|
Indicator II-20
|
Degree Completions in Languages and Literatures Other than English
|
|
NOTE TO READERS: Please include the following reference when citing data from this page:
"American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Humanities Indicators, http://HumanitiesIndicators.org".
|
|
Figures depicting language degree counts and the discipline’s share of all degrees have been updated with data for academic years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 (4/6/2011).
|
|
See the
Note on the Data Used to Construct Degree-Related Indicators,
the
Note on the Calculation of Shares of Degrees Awarded to Members of Traditionally Underrepresented Ethnic Groups,
the
Note on Racial/Ethnic Composition of Total U.S. Population,
the
Note on the Data Used to Calculate the Number of Degree Completions in English Language and Literature and in Languages and Literatures Other than English, the Note on the Definition of Advanced Degrees,
and the
NSF and CIP Discipline Code Catalog (for an inventory of the specific degree
programs included by the Humanities Indicators under the heading of “Languages and
Literatures Other than English”).
Trends in degree completions in languages and literatures other than English (LOTE)
over the last four decades are similar to those observed in English (Indicator II-18,
English
Language and Literature Degree Completions) and history (Indicator II-19,
History
Degree Completions).1 Thus, while the number of LOTE degrees grew fairly
steadily from 1966 into the early 1970s, the next decade saw a sharp reversal of
this trend (Figures II-20a, II-20b, and II-20c). During that period, the number
of students awarded LOTE degrees declined steadily for a total decrease of slightly
more than 50% at the bachelor’s and doctoral levels and closer to 60% at the master’s
level.
At all three degree levels completions have rebounded, but to differing extents.
Other than during a brief period in the mid-1990s, the number of bachelor’s degrees
has increased. By 2009 the number was 19,031, 87% of the 1969 zenith. The mid-1990s
saw the number of master’s degrees reach approximately 55% of the early 1970s high
point. The remainder of the 1990s brought another decline in master’s awards. But
then completions began to rise again, and since 2006 the number of master’s degrees
has been slightly above the mid-1990s peak recovery level. For Ph.D. awards, the
highest level of recovery from the deep slump of the 1980s came in 1998, when degree
completions reached 73% of their 1973 high, a level near which they remained through
2009.
At the height of their popularity in the late 1960s and early 1970s, LOTE degrees
represented approximately 3% of all degrees at the bachelor’s and doctoral degree
levels and 2% of master’s degrees. Subsequently these shares declined, bottoming
out in the mid- to late 1980s. At that time, the share of all bachelor’s degrees
awarded by LOTE programs was approximately a third of what it had been at its greatest,
while the discipline’s share of all master’s degrees was 24% of what it had been
at its height. The decline was not quite as pronounced at the doctoral level: in
1988, LOTE’s share was approximately 45% of what it had been in its peak year of
1973. The LOTE share of degrees was fairly constant at these reduced levels up through
2009.
Data on the racial/ethnic distribution of LOTE degrees over the 1977–2007 period
reveal that after a decline in the 1980s the percentage of bachelor’s and master’s
degrees awarded to members of traditionally underrepresented ethnic groups began
to rise (Figures II-20d and II-20e). At the bachelor’s level, this growth continued
until 2001, when the underrepresented minority share reached approximately 22% (up
from 14% in 1977). The share remained at this level through 2007. At the master’s
level, growth was almost constant through 2007, bringing the share of master’s degrees
awarded to these students up to 18%, an increase of seven percentage points from 1977.
The increase at each level was driven almost entirely by a surge in the proportion
of LOTE degrees awarded to Hispanic students. The percentage of bachelor’s and master’s
degrees going to members of other ethnic groups remained at a low level (less than
5% for each group) throughout the period. (For an explanation of how these percentages were calculated, see the
Note on the Calculation of Shares of Degrees Awarded to Members of Traditionally Underrepresented Ethnic Groups.
For information regarding the racial/ethnic composition of the total U.S. population,
see
Note on Racial/Ethnic Composition of Total U.S. Population.)
For Ph.D.’s, the share of LOTE degrees awarded to traditionally underrepresented
minorities rose steeply in the early 1980s but then declined. By the mid-1990s the
percentage was back down to the level observed in the late 1970s (Figure II-20f).
But beginning in 1995, the percentage grew steadily, so that by 2002, the proportion
of doctorates awarded to these students was 15%, an increase of seven percentage points
over the 1977 level. Since the early 2000s the share has declined somewhat and was
12% in 2007. As at the lower degree levels, movement in the minority share of Ph.D.’s
was due almost entirely to changing levels of doctorates awarded to Hispanic students.
