"8%82  8,281,456%%%%%%%2  2,576,311%%%%%%%2  1,949,073%%%%%%%2 n 1,173,710%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - S 2 RTotal)%%2 R 174,899,705%%%%%%%%%2 R 40,744,589%%%%%%%%2 Ri 26,516,943%%%%%%%%2 RI 15,983,984%%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - ?  !2 Expend (x $1,000)-%)%))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  G  2 F Average-"%%%%2 F +13,855%%%%%2 F 07,139%%%%2 F  4,837%%%%2 F 3,305%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -    2 Minimum8%8%82 P4,375%%%%2 03,188%%%%2  1,313%%%%2 1,028%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - J   2 Maximum8%"8%82 +32,382%%%%%2 10,588%%%%%2  9,240%%%%2 7,572%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  R  2 Q Total)%%2 Q 811,167%%%%%%2 Q 185,619%%%%%%2 Q 125,773%%%%%%2 Q 85,923%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - i   !2  Enrollment - 1992-))<%)%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  q  2 n Total))%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -    2 Average-"%%%%2 +26,868%%%%%2 20,020%%%%%2 17,410%%%%%2 12,644%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - t #  2 " Minimum8%8%82 " P3,746%%%%2 " 08,799%%%%2 "  1,264%%%%2 " 1,656%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  |  2 { Maximum8%"8%82 { +49,253%%%%%2 { 34,145%%%%%2 { 28,501%%%%%2 { 21,873%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - h   (2   Graduate Students4%))%%-))%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  p  2 o Average-"%%%%2 o P6,074%%%%2 o 03,637%%%%2 o  3,690%%%%2 o 2,383%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -   2 Minimum8%8%82 P2,238%%%% 2 h945%%%2  1,221%%%% 2 (582%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - s" 2 !Maximum8%"8%82 !+12,284%%%%%2 !08,469%%%%2 ! 6,820%%%%2 ! 7,067%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - 9 "2 Number of Programs0)<)%)-))%<%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - A  2 >1982%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 22%% 2 11%% 2  5% 2 r3%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - D 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 3% 2 3% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - L 2 KMaximum8%"8%8 2 K38%% 2 K25%% 2 Km 20%% 2 Kr9%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,296%%%% 2 h284%%% 2 H 110%%% 2 M50%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - @  2 =1993%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 26%% 2 15%% 2  8% 2 r5%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - C 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 2% 2 7% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 JMaximum8%"8%8 2 J41%% 2 J24%% 2 Jm 26%% 2 JM14%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,550%%%% 2 h398%%% 2 H 222%%% 2 (136%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - j +2 gYear First Ph.D. Awarded-%%)%-)004%)%)--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 P1,928%%%%2 01,950%%%%2  1,963%%%%2  1,963%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - m 2 Minimum8%8%82 P1,876%%%%2 01,891%%%%2  1,934%%%%2  1,914%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - u 2 tMaximum8%"8%82 tP1,974%%%%2 t01,971%%%%2 t 1,975%%%%2 t 1,983%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- !q-q- !q-qzz- !qz-  'WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerExcel.Sheet.5ࡱ; -  !"#$%&'()*+,/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`Root EntryF˒:Ole Book &PCompObj^ࡱ;  FMicrosoft Excel 5.0 WorksheetBiff5Excel.Sheet.5ࡱ;  ࡱ;  l BTBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic $ ;;  9 =x$U81Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 MS Sans Serif1 CG Times (W1)1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\) "$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)%""$"#,##0.00_);[Red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ormal_GRAPH 2 Normal_TBL 1table 1 nrc perf var(table 2 qual fac scores"2TBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} \} $8N} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} $ % 4   ީ@ @&C a @ Zf@# g@C @ vC@A @o@ '@ @G @ Z@ @G @.  -@  hT@ T@ @  ʫ@ ;@hD @ @ @ @ @ 89@  @P @ @ @mTable 1_TOTOTOTO T`LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification`TOTOTOTO \Xv%y%y%y% bfw Research Idw Research IIdw Doctoral Idw Doctoral II e]Reputational Measuresgv%y%y%y. [hv%y%y%y. J$iQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)~ TPr@O~ Tj@O~ Tf@O~ Td@ PJjTQTQTQTP J'iProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)~ T@r@O~ T@k@O~ Tg@O~ Tf@ P Jiv%y%y%y.  J" iProgram Change (-1 -- +1)~ T1@ O~ T@ O~ T"@ O~ T"@ P YgTQTQTOTP  ^Objective Measures kTQTQTOTP  Ygv%y%y%y. J#iTotal Faculty Participation~ T<@S~ T@S~ TH@S~ T(@ PJjTQTQTOTP J+j#Percentage of Faculty Participation~ T$@O~ T$@O~ T@O~ T@ PJiTQTQTOTP J@j8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)~ TȮ@T~ T@T~ T@T~ TX@ PJjTTTTTTTP J8i0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T@T~ Td@T~ T@`@T~ T? PJiTQTQTOTP J<i4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T$@T~ T @T~ T@T~ TЁ@ PJiTQTQTOTP J5j-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)~ Td@T~ T@T~ TO@T~ TP@ PJiTQTQTOTP JGi?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)~ T@Q~ T{@Q~ Ts@O~ Tv@ PJiTQTQTOTP J6j.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)~ T&@T~ T`@T~ T5@T~ T4@ PJiTQTQTOTP JDj<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)~ T@Q~ TИ@Q~ T(@O~ T؏@ PJiTQTQTOTP Dy l/t=: @! ީ@" @&C# @a$ @% f@#& g@C' @( vC@A) @o@* '@+ @G, @- @. @G/ @. 0 -@ 1 hT@2 T@3 i@  J3 j+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)~ Th@ T~ T>@ T~ TЫ@ T~ T@ P!JiTQTQTOTP "J9"j1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ "T@"S~ "T@C@"S~ "TN@"S~ "T@" P#JiTQTQTOTP $J>$i6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$ P%JiTQTQTOTP &J.&j&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)~ &T@@&S~ &T؝@&S~ &T@&S~ &T@& P'JiTQTQTOTP (J:(j2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)~ (T@(T~ (Tt@(T~ (T@(T~ (Tģ@( P)JiTQTQTOTP *J?*j7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)~ *T@@*Q~ *T@*Q~ *T8@*O~ *T@* P+JiTQTQTOTP ,JZ,jRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,TR@, P-JiTQTQTOTP .JH.j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ .Th@.T~ .T@@.T~ .T:@.T~ .TȤ@. P/JiTQTQTOTP 0JH0j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ 0T0@0T~ 0T@0T~ 0T1@0T~ 0T;@0 P1JiTQTQTOTP 2JK2iCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2O~ 2Tp@2 P3ZlxKzVzVzW , |> 3 " l   dMbP?_*+%MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} m"F} F} $ F    ީ@ @&C p Z f g@  vC@ @ ' @   @  - hT )@ xCTable 2DDDDDDDDfG^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationDDDDDDDDEEEn Academic Areac Research Icc Research IIcc Doctoral Icc Doctoral IIoqLLLLLLLMsArts and Humanities~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Oa@O~ Od@Ps~ QG@Q~ Q4@Q~ Q2@Q~ Q@Ps%%N%N%N.sBiological Sciences~ O0s@O~ Ol@O~ Oe@O~ Og@P s~ QM@ Q~ Q9@ Q~ Q0@ O~ Q2@ P s%%N%N%N. s Engineering~ Or@ O~ Oh@ O~ Oh@ O~ R@e@ P s~ QJ@ Q~ Q4@ Q~ Q"@ O~ Q(@ P s%%N%N%N.)t!Physical Sciences and Mathematics~ Or@O~ O@k@O~ O f@O~ Od@Pt~ QL@Q~ Q:@Q~ Q5@O~ Q4@Ps%%N%N%N.&tSocial and Behavioral Sciences~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Og@O~ Oc@Pu~ QJ@Q~ Q9@Q~ Q9@O~ Q(@PrKKUVUVUW,>|-jjwjjj> " l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?(?)?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} } } } I } } I } } I } } I } } $  <   ީ@ @  ;" f@ g@@ @ vC@@ @@ '" @@ @ @ @@ @ -" hT@ )@@ @ @ @hD @. @ @ @ @ 89@  7@P " @ @Table 3 hH`Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie ClassificationI = >?@ ARES IAARES IIAADOCT IA ADOCT II BTotal R&D (x $1,000) !"""""""# $%#Average~ &@&~ ' d@'~ '@'~  'i@ # $%#Minimum~ &E@&~ 'C@'~ '@^@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &&~ '|7A'~ '/A'~  'ƅ% # $%#Minimum~ &*&~ '0'~ '@Z A'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &\_A&~ '>'~ 'Fv'~  ':G # $% #Total~ &)&~ '6ڶ '~ '>wR'~  '• #$%#&&'''''# $ Expend (x $1,000).&&'''''# $%#Average~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  'ҩ@ # $%#Minimum~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &@&~ '@'~ ' @'~  '@ # $% #Total~ &~1&~ 'A'~ 'д@'~  '0@ #("#&&'''''# Enrollment - 1992)*&&&&&&&# $ /Total.&&'''''# $%0Average~ &=@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ #Dl1 > @ 89 C ;7 @! ީ@" @@# @$ @"% f@& g@@' @( vC"@) @@* '@"+ @@, @- @. @@/ @0 -@"1 hT@2 )@@3 @4 @5 @hD6 @.7 @8 @9 x@: x@; 89@ $% 0Minimum~ &D@ &~ '/@ '~ '@ '~ '@ # !$%!0Maximum~ !& @!&~ !' @!'~ !'@@!'~ ! '@\@! #"120&&'''''# #3 Graduate Students#/4&&'''''# $$%$0Average~ $&@$&~ $'j@$'~ $'Ԭ@$'~ $ '@$ # %$%%0Minimum~ %&|@%&~ %'@%'~ %'@%'~ % '0@% # &$%&0Maximum~ &&@&&~ &'@&'~ &'@&'~ & '@& #'120&&'''''# (3Number of Programs(56&&&&&&&# )$ )71982).&&'''''# *$%*0Average~ *&6@*&~ *'&@*'~ *'@*'~ * '@* # +$%+0Minimum~ +&@+&~ +'@+'~ +'?+'~ + '?+ # ,$%,0Maximum~ ,&C@,&~ ,'9@,'~ ,'4@,'~ , '"@, # -$% -0Total~ -&@@-&~ -'q@-'~ -'[@-'~ - 'I@- #.$%0&&'''''# /$ /71993/.&&'''''# 0$%00Average~ 0&:@0&~ 0'.