Top Rhetoric Graduate Programs. Affiliated PhD Programs. The Designated Emphasis (DE) in Writing, Rhetoric, and Composition Studies (WRaCS). What Is a Composition and Rhetoric Doctorate. The discussion of graduate programs in composition and rhetoric was proceeding with a fair amount. PhD Degrees in Composition and Rhetoric: Program. Top Rhetoric Graduate Programs.
Rhetoric Review's 2. Survey of Doctoral Programs. Portrait of the Profession: The 2. Survey of Doctoral Programs in Rhetoric and. Composition. 1Richard Enos observes in his. Preface” to the 1. Rhetoric. Review doctoral survey that in the best circumstances, “change comes. The fourth survey. Brown. Jackson, and Enos, 2. Brown, Meyers, and Enos, 1. Chapman and Tate. Programs continue to be founded, and existing ones change focus or. Sixty- seven programs are represented in the online survey. As the table. below shows, programs offer a number of different options for obtaining a. Degree Offered. Ph. D in English with concentration 3. Ph. D in Rhetoric and Composition 7. Ph. D in Technical/Professional Communication 5. Ph. D in English 4. Ph. D in Rhetoric 2. Other 1. 1 We present the types of dissertations. Numbers in parentheses are from the 1. Dissertation Types. Rhetoric/Composition pedagogy 1. Theory of rhetoric and/or composition 1. Technology and communication 8. History of rhetoric and/or composition 8. Literacy studies 6. Literary studies (rhetorical emphasis) 4. Rhetorical criticism 4. Nonacademic or workplace studies 4. Political rhetoric 3. Linguistics 2. 8. Visual rhetoric 2. Theory of technical/professional communication 2. Writing center studies 2. Technical/Professional communication pedagogy 2. Writing across the curriculum 2. Program evaluation or assessment 1. Writing program administration 1. Medical rhetoric 1. History of technical/professional communication 7. Programs reported 7. In the period between 2. Rationale and Methodology. We revisited the 2. We. continue to believe that the profiles presented offer the profession a tool for. We further see this survey as a means of reflection on. It also provides an opportunity to promote distinctive. As noted. in the 2. We did not attempt to rank programs; programs are. We began collecting data from programs in. Listserv notices about the survey and its. Consortium of Doctoral Programs and WPA. Listserv. Additionally, some programs’ responses were solicited through. Although there were some frustrations with the form, most. Essentially, the. Profiles of the programs. We still find some inconsistency of. Many departments have no central data collection points. Program identity is. As Louise Phelps is finding in her. Visibility Project for the Consortium of Doctoral. Programs in Rhetoric and Composition, comprehensive data on the profession are. Growth. At the 2. CCCC meeting of the Consortium. Doctoral Programs in Rhetoric and Composition, Phelps reported that 7. Consortium, although several were still in the. Ph. D programs. Included in the Rhetoric Review online survey are. Sixty- five programs were profiled in 2. Chapman and Tate identified 5. New programs that we are aware of but are not represented include University of Central Florida. University, University. Memphis, and Oklahoma State. University. Eight. Catholic University of. America. University of Illinois at Chicago. University. of Mississippi. University. of Pittsburgh. University. of Southern Mississippi. University. of Southwestern Louisiana. Temple. University. University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. We have only anecdotal information about. Two reported that program. Others indicated that their. This is a. slight increase in average number of faculty per program from 7. Programs report 2. Professors, 1. 92. Associate Professors, and 1. Assistant Professors, suggesting that faculty are. The data also. suggest that the fewer numbers of Assistant Professors may create a vacuum in. Students matriculating in rhetoric and. Ph. D programs show a slight decline at 1,1. Female students (7. Other significant demographics from the 2. Student/Applicant. Demographics. Ph. D students in department 3,8. Ph. D students in rhetoric/composition/related 1,1. International students 2. Students 3. 