A striking development in LOTE degrees between 1977 and 2007—although the trend
has been far from linear, with strong surges followed by steady declines—was the
increase in the share of advanced degrees awarded to temporary residents. At the
master’s level, the 2007 share of 19% represented a 13-point increase from 1977.
In the case of doctoral degrees, the share was 31%, up 22 points from the late 1970s.
In contrast, at the bachelor’s level temporary residents earned a consistently small
share (approximately 2–3%) of LOTE degrees throughout this period.
In 1966, women were already the majority of those receiving bachelor’s and master’s
degrees in LOTE (Figure II-20g). From then on, while the percentage of female bachelor’s
recipients remained steady at 70%, the number of female master’s recipients increased,
with the percentage rising from 58% in 1966 to approximately 70% in 1977, a level
near which it remained for most of the subsequent 30 years. The share of LOTE doctorates
awarded to women saw steeper increases. Hovering at about 30% in the late 1960s,
women’s share grew steadily thereafter, and in 1977 gender parity was achieved.
By 2007, women represented 57% of all recipients of LOTE doctorates (the largest
proportion of LOTE Ph.D.’s earned by women, 62%, was recorded in 2001).
Note
1 The degree counts presented as part of the Humanities Indicators do
not include so-called double major degrees. When degrees are earned concurrently
in this way, only the first degree is counted. Although second degrees are not common
(in the 2006–2007 academic year, they accounted for 5.2% of all degree completions),
anecdotal evidence suggests that a preponderance of such degrees are in the humanities.
Second-degree data first became available via WebCASPAR in November 2010. If resources
permit, an analysis of these data will be conducted in 2011.
Data on the number of students completing minors are not gathered as part of the
data collection program from which these degree completion counts are drawn,
but such information was compiled for selected humanities disciplines as part of
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences–sponsored Humanities Departmental Survey
(HDS; see the HDS final report, page 8, Table 12).
Note on the Definition of Advanced Degrees
According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES)
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Glossary, master’s degrees are “awards that require
the successful completion of a program of study of at least the full-time equivalent
of 1 academic year, but not more than 2 academic years of work beyond the bachelor’s
degree.”
The NCES, which collects the degree completion data presented as part of the Humanities
Indicators, defines first professional degrees as those awards that require completion
of a program that meets all the following criteria: (1) completion of the academic
requirements to begin practice in a profession; (2) at least two years of college
work prior to entering the program; and (3) a total of at least six academic years
of college work to complete the degree program, including prior required college
work plus the length of the professional program itself. According to NCES, the
following ten fields award first professional degrees:
Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.)
Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.)
Law (LL.B., or J.D.)
Medicine (M.D.)
Optometry (O.D.)
Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.)
Pharmacy (Pharm.D.)
Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.)
Theology (M.Div., M.H.L., B.D., or Ordination)
Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M. or V.M.D.)
Although some fields (e.g., library science, hospital administration, and social
work) require specialized degrees for employment at the professional level, NCES
does not count degrees in these fields as first professional degrees; instead, they
are treated as master’s degrees.
Whereas all doctorates had previously been included in a single category, for academic
years 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 NCES gave schools the option of employing a new classification
system that distinguishes between three types of doctorate degrees:
Research/Scholarship—A Ph.D. or other doctoral degree that requires advanced work
beyond the master’s level, including the preparation and defense of a dissertation
based on original research, or the planning and execution of an original project
demonstrating scholarly achievement;
Professional Practice—A doctoral degree conferred upon completion of a program providing
the knowledge and skills for the recognition, credentialing, or licensing required
for professional practice; or
Other—A doctoral degree that does not meet the definition of the research/scholarship or professional practice doctorate.
Schools could classify certain degrees that had historically been treated as first
professional degrees as either “Professional Practice” doctoral degrees (as in the
case of medical degrees, for example) or master’s degrees (as in the case of advanced,
nondoctoral degrees in theology).
To ensure comparability with previous years, for 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 the Humanities
Indicators counted as doctorates all of those degrees classified by postsecondary
institutions as “Doctorate Degree,” “Doctorate Degree—Research/Scholarship,” or
“Doctorate Degree—Other.” The HI treated as “master’s and professional degrees”
those degrees classified by schools as “Doctorate Degree—Professional Practice,”
“First Professional Degree,” or “Master’s Degree.”