@0'~ 0' @0'~ 0 '@0 # 1$%10Minimum~ 1&@1&~ 1'@1'~ 1'?1'~ 1 '?1 # 2$%20Maximum~ 2&D@2&~ 2'8@2'~ 2':@2'~ 2 ',@2 # 3$% 30Total~ 3&8@3&~ 3'x@3'~ 3'k@3'~ 3 'a@3 #4("#""#  5Year First Ph.D. Awarded5)*""# 6$%60Average~ 6& @6&~ 6'x@6'~ 6'@6'~ 6 '@6 # 7$%70Minimum~ 7&P@7&~ 7'@7'~ 7'8@7'~ 7 '@7 # 8$%80Maximum~ 8&؞@8&~ 8'̞@8'~ 8'ܞ@8'~ 8 '@8 #989:;;;;;;;: :""""""""""" ;<<< <F  @ <6 6 B > &9 " ࡱ; BOlePartOlePres000.heAX@e 2    '  ' ' - -qq- !zq-- !z-- !z-'- ArialF--"System-'-- ArialF- Helvetica@---'-- g 2 Table 33.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica?- 2 s `Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie Classification<...*.***.7..*.*...*7.*.......<<<7..*.*<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica@-  2 RES I0--2 RES II0--2  DOCT I040)2  DOCT II040)--'- - --'- - --'- -  %2 ?Total R&D (x $1,000)))%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -  Helveticao@- --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 113,054%%%%%%2  33,569%%%%%2  6,118%%%%2  12,498%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - E 2 Minimum8%8%82 P7,493%%%%2 05,955%%%% 2 H 121%%%2  1,253%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - M 2 LMaximum8%"8%82 L266,703%%%%%%2 L 55,965%%%%%2 L 16,679%%%%%2 L 52,392%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2  6,358,043%%%%%%%2 872,799%%%%%%2  159,074%%%%%%2  299,961%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - l (2 iFederal R&D (x $1,000))%)%%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 +62,100%%%%%2  13,256%%%%%2  2,437%%%%2  5,659%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - o 2 Minimum8%8%82 P3,974%%%%2 03,430%%%% 2 m 39%% 2 (392%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - w 2 vMaximum8%"8%82 v171,308%%%%%%2 v 24,937%%%%%2 v 6,137%%%%2 v 24,768%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - ! 2  Total)%%2  3,479,057%%%%%%%2 344,652%%%%%%2  63,362%%%%%2  135,824%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Library - 1992))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - @ 2 Volumes-))<%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - H 2 GAverage-"%%%%2 G 2,980,047%%%%%%%2 G 1,567,100%%%%%%%2 G 1,019,882%%%%%%%2 G 614,769%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Minimum8%8%82 700,389%%%%%%2 797,997%%%%%%2  224,072%%%%%%2  109,196%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 Maximum8%"8%82  8,281,456%%%%%%%2  2,576,311%%%%%%%2  1,949,073%%%%%%%2 n 1,173,710%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - S 2 RTotal)%%2 R 174,899,705%%%%%%%%%2 R 40,744,589%%%%%%%%2 Ri 26,516,943%%%%%%%%2 RI 15,983,984%%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - ?  !2 Expend (x $1,000)-%)%))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  G  2 F Average-"%%%%2 F +13,855%%%%%2 F 07,139%%%%2 F  4,837%%%%2 F 3,305%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -    2 Minimum8%8%82 P4,375%%%%2 03,188%%%%2  1,313%%%%2 1,028%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - J   2 Maximum8%"8%82 +32,382%%%%%2 10,588%%%%%2  9,240%%%%2 7,572%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  R  2 Q Total)%%2 Q 811,167%%%%%%2 Q 185,619%%%%%%2 Q 125,773%%%%%%2 Q 85,923%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - i   !2  Enrollment - 1992-))<%)%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  q  2 n Total))%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -    2 Average-"%%%%2 +26,868%%%%%2 20,020%%%%%2 17,410%%%%%2 12,644%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - t #  2 " Minimum8%8%82 " P3,746%%%%2 " 08,799%%%%2 "  1,264%%%%2 " 1,656%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  |  2 { Maximum8%"8%82 { +49,253%%%%%2 { 34,145%%%%%2 { 28,501%%%%%2 { 21,873%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - h   (2   Graduate Students4%))%%-))%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  p  2 o Average-"%%%%2 o P6,074%%%%2 o 03,637%%%%2 o  3,690%%%%2 o 2,383%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -   2 Minimum8%8%82 P2,238%%%% 2 h945%%%2  1,221%%%% 2 (582%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - s" 2 !Maximum8%"8%82 !+12,284%%%%%2 !08,469%%%%2 ! 6,820%%%%2 ! 7,067%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - 9 "2 Number of Programs0)<)%)-))%<%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - A  2 >1982%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 22%% 2 11%% 2  5% 2 r3%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - D 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 3% 2 3% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - L 2 KMaximum8%"8%8 2 K38%% 2 K25%% 2 Km 20%% 2 Kr9%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,296%%%% 2 h284%%% 2 H 110%%% 2 M50%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - @  2 =1993%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 26%% 2 15%% 2  8% 2 r5%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - C 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 2% 2 7% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 JMaximum8%"8%8 2 J41%% 2 J24%% 2 Jm 26%% 2 JM14%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,550%%%% 2 h398%%% 2 H 222%%% 2 (136%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - j +2 gYear First Ph.D. Awarded-%%)%-)004%)%)--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 P1,928%%%%2 01,950%%%%2  1,963%%%%2  1,963%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - m 2 Minimum8%8%82 P1,876%%%%2 01,891%%%%2  1,934%%%%2  1,914%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - u 2 tMaximum8%"8%82 tP1,974%%%%2 t01,971%%%%2 t 1,975%%%%2 t 1,983%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- !q-q- !q-qzz- !qz-  'ࡱ;  METAFILEPICTA"HeAX 2    '  ' ' - -qq- !zq-- !z-- !z-'- ArialF--"System-'-- ArialF- Helvetica@---'-- g 2 Table 33.3..--'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica?- 2 s `Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie Classification<...*.***.7..*.*...*7.*.......<<<7..*.*<.....<.***...--'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'-- --'--  Helvetica@-  2 RES I0--2 RES II0--2  DOCT I040)2  DOCT II040)--'- - --'- - --'- -  %2 ?Total R&D (x $1,000)))%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- -  Helveticao@- --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 113,054%%%%%%2  33,569%%%%%2  6,118%%%%2  12,498%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - E 2 Minimum8%8%82 P7,493%%%%2 05,955%%%% 2 H 121%%%2  1,253%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - M 2 LMaximum8%"8%82 L266,703%%%%%%2 L 55,965%%%%%2 L 16,679%%%%%2 L 52,392%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2  6,358,043%%%%%%%2 872,799%%%%%%2  159,074%%%%%%2  299,961%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - l (2 iFederal R&D (x $1,000))%)%%000%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 +62,100%%%%%2  13,256%%%%%2  2,437%%%%2  5,659%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - o 2 Minimum8%8%82 P3,974%%%%2 03,430%%%% 2 m 39%% 2 (392%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - w 2 vMaximum8%"8%82 v171,308%%%%%%2 v 24,937%%%%%2 v 6,137%%%%2 v 24,768%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - ! 2  Total)%%2  3,479,057%%%%%%%2 344,652%%%%%%2  63,362%%%%%2  135,824%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Library - 1992))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - @ 2 Volumes-))<%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - H 2 GAverage-"%%%%2 G 2,980,047%%%%%%%2 G 1,567,100%%%%%%%2 G 1,019,882%%%%%%%2 G 614,769%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Minimum8%8%82 700,389%%%%%%2 797,997%%%%%%2  224,072%%%%%%2  109,196%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 Maximum8%"8%82  8,281,456%%%%%%%2  2,576,311%%%%%%%2  1,949,073%%%%%%%2 n 1,173,710%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - S 2 RTotal)%%2 R 174,899,705%%%%%%%%%2 R 40,744,589%%%%%%%%2 Ri 26,516,943%%%%%%%%2 RI 15,983,984%%%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - ?  !2 Expend (x $1,000)-%)%))%%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  G  2 F Average-"%%%%2 F +13,855%%%%%2 F 07,139%%%%2 F  4,837%%%%2 F 3,305%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -    2 Minimum8%8%82 P4,375%%%%2 03,188%%%%2  1,313%%%%2 1,028%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - J   2 Maximum8%"8%82 +32,382%%%%%2 10,588%%%%%2  9,240%%%%2 7,572%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  R  2 Q Total)%%2 Q 811,167%%%%%%2 Q 185,619%%%%%%2 Q 125,773%%%%%%2 Q 85,923%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - i   !2  Enrollment - 1992-))<%)%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  q  2 n Total))%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -    2 Average-"%%%%2 +26,868%%%%%2 20,020%%%%%2 17,410%%%%%2 12,644%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - t #  2 " Minimum8%8%82 " P3,746%%%%2 " 08,799%%%%2 "  1,264%%%%2 " 1,656%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  |  2 { Maximum8%"8%82 { +49,253%%%%%2 { 34,145%%%%%2 { 28,501%%%%%2 { 21,873%%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - h   (2   Graduate Students4%))%%-))%)%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  p  2 o Average-"%%%%2 o P6,074%%%%2 o 03,637%%%%2 o  3,690%%%%2 o 2,383%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -   2 Minimum8%8%82 P2,238%%%% 2 h945%%%2  1,221%%%% 2 (582%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - s" 2 !Maximum8%"8%82 !