The educational quality of the doctoral programs in public affairs: A comparative analysis of the National Research Council Data

Public affairs scholars have been concerned about the quality of education in their field for some decades. To assess the program quality, the authors analyzed the National Research Council's most recent data. In the comparative analyses between the public affairs programs and the programs in other social science disciplines, they found that public affairs doctoral programs were behind their peer fields on most of the input-based metrics (students fully funded in their first year of education, median quantitative GRE scores, and percentage of international students in programs) but ahead of them in student-faculty ratios. The results of the outcome-based metrics were mixed. Public affairs students graduated earlier on average, but smaller percentages of them had plans for employment in academic positions. Also, the faculty productivity was lower in public affairs programs compared to the other social science disciplines. Among the subfields of public affairs, public management and public policy had more favorable input- and outcome-based results compared to public administration.