For more information about NCES’s new system for classifying advanced and other
degrees, which is required for the purposes of IPEDS reporting for academic year
2009–2010 and eliminates the first professional degree category, please see http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/submit_data/changes0809.asp.
Back to Content
|
Note on the Data Used to Calculate the Number of Degree Completions in English Language and Literature (ELL) and in Languages and Literatures Other than English (LOTE)
For the years 1966–1986, degree completion data are available only by the National
Science Foundation’s (NSF) standardized disciplinary categories. For those years,
the Humanities Indicators uses NSF’s “English and Literature” category as the basis
of its ELL degree counts. This category includes degrees earned in comparative literature,
classics, and classical languages and literatures (but omits degrees in ancient
and medieval Greek and Latin—these are included by NSF in its “Foreign Languages”
category).
For years 1987 and later, when degree completion data are available by the more
detailed Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), the Humanities Indicators
treats degrees in classics, classical languages and literatures, Greek, and Latin
as LOTE degrees. Comparative literature degrees are excluded from the ELL degree
counts for this latter period. A subsequent iteration of the Humanities Indicators
will include a separate indicator for comparative literature, which is considered
by the Humanities Indicators to be its own discipline.
For an explanation of the difference between the NSF and CIP classification systems
as well as an inventory of the various degree programs that are included by the
Humanities Indicators under the headings of “English Language and Literature” and
“Languages and Literatures Other than English,” see the
Note on the Data Used to Construct Degree-Related Indicators).
Back to Content
|
Note on the Data Used to Construct Degree-Related Indicators
The data that form the basis of these indicators are drawn from the U.S. Department
of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics’s (NCES) Higher Education
General Information System (HEGIS) and its successor, the Integrated Postsecondary
Educational Data System (IPEDS), through which institutions of higher learning report
on the numbers and characteristics of students completing degree programs (as well
as a variety of other topics; for more on this major data collection program, see
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/). The HEGIS/IPEDS
degree-completion data going back to 1966 have been made easily accessible to decision-makers,
researchers, and the general public by the National Science Foundation (NSF) via
its online data analysis tool
WebCASPAR. The NSF has traditionally
used the NCES data to tabulate science and engineering degree awards as part of
its
Science and Engineering Indicators Program, which since 1973 has issued a biennial report
designed to provide public and private policymakers with a broad base of quantitative
information about the U.S. science, engineering, and technology enterprise.
The NSF has developed a set of standardized disciplinary categories that can be
used across the various data sources it relies upon to construct its indicators.
Because the NSF focuses on trends in science and engineering education, its disciplinary
classification is most detailed in these areas. The utility of the NSF system for
the purposes of the Humanities Indicators (HI) is limited. For example, the NSF
scheme does not distinguish between the academic study of the arts, considered by
the HI to be part of the humanities, and art performance. This makes it impossible
for the HI to include in its tally those degrees conferred in the areas of musicology,
art history, film studies, and drama history/criticism. Moreover, while the HI considers
such disciplines as archeology, women’s studies, gay and lesbian studies, and Holocaust
studies to be part of the humanities field, NSF categorizes them as social sciences.
Additionally, NSF places interdisciplinary degrees in areas such as general humanities
and liberal studies in a broad “Other” category that includes degrees for many disciplines
that are clearly not within the purview of the humanities as conceptualized by the
HI. Consequently, such interdisciplinary degrees, along with those mentioned above,
cannot be captured in humanities degree counts from 1966 to 1986.
For 1987 and later years (1995 and later for data on the race/ethnicity of degree
recipients), however, NSF also categorizes earned degrees according to the more
detailed Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP), which permits a more precise
count of humanities degrees; that is, a count that includes degrees in all those
programs that are part of academic disciplines included within the scope of the
humanities for the purposes of the HI. (For an inventory of the disciplines and
activities treated as part of the humanities by the HI, see the Statement on the Scope of the “Humanities”
for Purposes of the Humanities Indicators.) The CIP was first developed
by NCES in 1980 as a way to account for the tremendous variety of degree programs
offered by American institutions of higher learning and has been revised three times
since its introduction, most recently in 2009 (this version is referred to as “CIP
2010”). The CIP has also been adopted by Statistics Canada as its standard disciplinary
classification system.