+12,284%%%%%2 !08,469%%%%2 ! 6,820%%%%2 ! 7,067%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - 9 "2 Number of Programs0)<)%)-))%<%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - A  2 >1982%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 22%% 2 11%% 2  5% 2 r3%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - D 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 3% 2 3% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - L 2 KMaximum8%"8%8 2 K38%% 2 K25%% 2 Km 20%% 2 Kr9%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,296%%%% 2 h284%%% 2 H 110%%% 2 M50%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - @  2 =1993%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%% 2 26%% 2 15%% 2  8% 2 r5%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - C 2 Minimum8%8%8 2 2% 2 7% 2  1% 2 r1%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - K 2 JMaximum8%"8%8 2 J41%% 2 J24%% 2 Jm 26%% 2 JM14%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  2 Total)%%2 P1,550%%%% 2 h398%%% 2 H 222%%% 2 (136%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- - j +2 gYear First Ph.D. Awarded-%%)%-)004%)%)--'- - --'- - --'- - - --'- -  2 Average-"%%%%2 P1,928%%%%2 01,950%%%%2  1,963%%%%2  1,963%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - m 2 Minimum8%8%82 P1,876%%%%2 01,891%%%%2  1,934%%%%2  1,914%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - u 2 tMaximum8%"8%82 tP1,974%%%%2 t01,971%%%%2 t 1,975%%%%2 t 1,983%%%%--'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- - --'- -  -q- !q-q- !q-qzz- !qz-  ')-*OLE*WPC'iBfiBf9!iBfYƚP ,   U'  ' T' f- -qq- !~q-- !~-MM- !~M-'- TArial;E--"System-'-- TArial3N-"Helveticag>---'-- g 2 8Table 13.3..--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T"Helvetica=- y2 s@LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification<<<7..E..*.7....*.7..*.*...*.*<.....<.***...--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T Helvetica=-  2  Research I0%%%%%)2 d Research II0%%%%%)2 B Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica-  '2 -Reputational Measures0%))%))%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica<- --'- -  12 aQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)4%%"%)%"%"%% HelveticaA- 2 " 2.9%% 2  2.1%% 2 1.8%% 2 t1.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - _ 62 ^aProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)-%%%8-%""%%%""%%- 2 ^" 2.9%% 2 ^ 2.2%% 2 ^1.8%% 2 ^t1.8%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - b .2 aProgram Change (-1 -- +1)-%%%80%%%%%%'%- 2 " 0.2%% 2  0.1%% 2 0.1%% 2 t0.1%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - " "2 Objective Measures4)%%%%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - N 02 MaTotal Faculty Participation)%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2 M 28.0%%% 2 M 17.7%%% 2 M18.1%%% 2 Mb16.1%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - Q <2 a#Percentage of Faculty Participation-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2  54.1%%% 2  51.6%%% 2 50.5%%% 2 b47.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  [2 a8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"0%0%"%%"%-%%%% %% %%- 2  39.4%%% 2  32.8%%% 2 25.7%%% 2 b28.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - d O2 ca0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)0%8%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2 c" 2.5%% 2 c 1.6%% 2 c1.3%% 2 ct1.5%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - g U2 a4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  10.0%%% 2  7.4%% 2 6.7%% 2 t5.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   K2 a-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%%"%%% %% %%- 2  77.8%%% 2  71.7%%% 2 62.0%%% 2 b66.5%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  z  f2 y a?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)0%%%)%"%"-%%"%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2 y " 6.1%% 2 y 4.4%% 2 y 3.2%% 2 y t3.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - } ,  L2 + a.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%-%%"%%%" %% %%- 2 +  11.0%%% 2 + 18.8%%% 2 + 21.0%%% 2 + b23.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - /   a2 a<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)0%%%)%"%"0%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2  32.8%%% 2 15.9%%% 2 9.0%% 2 b10.2%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    H2 a+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  20.1%%% 2 30.5%%% 2 35.6%%% 2 b34.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  B  Q2 A a1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92))%%0%8%%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2 A  60.4%%% 2 A 38.5%%% 2 A 44.3%%% 2 A b32.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - E   X2 a6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)-%"%%%%%%)%8%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2  35.3%%% 2 34.1%%% 2 38.4%%% 2 b34.7%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    @2 a&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)0%8%%%-%0"-%%%"%% %% %%- 2  32.0%%% 2 19.1%%% 2 22.9%%% 2 b13.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - X R2 Wa2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%?%8%% %% %%- 2 W 29.3%%% 2 W 24.9%%% 2 W32.7%%% 2 Wb25.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - [  Z2 a7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%8%%%" %% %%- 2 " 6.2%% 2  7.7%% 2 12.3%%% 2 t9.6%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   2 aRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%0-0"%%"%%%-%8%%%%0%"%%%" %% %%- 2  73.2%%% 2  69.3%%% 2 68.4%%% 2 b72.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - n g2 ma@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%)%%"%%%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2 m 27.4%%% 2 m 32.0%%% 2 m26.5%%% 2 mb26.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - q  g2 a@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%0%"%%"%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2  28.4%%% 2  26.3%%% 2 17.5%%% 2 b27.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - # l2 aCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.8%%%%)8%%%%"%%8-%%%%4%%%%%-"%%%%0%"%%%-%0- 2 " 8.9%% 2  8.9%% 2 10.3%%% 2 t9.4%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f -qU- !q-qf Uf - !qf -q~U~- !q~-    ' d'dxd( $ Figure  1  WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerExcel.Sheet.5ࡱ; -  !"#$%&'()*+,/0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZRoot EntryF,:Ole Book &PCompObj^ࡱ;  FMicrosoft Excel 5.0 WorksheetBiff5Excel.Sheet.5ࡱ; ࡱ;  l BTBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic $ ;;  3 =x$U81Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 MS Sans Serif1 CG Times (W1)1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica1 Helvetica"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\) "$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)%""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)5*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_),))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)=,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)4+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0.0.000.0%\(0\)                + ) , *    Q&  Q&  Q      Q  Q8 @ Q  Q  Q ( @ Q (  Q ( @  Q (  Q ( @   ( @  (  Q ,  Q  Q ( @ Q (  Q ( @  Y!8 @ Y!8  Y!8 @   ( @  Q!8  Q!8 @  Q!8 @ Q!8  Q!8 @ Q!8 @  Q!8  Q!8 @  Y!8  Q ( @@ Q ( @ Q ( @@  Q , @ Y!  Q8  Q8 @ @ Q8 @ Q8 @A  Q8 @ Q8 @A &  &  !   &  Q  Q&  @ &8 @&8 &8 A  !8  &8  &8 @  &<  &<  &<  &<  !8 @  ( @  ( @@ !8 !8 @!8 @@!8 @!8 !8 @ !8 @&8 &8  8 8 @ @8 @ 8 @ 8 @A 8 @A !8 @ !8 @ !8 @  !8 @  !8 @ !8 @@ &8 8 @I@ 8 @A   "8 I@   ( @H@  8 H@  !8 H@  ( H@   , < @ &< @ !<  !< @Normal_GRAPH 2 Normal_TBL 1table 1 nrc perf var(table 2 qual fac scores"2TBL 3-Char Pub Inst Partic l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} \} $8N} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} v} $%} $ % 4   @ @ a @ Z7@  M@\ R@A 6@ l@ W@ @G @ Z@ @G @.  -@  D@ @ @  ʫ@ ;@D  @ @ @ @ @ 89@  @P @ @ @mTable 1_TOTOTOTO T`LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification`TOTOTOTO \Xv%y%y%y% bfw Research Idw Research IIdw Doctoral Idw Doctoral II e]Reputational Measuresgv%y%y%y. [hv%y%y%y. J$iQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)~ TPr@O~ Tj@O~ Tf@O~ Td@ PJjTQTQTQTP J'iProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)~ T@r@O~ T@k@O~ Tg@O~ Tf@ P Jiv%y%y%y.  J" iProgram Change (-1 -- +1)~ T1@ O~ T@ O~ T"@ O~ T"@ P YgTQTQTOTP  ^Objective Measures kTQTQTOTP  Ygv%y%y%y. J#iTotal Faculty Participation~ T<@S~ T@S~ TH@S~ T(@ PJjTQTQTOTP J+j#Percentage of Faculty Participation~ T$@O~ T$@O~ T@O~ T@ PJiTQTQTOTP J@j8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)~ TȮ@T~ T@T~ T@T~ TX@ PJjTTTTTTTP J8i0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T@T~ Td@T~ T@`@T~ T? PJiTQTQTOTP J<i4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)~ T$@T~ T @T~ T@T~ TЁ@ PJiTQTQTOTP J5j-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)~ Td@T~ T@T~ TO@T~ TP@ PJiTQTQTOTP JGi?