Search

In this article the author discusses a study by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) which ranked American graduate school programs and examines reasons he believes the research methods used in the study produced a low quality report. He examines his rationale for resigning from his position as part of the NRC's evaluation committee, argues that the process used to collect data from college teacher surveys regarding program reputation were flawed, and describes the differences between objective and subjective data used in the report. Other topics include citation counts, research program quality, and comments from University of Chicago professor Stephen M. Stigler on index values.

The article discusses the notion of productivity in relation to university and college faculty. Topics include the role of scholarly publishing in academic culture, the nature of philosophy as a discipline in relation to productivity, and the role of ranking and rating in U.S. higher education in light of prestige and reputation.

The article discusses why attempts by universities to increase their institutional prestige may be futile. A study by Michigan State University analyst Kyle V. Sweitzer and Pennsylvania State scientist J. Fredericks Volkwein revealed that the majority of colleges did not improve their reputations due to peer-assessment survey methods. The study suggested that the amount of high-achieving freshmen enrolled at a college and graduation rate improvements were key factors in changes to a college's reputation. A second study indicated that low-ranked colleges had a greater chance of improving their rankings based on score changes than high-ranked schools. Higher education professor J. Douglas Toma suggested that attempts to increase college prestige could alienate some students and teachers.