Science. 1978 Mar 24;199(4335):1310-4. doi: 10.1126/science.199.4335.1310.
Peer ratings of the quality of doctoral program faculties were obtained in a 1975 national survey of chemistry, history, and psychology programs. The ratings were then compared to those obtained 6 and 11 years earlier by the American Council on Education. In general, the rankings obtained from the ratings proved to be highly stable over the 11-year period, particularly in chemistry and history. Some ratings were also obtained for subspecialties within the three disciplines. Though it is clear that variations in quality among subspecialty faculties do exist and are important for individual program evaluations, it is unlikely that such subspecialty ratings would be feasible or useful in national surveys of the reputations of doctoral programs. The ratings were found to be highly related to a number of research-oriented variables of departments (such as size, productivity, percentage of alumni holding academic positions at Ph.D.-granting universities), but unrelated or very weakly related to such features as the student-reported quality of teaching and degree of faculty concern for students, or faculty-reported degree of departmental effort toward the career development of junior members of the faculty.
1975 年，对化学、历史和心理学专业的全国性调查中获取了博士课程教师的同行评价。然后将这些评价与美国教育理事会（American Council on Education）在 6 年和 11 年前获得的评价进行了比较。总的来说，这些排名在 11 年内非常稳定，特别是在化学和历史领域。在这三个学科的专业领域内也获得了一些专业评价。尽管不同专业领域的教师质量确实存在差异，并且对个别课程的评估很重要，但在全国范围内对博士课程的声誉进行专业评价是不可行或没有用的。这些评价与系里的一些以研究为导向的变量高度相关（如规模、生产力、拥有博士学位的校友在授予博士学位的大学任职的比例），但与学生报告的教学质量和教师对学生的关心程度，或者教师报告的系里为教师的初级成员的职业发展所付出的努力程度等特征无关或关联度很低。