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)~ T@Q~ T{@Q~ Ts@O~ Tv@ PJiTQTQTOTP J6j.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)~ T&@T~ T`@T~ T5@T~ T4@ PJiTQTQTOTP JDj<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)~ T@Q~ TИ@Q~ T(@O~ T؏@ PJiTQTQTOTP Dy l/t=: @! @" @# @a$ @% 7@ & M@\' R@A( 6@) l@* W@+ @G, @- @. @G/ @. 0 -@ 1 D@2 @3 i@  J3 j+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)~ Th@ T~ T>@ T~ TЫ@ T~ T@ P!JiTQTQTOTP "J9"j1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ "T@"S~ "T@C@"S~ "TN@"S~ "T@" P#JiTQTQTOTP $J>$i6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$T~ $T@$ P%JiTQTQTOTP &J.&j&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)~ &T@@&S~ &T؝@&S~ &T@&S~ &T@& P'JiTQTQTOTP (J:(j2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)~ (T@(T~ (Tt@(T~ (T@(T~ (Tģ@( P)JiTQTQTOTP *J?*j7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)~ *T@@*Q~ *T@*Q~ *T8@*O~ *T@* P+JiTQTQTOTP ,JZ,jRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,T@,T~ ,TR@, P-JiTQTQTOTP .JH.j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ .Th@.T~ .T@@.T~ .T:@.T~ .TȤ@. P/JiTQTQTOTP 0JH0j@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)~ 0T0@0T~ 0T@0T~ 0T1@0T~ 0T;@0 P1JiTQTQTOTP 2JK2iCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2Q~ 2T@2O~ 2Tp@2 P3ZlxKzVzVzW , |> 3 " l   dMbP?_*+%MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} m"F} F} $ F    @ @ p Z 7 M R 6 l W @   @  - D )@ xCTable 2DDDDDDDDfG^Quality of Faculty Scores for Public Institutions by Academic Area and Carnegie ClassificationDDDDDDDDEEEn Academic Areac Research Icc Research IIcc Doctoral Icc Doctoral IIoqLLLLLLLMsArts and Humanities~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Oa@O~ Od@Ps~ QG@Q~ Q4@Q~ Q2@Q~ Q@Ps%%N%N%N.sBiological Sciences~ O0s@O~ Ol@O~ Oe@O~ Og@P s~ QM@ Q~ Q9@ Q~ Q0@ O~ Q2@ P s%%N%N%N. s Engineering~ Or@ O~ Oh@ O~ Oh@ O~ R@e@ P s~ QJ@ Q~ Q4@ Q~ Q"@ O~ Q(@ P s%%N%N%N.)t!Physical Sciences and Mathematics~ Or@O~ O@k@O~ O f@O~ Od@Pt~ QL@Q~ Q:@Q~ Q5@O~ Q4@Ps%%N%N%N.&tSocial and Behavioral Sciences~ Oq@O~ Oj@O~ Og@O~ Oc@Pu~ QJ@Q~ Q9@Q~ Q9@O~ Q(@PrKKUVUVUW,>|-jjwjjj>   " l   dMbP?_*+%&?'?(?)?MFHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS pD; odXX"dX??U} } } } I } } I } } I } } I } } $  <   @   ;" 7@ M@ R@ 6@ l@ W" @@ @ @ @@ @ -" D@ )@@ @ @ @D  @. @ @ @ @ 89@  7@P " @ @Table 3 hH`Characteristics of Public Institutions Participating in the NRC Study by Carnegie ClassificationI = >?@ ARES IAARES IIAADOCT IA ADOCT II BTotal R&D (x $1,000) !"""""""# $%#Average~ &@&~ ' d@'~ '@'~  'i@ # $%#Minimum~ &E@&~ 'C@'~ '@^@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &&~ '|7A'~ '/A'~  'ƅ% # $%#Minimum~ &*&~ '0'~ '@Z A'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &\_A&~ '>'~ 'Fv'~  ':G # $% #Total~ &)&~ '6ڶ '~ '>wR'~  '• #$%#&&'''''# $ Expend (x $1,000).&&'''''# $%#Average~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  'ҩ@ # $%#Minimum~ &@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ # $%#Maximum~ &@&~ '@'~ ' @'~  '@ # $% #Total~ &~1&~ 'A'~ 'д@'~  '0@ #("#&&'''''# Enrollment - 1992)*&&&&&&&# $ /Total.&&'''''# $%0Average~ &=@&~ '@'~ '@'~  '@ #Dl1 > @ 89 C ;7 @! @" @# @$ @"% 7@& M@' R@( 6") l@* W@"+ @@, @- @. @@/ @0 -@"1 D@2 )@@3 @4 @5 @D 6 @.7 @8 @9 x@: x@; 89@ $% 0Minimum~ &D@ &~ '/@ '~ '@ '~ '@ # !$%!0Maximum~ !& @!&~ !' @!'~ !'@@!'~ ! '@\@! #"120&&'''''# #3 Graduate Students#/4&&'''''# $$%$0Average~ $&@$&~ $'j@$'~ $'Ԭ@$'~ $ '@$ # %$%%0Minimum~ %&|@%&~ %'@%'~ %'@%'~ % '0@% # &$%&0Maximum~ &&@&&~ &'@&'~ &'@&'~ & '@& #'120&&'''''# (3Number of Programs(56&&&&&&&# )$ )71982).&&'''''# *$%*0Average~ *&6@*&~ *'&@*'~ *'@*'~ * '@* # +$%+0Minimum~ +&@+&~ +'@+'~ +'?+'~ + '?+ # ,$%,0Maximum~ ,&C@,&~ ,'9@,'~ ,'4@,'~ , '"@, # -$% -0Total~ -&@@-&~ -'q@-'~ -'[@-'~ - 'I@- #.$%0&&'''''# /$ /71993/.&&'''''# 0$%00Average~ 0&:@0&~ 0'.@0'~ 0' @0'~ 0 '@0 # 1$%10Minimum~ 1&@1&~ 1'@1'~ 1'?1'~ 1 '?1 # 2$%20Maximum~ 2&D@2&~ 2'8@2'~ 2':@2'~ 2 ',@2 # 3$% 30Total~ 3&8@3&~ 3'x@3'~ 3'k@3'~ 3 'a@3 #4("#""#  5Year First Ph.D. Awarded5)*""# 6$%60Average~ 6& @6&~ 6'x@6'~ 6'@6'~ 6 '@6 # 7$%70Minimum~ 7&P@7&~ 7'@7'~ 7'8@7'~ 7 '@7 # 8$%80Maximum~ 8&؞@8&~ 8'̞@8'~ 8'ܞ@8'~ 8 '@8 #989:;;;;;;;: :""""""""""" ;<<< <F  @ <6 6 B >   " ࡱ; BOlePartOlePres000.Y/JMY ,   U'  ' T' f- -qq- !~q-- !~-MM- !~M-'- TArial;E--"System-'-- TArial3N-"Helveticag>---'-- g 2 8Table 13.3..--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T"Helvetica=- y2 s@LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification<<<7..E..*.7....*.7..*.*...*.*<.....<.***...--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T Helvetica=-  2  Research I0%%%%%)2 d Research II0%%%%%)2 B Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica-  '2 -Reputational Measures0%))%))%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica<- --'- -  12 aQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)4%%"%)%"%"%% HelveticaA- 2 " 2.9%% 2  2.1%% 2 1.8%% 2 t1.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - _ 62 ^aProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)-%%%8-%""%%%""%%- 2 ^" 2.9%% 2 ^ 2.2%% 2 ^1.8%% 2 ^t1.8%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - b .2 aProgram Change (-1 -- +1)-%%%80%%%%%%'%- 2 " 0.2%% 2  0.1%% 2 0.1%% 2 t0.1%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - " "2 Objective Measures4)%%%%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - N 02 MaTotal Faculty Participation)%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2 M 28.0%%% 2 M 17.7%%% 2 M18.1%%% 2 Mb16.1%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - Q <2 a#Percentage of Faculty Participation-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2  54.1%%% 2  51.6%%% 2 50.5%%% 2 b47.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  [2 a8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"0%0%"%%"%-%%%% %% %%- 2  39.4%%% 2  32.8%%% 2 25.7%%% 2 b28.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - d O2 ca0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)0%8%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2 c" 2.5%% 2 c 1.6%% 2 c1.3%% 2 ct1.5%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - g U2 a4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  10.0%%% 2  7.4%% 2 6.7%% 2 t5.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   K2 a-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%%"%%% %% %%- 2  77.8%%% 2  71.7%%% 2 62.0%%% 2 b66.5%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  z  f2 y a?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)0%%%)%"%"-%%"%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2 y " 6.1%% 2 y 4.4%% 2 y 3.2%% 2 y t3.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - } ,  L2 + a.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%-%%"%%%" %% %%- 2 +  11.0%%% 2 + 18.8%%% 2 + 21.0%%% 2 + b23.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - /   a2 a<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)0%%%)%"%"0%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2  32.8%%% 2 15.9%%% 2 9.0%% 2 b10.2%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    H2 a+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  20.1%%% 2 30.5%%% 2 35.6%%% 2 b34.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  B  Q2 A a1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92))%%0%8%%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2 A  60.4%%% 2 A 38.5%%% 2 A 44.3%%% 2 A b32.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - E   X2 a6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)-%"%%%%%%)%8%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2  35.3%%% 2 34.1%%% 2 38.4%%% 2 b34.7%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    @2 a&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)0%8%%%-%0"-%%%"%% %% %%- 2  32.0%%% 2 19.1%%% 2 22.9%%% 2 b13.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - X R2 Wa2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%?%8%% %% %%- 2 W 29.3%%% 2 W 24.9%%% 2 W32.7%%% 2 Wb25.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - [  Z2 a7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%8%%%" %% %%- 2 " 6.2%% 2  7.7%% 2 12.3%%% 2 t9.6%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   2 aRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%0-0"%%"%%%-%8%%%%0%"%%%" %% %%- 2  73.2%%% 2  69.3%%% 2 68.4%%% 2 b72.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - n g2 ma@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%)%%"%%%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2 m 27.4%%% 2 m 32.0%%% 2 m26.5%%% 2 mb26.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - q  g2 a@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%0%"%%"%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2  28.4%%% 2  26.3%%% 2 17.5%%% 2 b27.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - # l2 aCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.8%%%%)8%%%%"%%8-%%%%4%%%%%-"%%%%0%"%%%-%0- 2 " 8.9%% 2  8.9%% 2 10.3%%% 2 t9.4%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f -qU- !q-qf Uf - !qf -q~U~- !q~-    'ࡱ;  METAFILEPICT/JeY/JM ,   U'  ' T' f- -qq- !