Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso educativo Open Access |
| Sprache: | en |
| Veröffentlicht: |
1977
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED185917 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1867181891743907841 |
|---|---|
| author | Webster, David S. |
| author_facet | Webster, David S. Webster, David S. |
| collection | Education Resources Information Center |
| contents | A Brief History and Critique of Published Ratings of Graduate School Departments. Webster, David S. Academic Libraries College Environment College Faculty College Students Comparative Analysis Departments Doctoral Programs Educational Quality Educational Resources Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Methods Full Time Students Grades (Scholastic) Graduate Study Intellectual Disciplines Job Placement Masters Programs Program Evaluation Rating Scales Reading Habits Student Characteristics Student Employment Student Teacher Relationship Teacher Characteristics Three commonly used methodologies for ranking undergraduate and graduate colleges and programs are compared and evaluated. The first is that of Jack Gourman. It uses a scoring system similar to that of the College Board Examinations with scores from 200 to 800, assigned in two areas: one for the strength of academic departments, and one for important nondepartmental features of the institution. The second, devised by Beverley Hurlbert, has been used only in anthropology. It uses exchange theory, wherein the relative status of people or groups is measured by their patterns of personal interaction. The third methodology uses the ratings of experts, collated to produce a single final rating. These are called the (Allan) Cartter and Roose-Andersen studies. Each methodology is explained and criticized. It is concluded that the best way to evaluate and rank academic departments would be to create a rating system that is at the same time more objective and more subjective than existing methods. Objective ratings would include those of faculty degrees, honors, and publications; student quality as measured by undergraduate school and grades; proportion of students that are enrolled full-time; faculty-student contact hours; student job placement; library resources and accessibility; and others. Subjective measurements would include number and quality of student interactions; student reading habits in the field of study; field-related campus resources outside the department; and stimulation of the departmental ambiance. A bibliography is included. (MSE) |
| format | Recurso educativo Open Access |
| id | eric_ED185917 |
| institution | ERIC Institute of Education Sciences |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 1977 |
| record_format | eric |
| spellingShingle | A Brief History and Critique of Published Ratings of Graduate School Departments. Webster, David S. Academic Libraries College Environment College Faculty College Students Comparative Analysis Departments Doctoral Programs Educational Quality Educational Resources Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Methods Full Time Students Grades (Scholastic) Graduate Study Intellectual Disciplines Job Placement Masters Programs Program Evaluation Rating Scales Reading Habits Student Characteristics Student Employment Student Teacher Relationship Teacher Characteristics A Brief History and Critique of Published Ratings of Graduate School Departments. Webster, David S. Academic Libraries College Environment College Faculty College Students Comparative Analysis Departments Doctoral Programs Educational Quality Educational Resources Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Methods Full Time Students Grades (Scholastic) Graduate Study Intellectual Disciplines Job Placement Masters Programs Program Evaluation Rating Scales Reading Habits Student Characteristics Student Employment Student Teacher Relationship Teacher Characteristics Three commonly used methodologies for ranking undergraduate and graduate colleges and programs are compared and evaluated. The first is that of Jack Gourman. It uses a scoring system similar to that of the College Board Examinations with scores from 200 to 800, assigned in two areas: one for the strength of academic departments, and one for important nondepartmental features of the institution. The second, devised by Beverley Hurlbert, has been used only in anthropology. It uses exchange theory, wherein the relative status of people or groups is measured by their patterns of personal interaction. The third methodology uses the ratings of experts, collated to produce a single final rating. These are called the (Allan) Cartter and Roose-Andersen studies. Each methodology is explained and criticized. It is concluded that the best way to evaluate and rank academic departments would be to create a rating system that is at the same time more objective and more subjective than existing methods. Objective ratings would include those of faculty degrees, honors, and publications; student quality as measured by undergraduate school and grades; proportion of students that are enrolled full-time; faculty-student contact hours; student job placement; library resources and accessibility; and others. Subjective measurements would include number and quality of student interactions; student reading habits in the field of study; field-related campus resources outside the department; and stimulation of the departmental ambiance. A bibliography is included. (MSE) |
| title | A Brief History and Critique of Published Ratings of Graduate School Departments. |
| topic | Academic Libraries College Environment College Faculty College Students Comparative Analysis Departments Doctoral Programs Educational Quality Educational Resources Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Methods Full Time Students Grades (Scholastic) Graduate Study Intellectual Disciplines Job Placement Masters Programs Program Evaluation Rating Scales Reading Habits Student Characteristics Student Employment Student Teacher Relationship Teacher Characteristics |
| url | https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED185917 |