Abstract: This study is one of a larger inquiry into organizational stratification. About U.S. medical schools it asks: How does a sample of full-time clinical and basic science medical school faculty rank 94 medical schools as to quality of faculty and effectiveness of instruction? And: What are the structural correlates of such rankings? The resulting rank order takes on significance as it affects recruitment and placement of students and faculty. Measures of aggrandizement (inflated estimates of worth by insiders) are estimated. Characteristics of medical schools that correlate with perceived quality are: research and publication, eminence of faculty, training and research grants available, size of full-time faculty, and perceived effectiveness of training. While the data support the view that reputation stems from functionally appropriate performance, there is some evidence of a ceiling effect (Harvard) and a halo effect for schools affiliated with universities having national reputations. Regional location is positively associated with perceived reputation in the North and West, negatively in the South. Caveats are entered about interpreting the data. There is now a history spanning almost 50 years of studies that attempt to measure the quality of graduate departments of Arts and Sciences in the United States. The earliest assessment was by Raymond M. Hughes; three decades later a study was made by Hayward Keniston, followed by two American Council on Education studies, by Allan M. Cartter, and by Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen.' The last two studies reported rankings for engineering departments, but not for other professional schools. Very little previous work has been done on the reputations, or comparative perceived quality, of professional schools generally, and medical schools specifically.2 This paper reports findings of a study designed to examine the reputational standings of American medical schools as assessed by the community of physicians and scientists who work in them.3 While reputation should not be equated with quality, it also should not be dismissed as an insignificant part of the social reality of the medical community.4 Reputation makes a difference because it has multiple consequences for students, for faculty members, and for medical schools. Students are concerned with the reputation of medical schools when they elect to apply to some rather than others. They are aware that the reputation of their alma mater has an impact on their subsequent career mobility; they perceive the medical school as a first, but critical stepping stone in the medical career, opening or closing future opportunities. *This study was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation to the Columbia University Program in the Sociology of Science, NSF-SOC72-95326; by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where the first author was a Fellow in 1975-76; and by a Guggenheim Fellowship, held by the first author in 1975-76. We thank Bernard Barber, Peter M. Blau, Stephen Cole, and Robert K. Merton for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Abstract: Various means of evaluating teaching are discussed along with the pros and cons of wing each method for improving teaching or making personnel decisions.

Abstract: Facultj development programs vary considprnbiy, as the results of a recent sunley of 756 colleges and universities indicate.

Abstract: This paper develops a methodfor measuring the "incentive structure" of a college or university. A trial instrument was constructed and administered to the faculty of a private university in order to determine: (1) the relative importance of possible incentives to faculty, and (2) the perceived relationship between specific teaching and research behaviors and the probability of receiving various incentives. The results indicate that for this institution research-related behaviors are perceived to have greater influence on the reception of key incentives than do teaching-related behaviors. Although the results cannot be generalized empirically because of the single-institution sample, a critical evaluation of the methodology may prove useful to other universities planning similar self-studies.

Abstract: The evaluation of afaculty dtveiopinent program should include the nature of tlw program and how it interacts with the largcr univmity, as well as the acromplishnirrit of preypecijed objectiws.

Abstract: A professional development model is presented for the effective utilization of part-time instructors in cornmunity colleges.

Abstract: Models and guidelines are proposed to assist staff development specialists in their evaluations.

Abstract: One community college illustrates the steps taken to create a caring staff community and makes recommendations for other institutions.

Abstract: Difficult financial times appear to lie ahead for higher education, and efforts to increase instructional productivity may be required. What kinds of efforts will faculty members support or at least condone? The answer would appear to lie in awareness of the process of faculty socialization. It is argued that through the collegiate experience, the future college professor is socialized to a conventional teaching role, which is grounded firmly in a traditional instructional model, and that efforts to increase instructional productivity must be cognizant of and consistent with this role and model. Empirical data from faculty in eight Pennsylvania colleges supported the hypothesis—with one important refinement: adjustments must be made for the implications of enlightened faculty self-interest.

Abstract: As departments of family medicine succeed in recruiting faculty members from the ranks of practicing physicians and from other clinical disciplines, they are faced with the problem of how to help these new members function comfortably and effectively in their new roles as teachers, administrators and academicians. This paper addresses part of this problem by reviewing the literature on faculty development through workshops. Consistent components of effective faculty development workshops are presented as guidelines for future workshop planners.

Abstract: In the aftermath, of the retrenchment of the early '70's, the academic community today continues to experience economic and psychological stress. Financial pressures still threaten the continuity of its efforts, and the portent of increasingly strong external controls augurs poorly for the preservation of traditional professional autonomy. Although the discomfort is unpleasant, some benefits of the condition have arisen. Through forced introspection, the profession can now be seen with more precision. ^hat has become especially clear is the pressing need of academia not only to improve its performance with respect to its outside publics but simultaneously to create new kinds of organizational structures more conducive to faculty productivity and satisfaction. The latter is critical to the former.

Abstract: Community college professionals offm their perceptions of staff development programs in Florida and Illinois.

Abstract: The author was interested in identifying and changing the interaction behavior and questioning techniques of fourteen community/junior college professors enrolled in his summer institute. Modern technological facilities, including microteaching laboratories with complete videotaping capabilities, were used in training the professors in the use of Flanders Interaction Analysis and questioning strategies. Pre- and posttraining videotapes were used to collect data. The differences between pre- and posttraining lessons for the total class were significant for eight variables.

Abstract: This survey was a result of the efforts of the New Jersey Consortium on the Community College to identify and articulate the faculty/staff development needs of the 17 community colleges of New Jersey. In depth interviews were conducted with administrators, faculty and students at all the colleges. Follow up questionnaires were completed at each community college. A two day workshop was then conducted to identify and assign priorities to specific needs. The needs were ordered in one of three categories: Fulfilling the Goals of the Community College, Teaching/Learning Needs, and Managerial Needs. The workshop that dealt with “Ways of Meeting Part-Time Faculty Needs” identified eight essential goal related needs while stressing the need for adjunct faculty to understand the philosophy and function of the community college. Within the teaching/learning category the workshop group amplified the need for adjunct faculty to understand how learning occurs. The primary managerial need identified was for e...

Abstract: a typical college in the United States a decade or so ago. The place seems very much alive and growing, with departments adding a few people every year or so. Fresh from graduate school or from another institution, these colleagues provide a source of new ideas and vitality. Faculty members who grow bored with their work or think their careers are not progressing rapidly enough can always find a more rewarding position in some other college. Aside from granting sabbaticals or sponsoring an occasional workshop, most institutions pay little attention to instructional improvement. "Faculty development" is a term seldom heard. Now consider the current scene. A

Abstract: A faculty evaluation system should be developed by cooperation between evaluation specialists and dental faculty. The system should depend on a broad spectrum of data collected from a variety of sources in order to reduce personal bias and subjective judgments concerning the performance of all faculty members. Its primary purpose should be to help faculty improve and to this end should be linked to both a faculty development program and a reward system. The criteria for each faculty member9s evaluation should be clearly specified in advance and be directly linked to his duties. Department and college goals must be considered as well as the individual faculty member9s own interests. Standards or criteria for both rewards and sanctions should be clearly defined, and guidelines for the operation of the system should be given to each participant. The system itself should not cost more than the benefits derived from it justify, and adequate resources should be allocated to make the system effective.