~q-- !~-MM- !~M-'- TArial;E--"System-'-- TArial3N-"Helveticag>---'-- g 2 8Table 13.3..--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T"Helvetica=- y2 s@LNRC Performance Variables for Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification<<<7..E..*.7....*.7..*.*...*.*<.....<.***...--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T--'-- f--'-- T--'-- T Helvetica=-  2  Research I0%%%%%)2 d Research II0%%%%%)2 B Doctoral I0)%)%2  Doctoral II0)%)%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica-  '2 -Reputational Measures0%))%))%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T"Helvetica<- --'- -  12 aQuality of Faculty (0 -- 5)4%%"%)%"%"%% HelveticaA- 2 " 2.9%% 2  2.1%% 2 1.8%% 2 t1.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - _ 62 ^aProgram Effectiveness (0 -- 5)-%%%8-%""%%%""%%- 2 ^" 2.9%% 2 ^ 2.2%% 2 ^1.8%% 2 ^t1.8%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - b .2 aProgram Change (-1 -- +1)-%%%80%%%%%%'%- 2 " 0.2%% 2  0.1%% 2 0.1%% 2 t0.1%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - " "2 Objective Measures4)%%%%8%%%)%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - N 02 MaTotal Faculty Participation)%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2 M 28.0%%% 2 M 17.7%%% 2 M18.1%%% 2 Mb16.1%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - Q <2 a#Percentage of Faculty Participation-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%"%%%%- 2  54.1%%% 2  51.6%%% 2 50.5%%% 2 b47.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  [2 a8Percentage of Faculty with Research Support ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"0%0%"%%"%-%%%% %% %%- 2  39.4%%% 2  32.8%%% 2 25.7%%% 2 b28.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - d O2 ca0Number of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)0%8%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2 c" 2.5%% 2 c 1.6%% 2 c1.3%% 2 ct1.5%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - g U2 a4Percentage of Faculty Awards and Honors ('86 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  10.0%%% 2  7.4%% 2 6.7%% 2 t5.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   K2 a-Percentage of Faculty Publishing ('88 - '92)-%"%%%%%%)%"%"-%%"%%% %% %%- 2  77.8%%% 2  71.7%%% 2 62.0%%% 2 b66.5%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  z  f2 y a?Ratio of Faculty Publications to Number of Faculty ('86 - '92)0%%%)%"%"-%%"%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2 y " 6.1%% 2 y 4.4%% 2 y 3.2%% 2 y t3.7%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - } ,  L2 + a.Gini Coefficient for Publications ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%-%%"%%%" %% %%- 2 +  11.0%%% 2 + 18.8%%% 2 + 21.0%%% 2 + b23.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - /   a2 a<Ratio of Faculty Citations to Number of Faculty ('88 - '92)0%%%)%"%"0%%%"%0%8%%%)%"%" %% %%- 2  32.8%%% 2 15.9%%% 2 9.0%% 2 b10.2%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    H2 a+Gini Coefficient for Citations ('88 - '92)4%0%%"%%%0%%%" %% %%- 2  20.1%%% 2 30.5%%% 2 35.6%%% 2 b34.4%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -  B  Q2 A a1Total Number of Students (FT and PT in Fall '92))%%0%8%%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2 A  60.4%%% 2 A 38.5%%% 2 A 44.3%%% 2 A b32.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - E   X2 a6Percentage of Female Students (FT and PT in Fall '92)-%"%%%%%%)%8%%-%%%%"))%%%-)%)% %%- 2  35.3%%% 2 34.1%%% 2 38.4%%% 2 b34.7%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -    @2 a&Number of Ph.D.s Produced ('87 - '91)0%8%%%-%0"-%%%"%% %% %%- 2  32.0%%% 2 19.1%%% 2 22.9%%% 2 b13.8%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - X R2 Wa2Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Women ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%?%8%% %% %%- 2 W 29.3%%% 2 W 24.9%%% 2 W32.7%%% 2 Wb25.3%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - [  Z2 a7Percentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to Minorities ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%8%%%" %% %%- 2 " 6.2%% 2  7.7%% 2 12.3%%% 2 t9.6%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- -   2 aRPercentage of Ph.D.s Awarded to U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"-0%%%%%0-0"%%"%%%-%8%%%%0%"%%%" %% %%- 2  73.2%%% 2  69.3%%% 2 68.4%%% 2 b72.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - n g2 ma@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Teaching Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%)%%"%%%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2 m 27.4%%% 2 m 32.0%%% 2 m26.5%%% 2 mb26.6%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - q  g2 a@Percentage of Ph.D.s Having Research Assistantships ('81 - '92)-%"%%%%%%-%0"0%"%%0%"%%"%-"""%%"%%" %% %%- 2  28.4%%% 2  26.3%%% 2 17.5%%% 2 b27.0%%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T- --'- - # l2 aCMedian Time Lapse from Entering Graduate School to Receipt of Ph.D.8%%%%)8%%%%"%%8-%%%%4%%%%%-"%%%%0%"%%%-%0- 2 " 8.9%% 2  8.9%% 2 10.3%%% 2 t9.4%%--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f--'- - T--'- - T--'- - f -qU- !q-qf Uf - !qf -q~U~- !q~-    ' !  ! XXX!TRY$3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T7Edd7       6XXDoctoralProgramQualityAmongPublicUniversities:  ConsiderationsandImplicationsӜ  #XnX 6#Introduction  8   Agrowingnumberofstatesareviewinghighereducationasaprivateratherthanpublicgood(Ewell1996).FacedwithrisingandmandatoryobligationstowardsK12,corrections,healthcare,andwelfare,governmentofficialsincreasinglyviewhighereducationasdiscretionaryspendingthatcanandshouldbeusedtobalancestatebudgets.Atthefederallevel,thistrendisparalleledbythoseinCongresswhosupportastrategyofbalancingthebudgetandslashingtaxestospurwhatisviewedtobelessthanoptimalshorttermeconomicgrowth.  Inboththestateandfederalequations,highereducationisacommondenominator.Alreadysubstantialdamagehasbeeninflictedinmanystatesthroughtherecessionoftheearly90's(ElKhawasandKnopp,1996;Halstead,1993;Layzell,1996).Stressonhighereducationbudgetsisbeingexacerbatedbyapublicpolicyimperativethatdictatesanewemphasisuponmarketforcesandcompetitionwithoutregardtothehistoric,incrementaldevelopmentofmanyhighereducationsystemsduringthelastthirtyyears.  Inanefforttocontrolcostsandpossiblytojustifyfurthercuts,manystatesaremovingtowardsmandatedperformancebasedfundingsystems(ChronicleofHigherEducation,1996)whichseemtoequatequalitywithproductivityfollowingacorporatemanagementphilosophy(Nedwek,1996).Inpart,thisisduetotheinherentdifficultyofdefiningorquantifyingsomethingasintangibleasquality.  Whileundergraduateeducationhasbeentheprincipalfocusoftheseefforts,thereisgoodreasontoconsidertheimpactofsuchanapproachupondoctoraleducation,whichismuchmorecostlytosubsidizeandwhichisacriticaladjuncttouniversitybasedresearchanddevelopment -), efforts,especiallyasR&Dfundingitselfisunderattack.Moreover,therenowappearstobeaglutofPh.D.sonthemarket,suggestingthatretrenchmenthereisinorder(Worthington,1996).IndeedduringthelastdecadethenumberofstudentspursuingthePh.D.hasgrownby27%from31,297in1986to39,754in1994,andthenumberofdoctoralprogramshasalsoincreasedsignificantlyashavethenumberofinstitutionsofferingdoctoraldegreesfrom458in1989tomorethan650in1993(Haworth,1996).Furthermore,evenamongfieldswhereinthepastprofessionaldoctorateswerethenorm,theglowingattractionofthePh.D.islikeabrightlightdrawingmothsonahotsummersevening.Forexample,since1984therehasbeena23%declineinthepercentageofD.S.W.degreesawardedtototaldoctoratesinthefieldofsocialworkwhichhasbeenoffsetbyacorrespondingincreaseof23%inthenumberofPh.D.sawardedinthesamefield.  Allthesefactorsdemandacriticallookatwhichinstitutionsareofferingdoctoralprogramsandwhetherornotthisrepresentsasoundpublicinvestment.SincethepublicationoftheNRCsResearchDoctorateProgramsintheUnitedStates:ContinuityandChange(1995),wehavebeen   studyingtheresultsincludedinthereportwithregardtoNRCdoctoralprogramvariablesamonginstitutionsofvariousCarnegieclassificationsunderpubliccontrol,specificallythoseamongtheResearchcategoriesandthoseintheDoctoralcategories.ThispaperwillexaminethehistoricaldevelopmentofdoctoraleducationintheUnitedStates,currentissuesconfrontingthedeliveryofdoctoraleducation,effortstoassessdoctoraleducation,andhowtheNRCperformancedatacanbeusedtoshapethefuturedirectionofpublicpolicyconcerningdoctoraleducation. xBriefReviewoftheHistoricalDevelopmentofDoctoralEducation  (#'   ThegrowthofdoctoraleducationintheUnitedStatesduringthelast130yearshasbeenspectacular,andthistrendshowslittlesignofabatingsoon.Thereareanumberoffactorsthat T,'+ accountforthisphenomenalgrowth,yetthisgrowthhasnotbeenevenovertheyears,buthascloselyparalledsocialandpoliticalevents.Becausesomuchofthisgrowthhasoccurredamongpublicinstitutions,itisnotsurprisingthatconsciouspublicpolicydecisionshaveexertedastronginfluenceinthisdevelopment.  