5 years of age or older 3. Female students 3. Male students 3. 5 years of age or older 1. Female minority students 9. Male minority students 3. In- state residents 3. Out- of- state residents 4. Numbers of applicants and numbers of admittances continue to show growth as. Applicants 0. 6- 0. Applicants 0. 5- 0. Applicants 0. 4- 0. Applicants 0. 3- 0. Applicants 0. 2- 0. Admits 0. 6- 0. 7 3. Admits 0. 5- 0. 6 3. Admits 0. 4- 0. 5 3. Admits 0. 3- 0. 4 2. Admits 0. 2- 0. 3 2. Matriculated 0. 6- 0. Matriculated 0. 5- 0. Matriculated 0. 4- 0. Matriculated 0. 3- 0. Matriculated 0. 2- 0. Average time to. degree is 5. Ph. Ds across all disciplines. Diversity. of admission criteria continues among programs. The table below represents the. Admit Criteria. Goals/statement of purpose 1. Writing sample 2. Perceived fit of applicant with program's goals 3. Letters of recommendation 4. Graduate GPA (MA level) 5. Research Interests 6. GRE scores 7. Type of MA degree 8. Teaching experience 9. Source of MA degree 1. Undergraduate GPA 1. Personal knowledge of applicant 1. Undergraduate type 1. Work experience 1. Undergraduate source 1. Other Criteria 1. Note: 5 rank holistically. To reiterate our observation from the survey in 1. As Janice Lauer has argued, the. With an average salary at less than $1. Number% of Total ( 6. Responding. Health. Long- term disability. None reported 2. 3 3. On the other hand, programs continue to. Job. Placement Demographics. Average. percentage of job- seeking graduates with no more than 2 dissertation chapters. Average percentage. Number of. graduates who have received tenure- track positions 1. Number of. graduates who have received nontenure- track positions 3. Number of. graduates who have received nonacademic positions 1. Number of. graduates who have not received job offers 8 Number of. Job Placement by Institution Type. Doctoral- granting 1. International 5. 4. MA- granting 4. 5. Four- year university 4. Four- year liberal arts college 2. Two- year college 1. Industry 5. Government 2. K- 1. 2 (private or public) 1. Trade or Vocational 1. Self- employment 1. Other 1 Job Types. Teaching. within emphasis (rhetoric and composition) 6. Research. with teaching in emphasis (rhetoric and composition) 6. Writing. program administration 5. Teaching across. emphases (rhetoric, composition, literary studies, etc.) 2. Writing. center administration 7 Teaching. English studies 3 Consulting 1 Literacy. Publications. management/editorial work 0 Organizational. Other 3 Challenges and Opportunities. Programs report a number of challenges. Several indicate they will be hiring new. Notably, conflicts within. English departments, especially with literary studies, are not mentioned as. Ominously, new conflicts seem to. Most commonly cited are mentoring and individual attention. The profiles reveal much about what we don’t know. Further. research is necessary to obtain a representative portrait of the students who. Here we would like to observe the many. IRB policies to technical delays and computer glitches to a real resistance on. Information about. Additional. information about faculty would be of value. Knowledge about workload issues. And finally, larger questions. Are our Ph. D programs preparing graduates for the kinds of careers that. How do we justify ourselves and our resources, no matter how. Individual programs may necessarily collect some of this information and. Notes. 1The 2. 00. Survey of Doctoral Programs in Rhetoric and. Composition was approved by the New Mexico State University Institutional. Review Board on April 1. Human Subject Application #2. Exempt Pre). 2. Consistent with earlier surveys, we use the term rhetoric and composition as a. English degree with emphasis in rhetoric and composition. The 1. 99. 4 survey included two Canadian programs (Simon Fraser University and University of Waterloo. Meyer, and Theresa Enos. Brown, New Mexico State University. Theresa. Enos, The University of Arizona. David. Reamer, The University of Arizona. Jason. Thompson, The University of Arizona. This is a preprint of an article printed in Rhetoric Review.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |