You are here:

Faculty productivity in supervising doctoral students’ dissertations at Cornell University
ARTICLE

,

Economics of Education Review Volume 24, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Most research on faculty productivity focuses on the research ability of faculty members. This paper provides a new means of looking at faculty productivity by analyzing a second responsibility of faculty members: producing new Ph.D.'s. The authors first utilize a Lorenz curve analysis to establish that graduate student supervision is most equally distributed among faculty members in the physical sciences and least equally distributed among social science faculty. The second part of the paper uses a negative binomial regression model to investigate what faculty attributes affect how many graduate students a faculty member will supervise in a six-year period. The results suggest that, on average, a faculty member's prestige and her length of time at the institution are significant factors in predicting productivity.

Citation

Crosta, P.M. & Packman, I.G. (2005). Faculty productivity in supervising doctoral students’ dissertations at Cornell University. Economics of Education Review, 24(1), 55-65. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved January 27, 2023 from .

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

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.03.011

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bratsberg, B., Ragan, J.F., & Warren, J.T. (2003). Negative returns to seniority New evidence in academic markets. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(2), pp. 306-323.
  2. Cornell University Graduate School (2002). Annual report of the graduate school Cornell University 2001–2002. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Graduate School.
  3. Ehrenberg, R.G., & Hurst, P.J. (1998). The 1995 NRC ratings of doctoral programs A hedonic model. Economics of Education Review, 17(2), pp. 137-148.
  4. Ehrenberg, R.G., & Smith, R.S. (2003). Modern labor economics Theory and public policy. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
  5. Fox, M.F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), pp. 285-305.
  6. Fox, M.F. (1991). Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. The Outer Circle, pp. 239-258. New York: Norton.
  7. Ginther, D.K., & Hayes, K.J. (2003). Gender differences in salary and promotion for faculty in the humanities, 1977–1985. Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), pp. 34-73.
  8. Hamermesh, D. (1989). Why do individual-effects models perform so poorly? The case of academic salaries. Southern Economics Journal, 56(1), pp. 39-45.
  9. Hamermesh, D., Johnson, G., & Weisbrod, B. (1982). Scholarship, citations and salaries Economic rewards in economics. Southern Economic Journal, 49(2), pp. 472-481.
  10. Hargens, L., Cole, S., Simon, G., & Cole, J.R. (1988). Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review, 53(1), pp. 139-151.
  11. Kim, S. (2003). The impact of research productivity on early retirement of university professors. Industrial Relations, 42(1), pp. 106-125.
  12. Levin, S.G., & Stephan, P.E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81(1), pp. 114-132.
  13. Lotka, A.J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), pp. 317-323.
  14. Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), pp. 56-63.
  15. Moore, W.J., Newman, R.J., & Turnbull, G.K. (1988). Do academic salaries decline with seniority? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(2), 352–366.
  16. Rees, A., & Smith, S.P. (1991). Faculty retirement in the arts and sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  17. Rock, S., Sedo, S., & Willenborg, M. (2000). Analyst following and count-data econometrics. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30(3), pp. 351-373.
  18. Stata Corporation (2003). Stata base reference manual, Vol. 3, N-R, release 8. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
  19. Stephan, P.E., & Levin, S.G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science The importance of age, place and time. New York: Oxford University Press.
  20. Thilmany, D.D. (2000). Gender based differences of performance and pay among agricultural economics faculty. Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(1), pp. 23-33.
  21. Winkelmann, R. (2003). Econometric analysis of count data. Berlin: Springer.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References