You are here:

The 1995 ratings of doctoral programs: A hedonic model
ARTICLE

,

Economics of Education Review Volume 17, Number 2 ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

We describe how one can use multivariate regression models and data collected by the National Research Council as part of its recent ranking of doctoral programs (Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change) to analyse how measures of program size, faculty seniority, faculty research productivity, and faculty productivity in producing doctoral degrees influence subjective ratings of doctoral programs in 35 academic fields. Using data for one of the fields, economics, we illustrate how university administrators can use the models to compute the impact of changing the number of faculty positions they allocate to the field on the ranking of their programs. Finally, we illustrate how administrators can “decompose” the differences between a department's rating and the ratings of a group of higher ranked departments in the field into difference due to faculty size, faculty seniority, faculty research productivity, and faculty productivity in producing doctoral students. This decomposition suggests the types of questions that a department and a university should be addressing if they are serious about wanting to improve the department's ranking.

Citation

Ehrenberg, R.G. & Hurst, P.J. The 1995 ratings of doctoral programs: A hedonic model. Economics of Education Review, 17(2), 137-148. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved November 29, 2020 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on February 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(97)00038-1