Whilethefirstdoctoralprogramswereofferedinthe1860'sfollowingthemodelofGermaninstitutions,theintroductionofthelandgrantmodelofhighereducation,amajortransformingeventinAmericanhistory,actedasacatalysttospurthegrowthofscientificinquiryforwhichthePh.D.degreewasideallysuited.Bytheturnofthecentury,50institutionswereawarding382doctoratedegrees(Haworth,1996).Itwasatthisstageofdevelopment,thattheAssociationofAmericanUniversitieswasestablishedspecificallytoaddressgrowingconcernswithregardtopreservingtheintegrityoftheAmericandoctorateanditsperceptioninEurope.  Spurredbythetransformationfromagrariantoindustrialsociety,thedoctoratebegantorepresentmorethanaresearchcredentialandincreasinglycametohavevaluefromavocationalϜperspective.Duringthefirstfewdecadesofthe20thcentury,thenumberofdoctoratesawardedannuallygrewtoover3,000.  Notsurprisingly,withthespreadofdoctoraleducationbeyondtraditionalartsandsciencesdisciplinestofieldsasdiverseaseducation,business,andsocialwork,criticismofdoctoraleducationalsoincreased.Therewasconcernoverthetruemeaningofthedegree,itsquality,anditsintegrity.Partlyinresponsetothequestionofthemeaningofthedegree,newtypesofdoctorateswereintroducedincludingtheEd.D.,theD.B.A.,andtheEng.D.  Betweenthetwoworldwars,thefirststudyofdoctoralprogramqualityoccurred.ThefirstseriousefforttoassessdoctoralprogramsintheUnitedStateswasundertakenbyRaymondHughes h+&* in1925(Hughes,1925).Hughesconductedasurveyofdoctoralprogramsintwentyfields,representingthirtyeightofsixtyseveninstitutionsthatofferedthePh.D.atthattime.Hecompiledalistofwellnotedscholarsandaskedeachscholartoevaluatebetweentwentyandsixtyprogramsapieceinthescholarsrespectiveacademicfield.Afollowupwasconductedabout10yearslaterwithnearlyonehalfoftheprogramsreviewedbeingconsideredinadequate.TheseresultsledtoconsiderablehandwringingaboutthedirectionofdoctoraleducationintheUnitedStates,withmanybelievingthatadmissionstandardswerenotrigorousenoughandthattoomanyinstitutionswerenowofferingthedegree.  ThepostWorldWarIIperiodwitnessedfurtherdramaticgrowthinthenumberofinstitutionsofferingdoctoralprograms,thenumberofdegreesawardedannually,andthevarietyofdoctoralprograms.FueledbytheG.I.bill,undergraduateenrollmentsswelledrapidlyprovidinganeverexpandingpoolofdoctoralcandidates.Indeed,between1940and1960,thenumberofdoctoraldegreesawardedannuallymorethantripledfromroughly3,000toover10,000(Haworth,1996,p.379)fromamong125fields(in1940)toover550(in1960).By1965therewereover60differentdoctoraldegreestochoosefrombeyondthetraditionaldoctorofphilosophy.Inthemidfifties,afurtherboosttodoctoraleducationcameasaresultoftheColdWar.  WiththelaunchingofSputnik,thefederalgovernmentinjectedmassiveamountsofmoneyintoresearchanddevelopmentandthetrainingofscientistsandengineersneededtoreclaimUnitedStatesleadershippositionintechnology.Consequently,thousandsofstudentswereabletoobtainfederalsupportinpursuitoftheirdoctoralstudiesandmoreandmorecollegesanduniversitiesbegantoseetheofferingofdoctoralprogramsasessentialtotheirabilitytoattracttopnotchfacultyandtoenhancetheirinstitutionsprestige.Concomitantly,concernaboutthisrapidproliferationwas h+&* reflectedinreportsbytheAAUsAssociationofGraduateSchoolsandbyBernardBerelsons1960study,GraduateEducationintheUnitedStates.Berelsonnotedcontinuedconfusionwithregard  tothemeaningofthedegreeandrelaxedstandardswhichhesuggestedwereduetothesheargrowthanddiversityofdoctoraleducation,whichinturnwascontributingtoincreasedtimetodegreeforstudents.Amongthestudiessuggestedreforms:theneedforwelldefinedadmissionstandards;languagerequirements;intenseadvising;andseminarsinthefirsttwoyearsofstudy.Inaddition,Berelsonalsorecommendedarenewedcommitmenttotheresearchfocusofthedegreeandbelievedthatthequalityandintegrityofthedegreecouldbestbeensuredthroughlimitingitsofferingtoeliteuniversities(Haworth,1996,p.381). p   Notwithstanding,bytheearly70'stheannualproductionofdoctoratesexceeded30,000and H onceagainanotherstudyindicatedconcernovertheunrestrictedgrowth.Inherdetailedsurvey,AnnHeiss,aUCBerkeleyprofessor,notedtheproliferationoffieldsofstudyandinstitutionsofferingthedegree,theincreasingtimetodegree,alackoffinancialsupportforstudents,andoverspecialization,andthebalancebetweendevelopingstudentsresearchandteachingskills(Haworth,1996,p.382).  Yet,itwasshortlyafterthisthatacombinationoffactorsledtoasignificantdownturnintheseeminglyinexorableexpansion,whichAlanGreenspanwouldnodoubtattributetotheirrationalexuberanceofthemarket.TheendoftheVietnamWarandtheyearsofrecessionandstagnationofthemidtolate70'sledthefederalgovernmenttocutbackonitssupportofacademicscientificinquiryanditsgraduatetraineeship/fellowshipprograms,whichroughlywerecutinhalfbetween1969andtheearly80's.Fromtheperspectiveofstudentsseekingadoctorate,seeminglyovernight,opportunitiesforpostdoctoralemploymentshrankwhilegraduatetuitionskyrocketed.Indeed, h+&* graduatetuitiontripledbetween1969and1982(Haworth,1996,p.385).Someinstitutionsmovedtolimitenrollmentsinresponsetothesepressures.Thesepressuresledtoahostofreportsandrecommendationstolimitfurthergrowthofdoctoralprogramsandensuretheirintegrity.AmongtheseweretheAGSreportin1976andpolicydocumentsoftheCouncilofGraduateSchoolsin1977and1979.The1977CGSreportlistedcriteriatodistinguishhighqualitydoctoralprogramsincluding,facultysize,programstrengthinmultipleareas,scholarlyfaculty,financialassistanceforstudents,strongacademicsupportandresearchfacilities.Aswewillnoteshortly,manyofthesefactorsandrelatedmeasuresformthebasisofqualityperformanceindicatorsfordoctoralprogramsasdefinedintheNRCstudy.  Evenasthiswashappening,atremendousdemographicshiftwasabouttoalterthefaceofdoctoraleducationinadramaticway.Women,minorities,andforeignstudents,previouslydeniedadvancedgraduateeducation,wereincreasinglybeingadmittedtodoctoralprograms.Inthetwodecadesspanning1970to1990,thenumberofforeigngraduatestudentsdoubled.Whilewomenaccountedforonly18%ofalldoctoratesconferredin1973,by1993womenconstitutednearly40%ofthetotal.Similarly,doctoratesawardedtominoritystudentsrose27%between1982and1992(Kerlin,1995).  Thisdemographicshiftwasparalleledbyagrowingtrendawayfromtraditionalfieldsofdoctoralstudytoincreasingprofessionalizationdrivenbyanewdemandforinformationagescientistsandengineersanddecreasingopportunitiesforcareersinacademe.Overatwentyyearperiod,theprofessionalfieldscametodominategoingfromroughly40%ofthetotaldoctoraldegreesconferredinlate60's/early70'storoughly60%today(Haworth,1996,p.391).̛ h+&*  CurrentIssues     Itisworthnotingthatmanyofthe issuessurroundingthedeliveryofdoctoraleducation  todayarenotnewbuthaveexistedfornearlyaslongasthedegreehasbeenofferedintheUnitedStates.Astheprecedingreviewdescribes,theseincludethemeaningofthedegree,itsintegrity,thequalityofdoctoraleducation,increasingprofessionalizationanddegreeescalation,whoshouldpursuethedegree,andwhichinstitutionsshouldofferthedegree.Yet,therehasneverbeenatimeinUnitedStateshistorywhenaddressingtheseissuesheldsuchmoment.Highereducation,andinparticulardoctoraleducation,isconfrontedbyahostofchallengesthatthreatenitsfurtherdevelopment.Amongthesechallengesarereducedfundingfrombothstateandfederalsources,increasingtimetodegreeforstudents,highstudentattrition,fewerjobsuponcompletion,everincreasingstudentdebtloads,tuitionpressure,andnewtechnologyincreasingaccessibilitytodoctoraleducationasneverbefore.  Thestakesarehigh,aseveryonerealizesthatawelleducatedpopulationisamongthenationshighestprioritiesbutthattheresourcestorealizethisgoalarefiniteifnotdiminishing.Whilemanystatesmovetoperformanceindicatorsystemstohelpinformpublicpolicydecisionsconcerningsupportforundergraduateeducationwithintheirsystems,littleattentionispaidtoissuesofquality,probablybecauseevidenceforqualityattheundergraduatelevelremainselusiveintheeyesofmany,notwithstandingtheartificialstandardsofqualityimposedbythegrowingproliferationofmediarankingsofundergraduateeducationamongthenationscollegesanduniversities.  Althoughattentionhasfocusedattheundergraduatelevel,somestateshaveextendedthescopeoftheirreviewstothegraduatelevelaswell.TheseincludeNorthCarolina,Illinois, h+&* Massachusetts,Louisiana,Ohio,andGeorgia.OtherstatesincludingNewJersey,Alabama,andArkansasareactivelyconsideringsuchmeasures(CHE,1997,VolumeXLIII,No.23).Yetthesereviewshavelargelyconcernedthemselveswithissuesofcostandenrollmentandhavenot4 focusedupon4 4 considered4 quality.Butthereareconsiderabledifferencesbetweenundergraduateanddoctoraleducationwhichlendcredibilitytoincludingmeasuresofqualityinthepublicpolicydebate.AndthefailuretodosomaycondemntheUnitedStatestosecondclassstatusinthenextcenturysincesomuchdependsuponcontinuedpreeminenceinresearchanddevelopment,whichhasrelieduponanadequatelyfinancedsystemofgraduateeducationtosupportacademicbasedR&Dandthetrainingofscientistsandengineersvitaltotheenterprise.Withdiminishedgovernmentsupport,policymakersmustresistthetemptationtoallocatescarceresourcesbaseduponarbitraryconsiderationssuchasgeographicallocationandprogrampopularity.  