Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:33:01.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Student Numbers and Sustaining Courses and Fields in Ph.D. Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

George C. Davis  and
Ernesto Perusquia
George C. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Ernesto Perusquia
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many agricultural economics departments are concerned about the vitality of their Ph.D. programs. A particular problem is insufficient student numbers to justify teaching certain courses or fields. As a consequence, much faculty time can be spent debating alternative program structures without any real idea of the likelihood that a proposed program structure will succeed. This article presents a framework for deriving some analytical and empirical results for alternative Ph.D. program structures. A downloadable program is used to generate some representative results that will hopefully help others minimize speculations and time spent in committee or departmental meetings.

Keywords

Ph.D. programsstudent numbersA2Q1
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 531 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, J.M., and Pardey, P.G.. Making Science Pay: The Economics of Agricultural R&D Policy. Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Alston, J.M., and Pardey, P.G.. “Agricultural Research: Benefits and Beneficiaries of Alternative Funding Mechanisms.” Review of Agricultural Economics 21,1(Spring/Summer 1999):2–19.Google Scholar
Huffman, W.E., and Just, R.E.. “Funding, Structure, and Management of Public Agricultural Research in the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(November 1994):744-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, W.E., and Orazem, P.. “An Econometric Model of the Market for New Ph.D.s in Agricultural Economics in the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(December 1985):1207-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, R.E., and Huffman, W.E.. “Economic Principles and Incentives: Structure, Management, and Funding of Agricultural Research in the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74,5(December 1992):1101-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendenhall, W., Scheaffer, R.L., and Wackerly, D.D.. Mathematical Statistics with Applications, 2nd ed. Boston: Duxbury Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Norton, V., Colyer, D., Norton, N.A., and Davis, L.-Swing. “Issues and Trends in Agricultural and Agricultural Economics Research Funding.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77(December 1995):1337-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, G.M. “Research and Extension Expenditures Rising.” Choices, 2nd quarter 2000, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, K.D., Heisey, P.W., Klotz-Ingram, C., and Frisvold, G.B.. “Competitive Grants and the Funding of Agricultural Research in the U.S.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Tampa, Florida, July 30-August 2, 2000.Google Scholar
Schrimper, R.A. “Trends and Characteristics of Ph.D. Degrees in Agricultural Economics in the United States.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67,5(November 1985):1200-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrimper, R.A. “Output and Employment Characteristics of Recent Ph.D.'s in Agricultural Economics in the South.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association, Memphis, Tennessee, February 1, 1999.Google Scholar