Rankings of Graduate Programs in I- O Psychology Based on Student Ratings. Quality July 2. 00. Kurt Kraiger. 1 and Anthony Abalos. University of Tulsa. Send correspondence or requests for individual program feedback to Dr. Kurt Kraiger, Mc. Farlin Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, 6.
- This page contains links to 30 u. Undergraduate psychology programs rank- ordered in quality according to the. While this list was created to illuminate the best undergraduate programs, the best undergraduate.
- Psychology school rankings and psychology program rankings are generated by several. StudentsReview.com Top Rated Undergrad Programs; U.S.
S. College Ave., Tulsa, OK 7. Graduate training programs in industrial- organizational (I- O) psychology are periodically ranked on objective and subjective criteria related to the quality and output of their graduate faculty. News and World Reports (1. As often noted, the basis for any ranking system is subject to criticism (cf., Cox & Catt, 1. Gibby, Reeve, Grauer, Mohr, & Zickar, 2. Winter et al., 1. Objective systems based on faculty research productivity have been criticized as well.
We welcome you to the undergraduate pages of the Psychology Department website and invite you to browse these pages to learn more about our programs, our.
The most popular objective method for ranking I- O programs has been counting faculty publications (Gibby et al., 2. Levine, 1. 99. 0; Winter et al., 1. The second shortcoming we would like to address is the focus of most ranking systems solely on doctoral programs (notable exceptions are systems based on student presentations at conferences). One specific concern came from program directors in expensive metropolitan areas. Includes faculty. Quality of instruction.
Overall. quality of classes; the extent towhich classes prepare students for careersin academic or applied settings. Balance. between applied and academic emphases. A program with. both applied and academic foci; faculty with applied experience to augment.
These are the top psychology programs. Each school's score reflects its average rating on a scale from 1 (marginal.
Research. interests of the faculty and the program. Faculty with. varied research interests, andwhich students find relevant.
Overall. quality of research that takes place in the program. The number of. faculty publications at this program compared with that at other programs. Research. opportunities for students. Includes. willingness of professors to includestudents in their research and actual studentinvolvement. Opportunities. for work in the local community. Includes. quality and quantity of availableinternships and jobs; programs relationshipswith local organizations. Cost of. living in the city in which theprogram is located.
Placement. services and employability of students after graduation. Includes. faculty aid with searching forinternships and jobs; and/or a formal jobplacement service; network betweencurrent students and alumni. Average. graduation rate/length of time required to complete. Masters Students only.
Average. graduation rate/length of time required to complete. Doctoral students only. Connection. with the I- O community. Active. faculty and student involvementin professional organizations and conferences. Overall. quality of students.
Some of the best undergraduate psychology programs in the country include those at Stanford. The university tied for #4 ranking on U.S. News & World Report's. Top Schools with Online Psychology Undergraduate Programs.
Includes. selectivity of the program inadmitting students and number of studentpublications. The quality of students at thisprogram compared with that at other programs. Available. funding through assistantships; monetary support for attending conferences. The availability of funding at this programcompared with that at other programs. Location. of the university. Qualities of. the city in which the program islocated such as weather, cost of living,availability of housing, entertainmentopportunities, and so forth. Variety or. breadth of course offerings.
Size of. classes that are conducive to learning. Collaborative. versus competitive atmosphere; relationships between students andprofessors; pervasiveness of politics. The rate of. faculty turnover at this programcompared with that at other programs. Availability. of educational resources. Includes. quality of departmental anduniversity resources such as libraries,computers, software, journals, and so forth. Responses to items 1. Figure 1. Students also indicated their year in school and whether they were in a terminal MA/MS program or a doctoral (Ph.
D) program. Ratings of programs in phase three were completed by students only. Race and ethnicity were broken down as follows: 7. Caucasian, 3. 6 Latino/Latina, 3. African American, 4. Asian American/Pacific Islander, 3 Native American, and 5.
Table 1 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Rating Items. George Washington University 7 7. University of Guelph 6 7. Florida Institute of Technology 8 7. Colorado State University 1.
Georgia Institute of Technology 7 7. Illinois Institute of Technology 2. University of North Texas 7 7. University of Maryland 1.
Rice University 5 7. University of Houston 9 7.
Carlos Albizu University. San Juan 1. 3 6.
University of Nebraska. Omaha 5 6. 3. 9 . University of Georgia 1. George Mason University 8 6. Elmhurst College 9 6. University of Nebraska.
Omaha 7 6. 5. Florida Institute of Technology 2. U. Radford University 1. Psychology 2. 2 6.
San Francisco State University 1. Indiana University. Purdue U. Cloud State University 6 6. Georgia State University 5 6. Valdosta State University 9 6. University of Central Florida 8 5. We chose them because they work, that is, they produced a desired distribution with many scores clustered in the 7.
East Carolina University. Bowling Green State Univ. George Mason University. University of Oklahoma.
Appalachian State University. Rice University. 4. Xavier University. University of Maryland.
Minnesota State University. University of Minnesota. Indiana University. Purdue U. Pennsylvania State Univ. University of Tulsa. University of Akron.
Radford University. George Mason University. Valdosta State University. U. San Diego State University. Colorado State University. University of Memphis. Cloud State University.
University of Georgia. Portland State University. University of Wisconsin. Stout. 1. 9. University of Calgary. Elmhurst College.
Clemson University. University of Nebraska. Omaha. East Carolina University. Rice University. 2. Appalachian State University. University of Maryland.
Valdosta State University. Bowling Green State University.
Xavier University. University of Oklahoma. Middle Tennessee State U.
Emporia State University. George Washington University. University of Tulsa. University of Illinois at Chicago. Indiana University.
Purdue U. George Mason University. University of Nebraska. Omaha. 1. 2. Radford University. University of Memphis. George Mason University. Portland State University.
Cloud State University. University of South Florida. Wayne State University. University of Wisconsin. Stout. 1. 9. University of Minnesota. Elmhurst College.
University of Guelph. Western Kentucky University . Indiana University. Purdue U. Southwestern Missouri State U. Radford University. U. Valdosta State University.
Clemson University. Middle Tennessee State U. Western Kentucky State U. University of South Florida. Emporia State University. University of Calgary.
Cloud State University. University of Georgia. Minnesota State University. U. San Diego State University. University of Maryland. Pennsylvania State University.
University of Houston. Colorado State University.
University of Minnesota. University of Northern Iowa. University of Illinois at Chicago. Georgia State University. University of Memphis. News and World Report. Americas Best Graduate Schools.
News and World Report. Cox, W. Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based upon publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. L., Grauer, E., Mohr, D., & Zickar, M. The top I- O psychology doctoral programs of North America. G., & Klimoski, R. Excellence of academic institutions as reflected by backgrounds of editorial board members.
Institutional and individual research productivity in I- O psychology during the 1. Institutional representation in the SIOP conference program: 1. Ranking I- O graduate programs on the basis of student research presentations. C., & Svyantek, D. North Americas top I- O psychology doctoral programs.
U. S. News and World Report revisited.