Indeed,incontrasttothesuperficialattentionbeingpaidtoqualityindicatorsinthiscountry,Britainhasmovedwithexpeditiontoadoptasystemofinstitutionalrankingsbaseduponindicatorsofscholarlyproductivitythatformsthebasisforallocatinglimitedgovernmentresearchfunding.Theapproachhasprofoundeffectsuponhowinstitutionsorganizetheiractivitiestoachievegoals,andwillovertimediscourageorfailtorewardthoseinstitutionsthatdonotwishtomaketherequisiteinvestmentandcommitmentofresourcesneededtocompeteeffectivelyatthishigherlevelofproductivity(PatrickandStanley1996). ATheEvidenceforQualityattheDoctoralLevel  &"% Ѐ  XnXXXnTheconcernforassessingthequalityofdoctoraleducationintheUnitedStateshasbeen (#' longstanding.ThefirstseriousefforttoassessdoctoralprogramsintheUnitedStateswasundertakenbyRaymondHughesin1925(Hughes,1925).Hughesconductedasurveyofdoctoral T,'+ programsintwentyfields,representingthirtyeightofsixtyseveninstitutionsthatofferedthePh.D.atthattime.Hecompiledalistofwellnotedscholarsandaskedeachscholartoevaluatebetweentwentyandsixtyprogramsapieceinthescholarsrespectiveacademicfield.  SincetheworkofHughes,manyeffortshavebeenmadetoassessthequalityofdoctoralprogramsintheUnitedStates.Reviewers(ConradandBlackburn,1985;Tan,1986)havecategorizedthesemanyandvariedstudiesintothreegeneraltypes:reputationalstudies;objectiveindicatorstudies;andquantitativecorrelatestudies.Mostofthewellknownstudieshavebeenofthereputationaltypethesubjectiveevaluationofdoctoralprogramsbyfacultyand/oracademicadministratorstoarriveataratingforprogramswithinanacademicfield.SomeofthebestknownϢreputationalstudiesincludetheworkbyCartter(1966),RooseandAndersen(1970),Clarketal.(1976),andJonesetal.(1982).Althoughwellknown,thesestudieshavealsoreceivedthemostcriticism.Theessentialargumentagainstreputationalstudieshasbeenthattheseinquiriesaremoreanassessmentofaprogramsfacultyreputationratherthananindicatorofaprogramsoverallquality.Tan(1986)notesthat thelackofacleardefinitionordirectmeasurementofqualityisusuallycriticizedandthat somecriticsinsistthatwhatisactuallymeasuredinthesestudiesisrenownorreputation(p.243).  Onesetofstudieshassoughttocorrectthislimitationofreputationalstudiesbyassessingaprogramsqualitythroughreadilyavailableobjectiveindicesoffacultyresearchproduction.Therationaleforthisapproachisthatthequalityofadepartmentisnecessarilydependentonthequalityofitsfaculty.However,theproblemwiththispositionrelatestothelackofconsensuswithhow facultyqualitycanbemeasured.Suchstudieshaverelied,forthemostpart,onmeasuressuchas )$( thenumberandtypeofpublicationsandcitations,buthavealsoincludednonfacultyindicessuchasstudentoutcomesandinstitutionalordepartmentalfinancialresources.   Anothertypeofstudy,oftencalledquantitativecorrelatestudies,hasaimedatunderstandingthecomponentsofdoctoralprogramqualitybyseekingtodeterminethosevariablesthataremoststronglyrelatedtoreputationalinformationaboutaprogram.Usingmanyofthemeasuresfoundinobjectiveindicatorstudies,correlatestudieshavethepotentialofcontributingtoinstitutionalplanningbyidentifyingmeasuresthatunderliequalityofdifferentdoctoralprograms(e.g.,facultysize,numberoffulltimeprofessors,etc.).EhrenbergandHurst(1996)isarecentexampleofhowthecombinationofreputationalmeasuresandobjectiveindicatorsmaybeusedtoinforminstitutionalplanning.  Manycriticisms,bothmethodologicalandconceptual,havebeenleveledagainstallthreetypesofstudies(ConradandBlackburn,1985;Tan,1986;WebsterandSkinner,1996).Inadditiontothecriticismthatmanyofthesestudies,andespecially,reputationalstudies,tendtoconfusethereputationofadoctoralprogramforquality,othercriticismsincludetheexistenceof:raterbias;outdateddata;unreliableandincorrectdata;unidimensionality,i.e.,thelackofincludingmorethanoneindicatorofquality;andanatheoreticalfocusthislattercriticismisoftencitedagainstcorrelatestudies.Althoughthesecritiquestellusthatweshouldbecarefulwheninterpretingtheresultsofthesestudies,theyalsohavecontributedtoanongoingrefinementofstudiesofthiskind.TheNRCstudyrepresentsthemostrecentandperhapsthemostcomprehensiveresponsetodatetotheshortcomingsoftheearlierstudies.̜ h+&*  DataandMethodology     ThefirststepthatneedstobetakeninourconsiderationofhowtheNRCdatacanbeusedinhelpingtoshapefuturepublicpolicyregardinghighereducationistoinvestigatewhethersystematicdifferencesaretobefoundamonginstitutionsintheirperformanceintheNRCstudy.  #  1      ׀ 8  OnereadymadeandwidelyacceptedtypologyofhighereducationinstitutionsistheCarnegieclassificationofcollegesanduniversities.TheapproachusedherewithregardtotheNRCdataistocomparethevarioussectorsofpublicinstitutionsofhighereducationasspecifiedintheCarnegieclassificationsystem(i.e.,ResearchI,ResearchII,DoctoralI,andDoctoralII)alongthevariousNRCdimensionsofdoctoraleducationalquality.VariablesconsideredincludethethreeNRCϢreputationalmeasuresandthevariousobjectiveindicesofdoctoralqualityfoundintheNRCreport.  WeasktwobasicquestionsinouranalysisoftheNRCdata:doinstitutionsfromthedifferentsectorsofpublichighereducationvaryinrelationtotheirperformanceintheNRCstudy?;andiftheydo,towhatextentarethesedifferencesmanifested?  Toallowforthesecomparisons,dataforeachprogramofferedwithinaninstitutionareaggregatedtoobtainanoverallscoreforeachinstitutionthatparticipatedintheNRCreport.TheseaggregatedinstitutionalscoresarethenaveragedacrossallinstitutionswithinaparticularsectortoarriveatanaveragescoreforeachofthefourCarnegieclassifications.Thusifaninstitutionconsistentlyreceivedhighscoresforitsdoctoralprograms,thentheoverallscoreforaninstitutionwillalsobehigh.Likewise,schoolswithconsistentlypoorscoresacrosstheirgraduateprogramofferingswillhaveoverallscoresthatarepooraswell. '#& Ї % m9)%`|0;Mx `Exxx m% ' ' & % m9)%`|0;x `Exxx m% & Results     #XnXXXnBB#Resultscurrentlyinhandclearlydemonstratemarkeddifferencesbetweenperceivedquality  measuresandthetypeofinstitutionofferingdoctoraleducationinthefieldscoveredintheNRCreport.XnXXXnTable1presentsthescoresforthevariousCarnegieclassificationsectorsforthethree 8  ТreputationalmeasuresandthevariousobjectiveindicesreportedintheNRCstudy.WeseethatthescoresforthemeasurespresentedinTable1vary#XnXXXn]#consistentlyXnXXXninmagnitudeacrossthefourCarnegie  8  classificationsectors.Forexample,withregardtoqualityoffaculty,publicResearchIinstitutionsaverageascoreofjustunderthree(onascaleof0to5)whilepublicDoctoralIIinstitutionsaveragea1.66score.ThedifferencesinperformanceresultsareconsistentlygreatestbetweenpublicResearchIinstitutionsandthethreeothersectors,whiledifferencesamongtheotherthreesectorsarenotasconsistentnoraspronounced.#XnXXXng^#Notsurprisinglywithregardtoscholarlyactivity,public  p ResearchIfacultywerefoundtobemoreproductivethantheirpeersattheotherthreepublicsectorsofhighereducation.WhenothervariablesareexamineditisclearthatpublicResearchIinstitutionsproducemorePh.D.sperprogramthanpublicResearchII,publicDoctoralI,andpublicDoctoralIIinstitutions,havemuchgreaterlibraryresourcesandexpendmuchmoremoneyuponthem,andhavemuchhighernumbersoffacultyparticipatingineachprogram.XnXXXn X    PublicResearchIIinstitutionsalsogenerallyoutperforminstitutionsfromthetwoDoctoralcategories,butnottotheextentachievedbypublicResearchIinstitutions.TherearefewsubstantialdifferencesintheaveragescoresbetweenpublicDoctoralIandpublicDoctoralIIinstitutions,andforsomeofthesemeasures(e.g.,timetodegree)publicDoctoralIIinstitutionsoutperformpublic DoctoralIinstitutions. )$( ( ( - ( k(7'#`<bx `0*xExxbx k( - ) ( ( ) , ) ) , - - - m(9)%`|0;x `Exxyx m (#(#                 (#(#- . - - . .  .   Table2furtheranalyzesthequalityoffacultyreputationalmeasurebypresentingsectoraveragesforeachofthesixmajoracademicareasreportedintheNRCstudy:ArtsandHumanities;BiologicalSciences;Engineering;PhysicalSciencesandMathematics;andSocialandBehavioralSciences.AswithTable1,publicResearchIinstitutionsconsistentlyreceivehigherscoresthanthe h+&* threeotherpublicCarnegieclassificationsectors.Theacademicareawherethisdifferenceisgreatestisamongengineeringprograms,withpublicResearchIinstitutionsaveraginga3.01scoreandpublicResearchIIinstitutions,thesectorwiththesecondhighestscore,averaging1.97.+ + 2 m9)%`|0cx `O E xxR $m (#(#            (#(#2 + j+ Discussion  2    Clearly,theseresultsshowtherearemarkeddifferencesinthecharacteristicsofdoctoralprogramsofferedacrossthedifferentCarnegieclassificationsexamined,butaretheymeasuringanythingrelatedtoquality?RecentanalysisbyinvestigatorsintheU.S.(Totkoushian,etal.1996)andtheU.K.(PatrickandStanley1996)suggestthatfaculty/doctoralprogramindicatorssuchasscholarlyoutput,programsize,thenumberofdoctoralstudents,andtheabilityoffacultytoobtainresearchdollarsareallpositivelycorrelatedwith programqualityratings.Indeed,asTable3shows,schoolsbelongingtothefourCarnegieclassificationcategoriesvaryintheirinstitutionalstructureandcharacteristics. *B&0 2 m9)%`|0x `O ExxR7$m2 / '   ' / '   ' 0 # m%9)%`|0`x4) `Ex(x(yN)m# 0 1 0 m%9)%`|0`x4) `Ex(x(yN)m0 1 $ " " !   ! $ 3 3 3 m 9)%`|0x4) `Ex(x(RPN)m (#(#                      h+&* 3   Consideringthecostofgraduateeducation,itbehoovesustobeconcernedwiththeissueofϜquality.Inthepublicsector,graduateeducationcostscanbeconsideredfromthreeperspectives:student,institution,andstate.Fromtheperspectiveofthestudent,GallowayandHartle(1995)notedanincreaseofgraduatetuitionnationallyof55%between198889and199394,whileKerlin(1995)reportedonrisingstudentdebtloansamongdoctoralstudentswithloadsofover$20,000affectingover25%doctoralrecipients,accordingto1993NRCdata.  Attheinstitutionallevel,availabledatatendtoindicatethatI&DRcostsperFTEstudentareroughlytwiceashighatthedoctorallevelcomparedtothemasterslevelandnearlyfourtimesthecostofundergraduateeducation(SUNYOIR,1996;IBHE,1995).Moreover,recentworkattheUniversityofRhodeIslandsuggeststhatundergraduatetuitiontosomeextentsubsidizesthegraduateresearcheffortsoftheinstitution.  