National Research Council (NRC) Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs
The National Research Council (under the auspices of the National Academies, which includes the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine) recently completed its comprehensive study of research doctoral programs. Here you will find information on the 2010 NRC Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States.
The information included here summarizes the rankings as released September 2010. Revisions to those rankings were released on April 21, 2011 and are available here.
What is the purpose of the study?
The doctoral program assessment from the National Research Council offers an unprecedented collection of data on over 5,000 research doctoral programs in 62 fields at 212 universities in the United States. The data for the study were collected during the 2005-2006 academic year and covered such characteristics as: faculty publications, grants, and awards; student GRE scores, financial support for students and employment outcomes; program size (student and faculty), completion rates and time to degree; diversity of faculty and students.
This large dataset will enable university faculty, administrators, and funders to compare, evaluate, and improve programs. Prospective students can use the data to help identify programs best suited to their needs. Universities will be able to update important data on a regular basis, so that programs can continue to be evaluated and improved.
The assessment also illustrates how the data can be used to compare programs based on particular characteristics of importance to the user rather than a singular ranking. It does not include an authoritative declaration of the 'best programs' in given fields, as the study committee concluded that no single such ranking can be produced in an unambiguous and rigorous way.
How should one use the NRC study?
It is important to note that the data were collected in the 2005-2006 academic year, and some of the data are from as early as 2002. Many programs have changed significantly in that time. KU is committed to collecting current data and is working with other AAU institutions to ensure that we maintain compilations of current program data.
The current NRC study is an important piece of this data collection effort because:
- It provides benchmarking to help universities improve the quality of their doctoral programs.
- It helps prospective students make intelligent and informed choices about programs by providing transparency on doctoral program data.
- It provides the public with readily available information on our research universities.
Important links:
For the full methodology and report, go to the National Research Council’s site, or a brief overview of the NRC assessment.
There are multiple ways to view the data; we recommend the tool developed by The Chronicle of Higher Education or that developed by Phds.org. To use the phds.org site, follow these suggestions:
- Click on Find Graduate programs
- Click on the Broad Field, then select the program you are interested in
- Scroll down to ‘Choose your own Priorities’ and click on 5 for ‘NRC quality measure’
- Scroll down farther and click on ‘Rank programs’
- All the programs will be listed in order of R Quality.
- Check up to four boxes for particular institutions ( it says 5 but I couldn’t get it to display them all)
- Click ‘Compare’
- A new page will display the histograms for the R and S rankings.
The Chronicle site allows you to compare programs on specific characteristics that went into the rankings.
University of Kansas Program Placement into NRC Taxonomy
Below is a list of KU graduate programs that were included in the NRC. To review a program report, click on the program name under KU Program Name for NRC Study.
| KU Program Name for NRC Study | NRC Field |
| Aerospace Engineering | Aerospace Engineering |
| American Studies | American Studies |
| Anatomy and Cell Biology (KUMC) | Cell and Developmental Biology |
| Anthropology | Anthropology |
| Behavioral Psychology (Applied Behavioral Science) | Psychology |
| Biochemistry and Biophysics | Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology |
| Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (KUMC) | Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Structural Biology |
| Chemical and Petroleum Engineering | Chemical Engineering |
| Chemistry | Chemistry |
| Civil and Environmental Engineering | Civil and Environmental Engineering |
| Clinical Child Psychology | Psychology |
| Communication Studies | Communication |
| Computer Science | Computer Sciences |
| Ecology and Evolutionary Biology | Ecology and Evolutionary Biology |
| Economics | Economics |
| Electrical Engineering | Electrical and Computer Engineering |
| English | English Language and Literature |
| Geography | Geography |
| Geology | Earth Sciences |
| Germanic Languages and Literatures | German Language and Literature |
| History | History |
| History of Art | History of Art, Architecture and Archaeology |
| Linguistics | Linguistics |
| Mathematics | Mathematics |
