|
|
|
| Membership Career Services Meetings The Profession Government Relations Public Awareness Customer Services | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
About the AMSAMS MembershipGovernanceGiving to the AMSPrizes & AwardsContact Us
201 Charles Street
Phone: 401-455-4000
Or email us at |
Recent Trends in Graduate Admissionsin Mathematics DepartmentsRecent Trends in Graduate Admissionsin Mathematics Departments
by
James W. Maxwell and Don O. Loftsgaarden
IntroductionDuring the first several months of 1996 anecdotal reports of a significant drop-off in the number of and, in some instances, quality of applicants to various graduate programs in mathematics circulated within the mathematics community. In response to the concerns raised by these reports, the American Mathematical Society (AMS) conducted a tightly focused survey whose aim was to provide more reliable information on the nature of this problem. This report describes the results of that survey. In late May, the survey form was sent by email to the directors of graduate programs of 71 departments randomly selected from the 176 Ph.D.-granting mathematics departments that are routinely surveyed by the AMS. A copy of the survey form appears in Appendix A. The sample was drawn so as to support separate projected estimates for four groupings of the departments. These groupings are based on the reputational ranking of mathematics programs in a 1995 report of the National Research Council. These groupings are updates of those traditionally used in the AMS-IMS-MAA Annual Survey. A more complete description of these groupings and a listing of the departments in each appears in Appendix B. Group I now consists of the top 48 mathematics departments, Group II the next 56, and Group III the remaining 72. Group I is further divided into the 25 departments at public institutions, Group I Public, and the 23 departments at private institutions, Group I Private. The reports of the 1996 Annual Survey will be based on these updated groupings.
Updated Annual Survey Groupings of Math Departments
lists the
schools in Groups I, II and III.
Results of the SurveyQuestion 1 asked the sampled departments to report the number of applications they received for admission to graduate school in the fall of 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. They were also asked to report separately the number of applications by U.S. citizens and permanent residents and by non-U.S. citizen temporary residents. These results are reported in Table 1. For all groups combined, the size of the pool of applications for admission in fall 1996 declined 30% from the fall 1994 figure. The declines vary among the different groups. The least decline was for Group I Private, 19%, the greatest decline for Group III, 37%. For all groups combined, the pool of applications by U.S.-citizens for admission in fall 1996 declined 32% from the fall 1994 figure. Group I Public departments reported a decline of 43% while Group I Private reporting a decline of 20%. Applications by non-citizens declined 29% from fall 1994 to fall 1996, with Group III reporting the largest decline, 38%.
Assuming individuals have not significantly decreased the number
of applications they submit to graduate school over the past two
years, the results in Table 1 indicate a substantial drop in the
number of individuals submitting applications.
Question 2 asked the sampled departments to compare the quality of the pool of applicants for admission in fall 1996 with the quality of the pool of applicants for admission in fall 1995. They were also asked to make the same comparison independently for U.S. citizens and permanent residents and for non-U.S. citizen temporary residents. The results are reported in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c. The reader should be especially cautious in interpreting the trends reported due to the subjective nature of the judgment asked for in this question. For all groups combined, there appeared to be no upward or downward shift in the quality of the pool of applicants. Among the various groups of departments, Group II reported a downward trend in quality while Group III reported an upward trend in quality. For U.S. citizen and permanent resident applicants, there was an upward trend in quality from fall 1995 to fall 1996 for all groups combined. This upward trend was strongest for Group I Public and Group III.
For non-U.S. citizen temporary residents, there was no significant
change in quality over all groups combined. Groups I Public and
Group I Private reported a slight upward trend in quality, while
Group II reported a slight downward trend in quality.
Question 3a asked departments to report the number of applicants admitted for fall 1996, the fall 96 class. In addition, Question 3b asked departments to indicate whether or not the size of the fall 96 class was less than or about equal to the number they were seeking to admit. Table 3 reports the results of these questions.
The size of the fall 96 class is projected to be 2,384 for all
groups combined. This can be compared with a fall 94 class of
2,546 for these same groups combined, as reported in the Second
Report of the 1994 AMS-IMS-MAA Annual Survey. (See Table 5A, August
1995 NOTICES of the AMS, page 872.)
Question 4 asked the sampled departments to compare the quality of those admitted for fall 1996, the fall 96 class, with the quality of those admitted for fall 1995, the fall 95 class. They were also asked to make the same comparison independently for U.S. citizens and permanent residents and for non-U.S. citizen temporary residents. The results are reported in Tables 4a, 4b, and 4c. The reader should be especially cautious in interpreting the trends reported due to the subjective nature of the judgment asked for in this question. Group I Public and Group I Private each report a decidedly upward trend in the quality of fall 96 class over the fall 95 class, Group III somewhat less so. Only Group II reports a downward trend.
The upward trend in quality reported by Group I Public and Group
I Private holds independently for the U.S. citizens and permanent
residents, and for the non-U.S. citizen temporary residents. Likewise
the downward trend reported by Group II holds independently for
both citizenship groupings.
The responses to Questions 5 and 6 could not be meaningfully projected
to the full population of departments.
Next Year
The AMS hopes to conduct a second survey in the late spring of
1997 along the lines of this survey. Those responsible for graduate
admissions within their department are encouraged to set up mechanisms
for tracking key characteristics of the pool of applicants for
admission. Characteristics that might be considered key include:
gender, citizenship/visa status, standardized test scores, and
previous mathematical sciences degrees.
About the authors:
James W. Maxwell is the AMS Associate
Executive Director for Professional Programs and Services and
an ex-officio member of the AMS-IMS-MAA Data Committee. Don O.
Loftsgaarden is Professor of Mathematics at the University of
Montana and also a member of the Data Committee. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments: webmaster@ams.org |
|