Atthelevelofstatepolicymaking,thepictureismorecomplicatedsincethereisagrowingbodyofinformationbeingcompiledbyMiddaugh(1996)thatindicatessignificantdifferencesininstructionalcostsnotonlybydisciplineanddegreelevel,butbyinstitutionalCarnegieclassificationaswell.ThegrowthofthenumberofResearchIandotherdoctoraldegree9 5 5 9 : : granting6 6 institutions7 7 in8 8 generalduringthelasttwentyyearsgreatlyexacerbatesthesituationandputsfurtherpressureonthegrowingcostsofgraduateeducation.̛  Giventhesetofcircumstancesfacingdoctoraleducation,webelievethefuturedirectionofpolicymakingneedstoshapedbytwoforces.Thefirstmustcomefromtheinternalinitiativeoftheacademythroughreform,innovationandthefurtherrefinementofwhatdoctoraleducationatthebeginningofthenextcenturyshouldbe.Muchintrospectivereflectionfocusingonthistopicisoccurring(COSEPUP1995,Brooks1996,Menard1996,Atwell1997,HartleandGalloway,1996) h+&* andaugurswellforfurtherchange.Indeed,theAAUwillbepromulgatingshortlyadditionalrecommendationsonthestatusofgraduateeducationintheUnitedStates.  ThesecondforceforchangemustbedrivenbyselectedpublicinvestmentinprogramsofϜquality.Itisthismostcrucialelementoftheequationwefindasofyetunaddressed.#X{XXX{b#Ifresources 8  areconstrained,unrestrainedgrowthcannotgoonindefinitely,yetcostconsciousstatescannotaffordtotakedecisiveactionmerelyonthebasisofcostandenrollmentdataalone.Notallinstitutionsshouldpursuedoctoraleducation. #  2      ףInCalifornia,thehistoricalapproachtothisissuehas   beentoinvestitsresourcesindoctoraleducationamonginstitutionsintheUCsystem.ThethirtyyearresultofthisstrategyhasbeenspectacularintermsofthequalityoftheprogramswithinthesystemasindicatedintheX{XXX{latestNRCrankings(WebsterandSkinner,1996).Whilethisisone H strategytoachieveandperpetuateexcellencethereisalsoanother.  Ourreview,suggeststousthattheNRCdatahavetheabilitytoservenotonlyasavaluableinternalplanningtool(EhrenbergandHurst,1996),butalsotomakeasignificantcontributiontothepublicpolicydebateconcerningthefundingofhighereducation.AsystemofperformanceindicatorssimilartothosemeasuresusedintheNRCstudyorthoseusedinBritaincanbedevelopedandstatefundingfordoctoraleducationcanbeallocateduponthisbasis.Thestakesaresimplytohightoleavepublichighereducation,and,inparticular,doctoraleducationtoanopenmarketapproach,especiallyinlightoftheheavilysubsidizedhistoricaldevelopmentofmosthighereducationsystems.Anapproachtofundingdecisionsbasedonthecollectionandanalysisofdata %0!$ asoutlinedinthispaperwillprovidepublicaccountability,willforceinstitutionstomakeafirmcommitmenttodoctoraleducation,andwilltakecontroloftheuseandmisuseofsuchinformationawayfrommediapunditsandplaceitbacksquarelywithintheacademywhereitrightfullybelongs.  Bysodoingwecanstemarisingtideofmediocrityinpublicdoctoraleducation,curbwastefulspending,andenhancethenationalreputationofmanyofourstrugglingpublicsystems.Webelievesuchanapproachdeservesseriousconsiderationbybothinstitutionsandstatecoordinatingboards.̜   p    XXFsReferences#XFsX#   h& &XXFs & & &&  &&  "  "    +"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  AssociationofGraduateSchools.(1976).TheResearchDoctorateintheUnitedStates.Washington,D.C.:  AssociationofGraduateSchools.& & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Atwell,R.(1996).Doctorateeducationmustmatchneedsandrealities.ChronicleofHigherEducation,Nov.  f 29.& & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Brooks,P.(1996).GraduateLearningasApprenticeship.ChronicleofHigherEducation,Dec.20.   & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  ChronicleofHigherEducation.(1997).Followingrevisions,manystateslooktocutacademicprograms. D   ChronicleofHigherEducation,Feb.14. j  & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Clark,M.J.,Hartnett,R.T.,&Baird,L.L.(1976).AssessingtheDimensionsofQualityinDoctoralEducation:   ATechnicalReportonaNationalStudyinThreeFields.Princeton,N.J.:EducationalTestingService.   & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  CommitteeonScience,Engineering,andPublicPolicy.(1995).ReshapingtheGraduateEducationof H  ScientistsandEngineers.NationalAcademyofSciences. n & & &&  &&  "  "     "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Conrad,C.F.&Blackburn,R.T.(19985).Programqualityinhighereducation:Areviewandcritiqueof  literatureandresearch.InJ.C.Smart(Ed.),HigherEducation:HandbookofTheoryandResearch,11,New  York:AgathonPress.& & &&  &&  "  "    i"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  CouncilofGraduateSchoolsintheUnitedStates.(1977).TheDoctorofPhilosophyDegree.Washington, "r D.C.:CouncilofGraduateSchools.& & &&  &&  "  "    V"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  CouncilofGraduateSchoolsintheUnitedStates.(1977).RequirementsofthePh.D.Washington,D.C.:  CouncilofGraduateSchools.& & &&  &&  "  "    <"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Ehrenberg,R.G.&Hurst,P.J.(1996).The1995NRCratingsofdoctoralprograms.Change,28(3). &v #& & &&#& & &&  &&  "  "    ("&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Ewell,P.(1996).Thecurrentpatternofstatelevelassessment:resultsofanationalinventory.Developing " aWorkableSystemofPerformanceIndicators.SCUP:Michigan.& & &&   #& & &&4#& & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  ElKhawas,E.&Knopp,L.(1996).CampusTrends1996.& & &&Washington,D.C.:AmericanCouncilon T!" Eduation.& & &&  &&  "  "    t"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Galloway,F.J.&Hartle,T.W.(1995).Studentborrowing:Howmuchistoomuch?Unpublishedreport. #&% AmericanCouncilonEducation.& & &&  &&  "  "    Y"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Goldberger,M.L.,Maher,B.A.,&Flattau,P.E.(1995).ResearchDoctorateprogramsintheUnitedStates: X&!( Continuityandchange.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress. .'~") & & &&  &&  "  "    y"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Graham,A.G.,Lyman,R.W.&Trow,M.(1995).Accountabilityofcollegesanduniversities:Anessay.New (*$+ York:ColumbiaUniversity.& & &&  &&  "  "    _"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Halstead,K.(1993).StateProfiles:FinancingPublicHigherEducation1978to1993.Washington,D.C.: \+&. ResearchAssociates. 2,'/ Ї& & &&  &&  "  "    ]"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Hartle,T.W.&Galloway,F.J.(1996).ToomanyPh.D.stoomanyM.D.s.Change.Sep./Oct.  & & &&  &&  "  "    !"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Haworth,J.G.(1996).DoctoralprogramsinAmericanhighereducation.InJ.C.Smart(Ed.),Higher \ Education:HandbookofTheoryandResearch,11,NewYork:AgathonPress. 2 & & &&  &&  "  "    H"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Jones,L.V.,Lindzey,G.,&Coggeshall,P.E.(1982).AnAssessmentofResearchDoctorateProgramsinthe . UnitedStates.Fivevolumes.Washington,D.C.:AcademyPress.   & & &&  &&  "  "    g"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Kerlin,S.(1995).Survivingthedoctoralyears:Criticalperspectives.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives, `  3(17). 6   & & &&  &&  "  "    W"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Layzell,D.T.(1996).Developmentsinstatefundingforhighereducation.InJ.C.Smart(Ed.),Higher  2  Education:HandbookofTheoryandResearch,11,NewYork:AgathonPress.   & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Magner,D.K.(1995).Longawaitedsurveyranks3,634doctoralprogramsnationwide.TheChronicleof d  HigherEducation,Sep.22,p.A20. :  & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Menard,L.(1996).HowtomakeaPh.D.matter.NewYorkTimesMagazine,Sep.22. 6 & & &&  &&  "  "    5"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Nedwek,B.A.(1996).Publicpolicyandpublictrust:Theuseandmisuseofperformanceindicatorsinhigher  education.InJ.C.Smart(Ed.),HigherEducation:HandbookofTheoryandResearch,11,NewYork:Agathon h Press.& & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Patrick,W.J.&Stanley,E.C.(1996).Assessmentofresearchquality.ResearchinHigherEducation,37(1), : pp.2341.& & &&  &&  "  "    l"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  StateofIllinoisBoardofHigherEducation.(1995).199394AcademicDisciplineUnitCostStudyand1993 l 94ComparativeCostStudyforIllinoisPublicUniversities.& & &&  &&  "  "    o"&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  StateUniversityofNewYork(1996).CostofAcademicPrograms,IndirectandDirectCostsbyProgram, > StateOperatedCampusesFall1994.OfficeofInstitutionalResearch,Reportno.2196.  & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Tan,D.L.(1986).Theassessmenrofqualityinhighereducation:Acriticalreviewoftheliteratureand p  research.ResearchinHigherEducation,24(3). F ! & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Toutkoushian,R.,Dundar,H.,&Becker,W.E.(1996).TheNRCGraduateProgramRatings:Whatarethey !B# Measuring.UniversitySystemofNewHampshire,OfficeofPolicyAnalysisWorkingPaperSeries. "$ & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Webster,D.C.&Skinner,T.(1996).RatingPh.D.programs.Change,28(3). t$& & & &&  &&  "  "    "&X& ""&X&&"&X& &&"&X& & &&  Worthington,R.(1996).DoctoratesFacingJobShortage.KnightRidderNewspapers.#& & &&#ԛ