For the purposes of the Humanities Indicators the CIP has several advantages over
the NSF classification system. For example, because the NSF system groups degrees
in the nonsectarian study of religion with those awarded in programs designed to
prepare students for religious vocations and since the latter type of degree is
much more common, the HI cannot include what the NSF considers to be degrees in
religion in the humanities degree counts for years prior to 1987. With CIP-coded
data, however, academic disciplines such as comparative religion can be separated
from vocational programs such as theology and thus can be included in the humanities
degree tally. Additionally, when using CIP-coded data, the HI can include degrees
in all the excluded disciplines mentioned above, from art history to Holocaust studies,
in its counts of humanities degrees from 1987 onward. For an inventory of the NSF
and CIP disciplinary categories included by the HI under the broad field headings
(“humanities,” “natural sciences,” etc.) used throughout Part II of the HI, see
the
NSF and CIP Discipline Code Catalog. This catalog also indicates which degree
programs are included by the HI within specific humanities disciplines (e.g., for
the purposes of the HI, English degrees include those classified under CIP as being
in “English Language and Literature,” “American Literature,” and “Creative Writing,”
among others).
In constructing indicators that use IPEDS data to track long-term historical trends
in the academic humanities, the HI has employed completion data that were classified
using both the NSF and CIP systems. In these cases, either a note accompanying the
chart or a break in the trend line indicates where estimates based on the NSF classification
system leave off and those based on CIP begin. For those indicators reporting degree
data gathered in 1987 or more recently (1995 or more recently for the charts and
tables describing the proportions of all degrees received by members of racial/ethnic
minority groups), CIP-coded data are used.
In the case of several of the degree-related indicators, the humanities are compared
to certain other fields such as the sciences and engineering. The nature of these
fields is specified in the
Statement on the Scope of the “Humanities” for Purposes of the Humanities Indicators.
These broad fields do not encompass all postsecondary programs. Therefore, where
fields are being compared in terms of their respective shares of all degrees, the
percentages will not add up to 100%. Also, none of the graphs showing change over
time includes a data point for the academic year 1999, because the NCES did not
release data for that year.
The degree counts presented as part of the HI do not include so-called double major
degrees. When degrees are earned concurrently in this way, only the first degree
is counted. Although second degrees are not common (in the 2006–2007 academic year,
they accounted for 5.2% of all degree completions), anecdotal evidence suggests
that a preponderance of such degrees are in the humanities. Second-degree data first
became available via WebCASPAR in November 2010. If resources permit, an analysis
of these data will be conducted in 2011.
Data on the number of students completing minors are not collected as part of IPEDS,
but such information was compiled for selected humanities disciplines as part of
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences–sponsored Humanities Departmental Survey (HDS; see the HDS final report, page 8, Table 12).
Back to Content
|
Note on the Calculation of Shares of Degrees Awarded to Members of Traditionally
Underrepresented Ethnic Groups
The shares of all degrees earned by members of traditionally underrepresented racial/ethnic
groups were calculated by dividing the number of humanities degrees completed by
students identified by their institutions as African American (non-Hispanic), Hispanic,
or American Indian/Alaska Native by the total number of degree completions in the
humanities. Not included in the count of traditionally underrepresented
minorities were (1) students designated by their educational institutions as being
of “Other/Unknown Ethncity”* and (2) international students—that is, temporary
residents who were in the United States for the express purpose of attending school
and who were likely to return to their home countries upon graduation (significant
numbers of these individuals may be of African or Hispanic background, but the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the compiler of these data, does not request
that institutions of higher learning collect racial/ethnicity data for such students).
* According to the NCES, the compiler of these data, a student is assigned to this
category only if he or she does not select a racial/ethnic designation and his or
her educational institution finds it impossible to place the student in one of the
NCES-defined racial/ethnic categories during established enrollment procedures or
in any post-enrollment identification or verification process. Over time the percentage
of students categorized as “Other/Unknown” has grown, thereby reducing the ability
of postsecondary institutions, policymakers, and the general public to reliably
track the racial/ethnic diversity of degree recipients.
Back to Content
|
Note on Racial/Ethnic Composition of Total U.S. Population
Using information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division,* the
Humanities Indicators has calculated the following estimates of the share of the
total national population represented by each of the categories employed by the
National Center for Education Statistics for the purpose of reporting the percentage
of degrees awarded to students of different races/ethnicities (estimates are for
July, 2008):
African American, Non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Native American or Alaska Native
|
12.4%
4.6%
14.8%
0.8%
|
* Data drawn from U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 3: Annual Estimates of the Resident
Population by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2000
to July 1, 2008 (NC-EST2008-03),” released May 14, 2009,
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2008-srh.html.
Back to Content
|
|