| Mechanical Engineering | Mechanical Engineering |
| Microbiology | Microbiology |
| Microbiology, Molecular Genetics and Immunology (KUMC) | Microbiology |
| Molecular and Integrative Physiology (KUMC) | Physiology |
| Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology | Cell and Developmental Biology |
| Nursing (KUMC) | Nursing |
| Pharmacology and Toxicology | Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics (KUMC) | Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health |
| Philosophy | Philosophy |
| Physics | Physics |
| Political Science | Political Science |
| Psychology | Psychology |
| Sociology | Sociology |
| Spanish | Spanish and Portuguese Language and Literature |
| Theatre and Film | Theatre and Performance Studies |
Methodology
The 2010 NRC study and rankings are different from previous reputation-based rankings, and is the most comprehensive study to date, with over 5000 doctoral programs in 62 fields from 212 institutions participating in the survey. The study consists of three parts:
- the collection of quantitative data through questionnaires administered to institutions, programs, faculty, and (in a few selected areas) to students who have been admitted to candidacy,
- the collection of additional program data on publications, grants and citations (from Thompson Reuters ISI Web of Knowledge), and dissertation keywords, etc., and
- the design and construction of a methodology for program ratings using the collected data including quantitatively based estimates of program quality.
The overall assessment offers data for each program on the following 20 characteristics:*
| -- Publications per allocated faculty member -- Citations per publication -- Percent faculty with grants -- Awards per allocated faculty member -- Percent interdisciplinary faculty -- Percent non-Asian minority faculty -- Percent female faculty -- Average GRE scores -- Percent 1st-yr. students with full support -- Percent 1st-yr. students with external funding |
-- Percent non-Asian minority students -- Percent female students -- Percent international students -- Average PhDs, 2002 to 2006 -- Average completion percentage -- Median time to degree -- Percent students with academic plans -- Student work space -- Student health insurance -- Number of student activities offered |
The data were collected in the 2005-2006 academic year through questionnaires sent to those identified as doctoral faculty by their institutions, as well as through questionnaires sent to the heads of doctoral programs, administrators, and students. Information on characteristics such as publications and citations came from public sources and uses a considerably longer timeframe.
Data on these 20 characteristics served as the basis for the illustrative rankings included in the assessment. In addition, the assessment offers data on some characteristics not incorporated in the illustrative rankings, such as the percent of program faculty who are tenured and the percent of students employed as research or teaching assistants.
*For computer science and humanities fields, only 19 are included; citations are not included.
Ranges of Rankings Calculated
Because not all program characteristics are equally important in all fields, the 20 characteristics were weighted for each of the 62 fields in the study. The NRC used two methods to weight the 20 characteristics – the so-called R (regression-based) weightings and the S (survey-based) weightings.
The R-rankings were derived by asking select faculty members to evaluate the quality of specific doctoral programs in their fields. The NRC then compared faculty evaluations to program characteristics to determine the weightings of the characteristics. Using these weights, program data were submitted to 500 random-halves regression analyses, creating a set of R-rankings. As the R-rankings rely on evaluation of actual programs, they have a reputational component built into them.
The S-rankings were derived by asking faculty in each field to determine the importance of each of the 20 characteristics, independent of any specific program. The responses to the survey on importance of program characteristics creating the weightings that went into the regression analysis. Again, 500 random-halves regression analyses created a set of S-rankings. The S-rankings have no reputational component.
For each ranking method (the R and S rankings), the top 25 ranks (top 5%) and the bottom 25 ranks (bottom 5%) from the 500 regression analyses were eliminated; the resulting range of rankings is derived from the remaining 450 regression analyses for each program. The range of rankings for a given program is the 5th percentile ranking (the highest ranking) to the 95th percentile ranking (the lowest ranking).
Why the two different methods? It is important to note that size of program made a difference in the R-rankings, favoring larger programs. Size did not play a part in the S-rankings.
Illustrative rankings are also provided for each field in faculty research, student support and outcomes, and program diversity.
top