Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:09:25.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rating the Rating: An Analysis of the National Research Council's Appraisal of Political Science Ph.D. Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert W. Jackman  and
Randolph M. Siverson
Robert W. Jackman
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Randolph M. Siverson
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Not surprisingly, the ratings of doctoral programs in the United States by the National Research Council (NRC 1995) are controversial. Some interpret the ratings as an indicator of relative program quality; others view them as little more than a gauge of the size and age of graduate programs, and still others deem them to be simply a popularity barometer.

Employing data assembled in the NRC report, we examine whether the political science program ratings reflect two general sets of characteristics—the size and the productivity of faculty.

All other things equal, program quality should vary directly with faculty size, and indeed size is emphasized as a key explanatory factor in the NRC report. The logic is straightforward. Very small departments lack the means to field a range of graduate courses of sufficient breadth to form the basis of a serious program. Larger departments enjoy the increased resources that allow for greater program depth and breadth. In addition, holding quality concerns constant, larger programs should on average receive higher ratings simply because they include more faculty.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 155 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For their helpful suggestions, we thank Colin Cameron, Russell Dalton, Mary Jackman, Ross Miller, and Brian Silver.

References

Allison, Paul D., Long, J. Scott, and McGinnis, Robert. 1993. “Rank Advancement in Academic Careers: Sex Differences and the Effects of Productivity.” American Sociological Review 58:703–22.Google Scholar
Amemiya, Takeshi. 1984. “Tobit Models: A Survey.” Journal of Econometrics 24:3–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. 1983. The Economics of Inequality, 2d. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Berk, Richard A. 1990. “A Primer on Robust Regression.” In Modern Methods of Data Analysis, Fox, John and Long, J. Scott, ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cole, Jonathan R., and Cole, Stephen. 1973. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kmenta, Jan. 1986. Elements of Econometrics, 2d ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Thielens, Wagner Jr. 1958. The Academic Mind: Social Scientists in a Time of Crisis. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1982. An Analysis of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Social and Behavioral Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1995. Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. 1958. “Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables.” Econometrica 26:24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, David S., and Massey, Sherri Ward. 1992. “The Complete Rankings from the U.S. News and World Report 1992 Survey of Doctoral Programs in Six Liberal Arts Disciplines.” Challenge 35:22–45.Google Scholar