About this Dataset

Data & Sons recently completed our analysis of top tier economics journal publications from 2014 to 2017 and is pleased to announce the world’s top Economics PhD Programs based on alumni productivity.

Category

Social Sciences

Keywords

economics phd programs,best phd programs,best economics phd programs

Row Count

1491

Price

Free

Introduction This STEM advising outreach program was developed for undergraduate students who are contemplating future applications to PhD programs in the life sciences. The audience of ~20 students ranged in academic stage, and was composed mostly of life sciences undergraduates enrolled at Bowdoin College.

We have previously described two similar outreach events (ref. 1,2); this 90-minute combination of seminar and discussion built on that pilot program. This session at Bowdoin College was intended to complement the advising that students receive from their primary research mentors on campus. Although undergraduates at many excellent institutions have access to extensive pre-professional advising for careers in medicine, law and some other directions, the structure of advising for scientific research and the many career options that rely on PhD training is less consistent. Independent study or thesis research mentors are often a student’s primary source of advice. Career advisors have confirmed that reiteration and reinforcement of advising principles by professionals external to the school environment is helpful. Therefore, this outreach program’s content was developed with a goal of demystifying PhD programs and the benefits that they provide. The topics covered included (a) determining the key differences between programs, (b) understanding how PhD admissions works, (c) preparing an effective application, (d) proactive planning to strengthen one’s professional portfolio (internships, independent research, cultivating mentors), (e) key transferable skills that most students learn in graduate school, (f) what career streams are open to life science PhDs, and, (g) some national and institutional data on student career aspirations and outcomes (ref. 3). Methods The approach of bringing a faculty member and an administrative staff member who both have life science PhD training backgrounds was intentional. This allowed the program to portray different perspectives and experience to guide student career development, while offering credible witnesses to the types of experiences, skills and knowledge gained through PhD training. Central to the method of this outreach program is the willingness of graduate educators to meet the students on their own ground. The speakers guided students through a process of identifying national graduate programs that might best serve their individual interests and preferences. In addition to recruiting prospective applicants to Harvard Medical School (HMS) summer internships and PhD programs, the speakers made an explicit appeal to students to hone their professional portfolio proactively by discussing important skills that undergraduates need to be competitive in admissions and the career workplace including acquiring training in statistics and programming, soliciting diverse mentorship, acquiring authentic research experiences/internships, conducting thesis research, and obtaining fellowships). By reinforcing much of the anecdotal and formal advising content that is made available by faculty mentors and career counselors, our host saw the value of external experts to validate guidance.

This event built off our most recent event (ref. 2); we delivered a presentation covering the relevant topics and transitioned into an open discussion featuring a third visitor in our team. In contrast to the aforementioned previous event, the time constraint at lunch time prevented us from doing a formal panel. Our third speaker was a HMS Curriculum Fellow (ref. 4) whose career goals included teaching at a comparable institution (primarily undergraduate institution, PUI).

Students were encouraged to have lunch during the session, as the program was held at midday to avoid conflicts with other academic or extracurricular events. ResultsAs the principal goal of the session was to encourage and engage students, not to evaluate them, and the students ranged widely in stage and long-term career objectives, there were no assessment surveys of learning gains. Informally, student engagement was excellent as judged by the frequency and thoughtful nature of questions asked during the discussion phase of the session. Ad hoc student feedback directly following the event was extremely positive, as was our host’s follow up by email after the event. The success of the program was also evident by an invitation for a repeat of the program or other forms of collaboration in the future, including the possibility of reciprocal visits to HMS.DiscussionThis advising session was a continued refinement of our prototype, and thus served to prepare us for a series of similar events across a larger network of colleges. Our decision to incorporate a HMS Curriculum Fellow served three purposes: (1) to engage speaker who pursued doctoral training at three different institutions (UCLA, Tufts University, Harvard University), (2) to broaden the range of career trajectories presented as outcomes from doctoral programs, and (3) to provide networking and career development opportunities for the Curriculum Fellow.

A great advantage of our rigorous doctoral training is that as PhD economists we speak a common language that allows for efficient vetting and quick dissemination of ideas and insights. But what good is sophisticated grammar and a powerful vocabulary if the contents of our narratives are lacking? Our top three criteria for admissions to PhD programs are prior coursework in math, the quantitative GRE score, and prior coursework in economics. To attract top talent and prevent becoming a stagnant discipline that loses the influence we have in society and academia, students' creativity, originality, and drive should receive more weight.

In 2022, the median starting salary for MBA graduates of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, a leading business school in the United States, was 175,000 U.S. dollars. This figure was the same for MBA graduates of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Stanford's Graduate School of Business, which were also ranked within the top three U.S. business schools in that year.

The top-ranked university in the United States in 2024 according to Forbes was Princeton University in New Jersey. Students at Princeton graduate with an average debt of 7,559 U.S. dollars, but have a median 10-year salary of 189,400 U.S. dollars. The Forbes rankings are based on several categories, including alumni salary, student debt, graduation rate, return on investment, retention rate, and academic success.

This paper investigates the dynamics of discrimination in Political Science PhD programs with a survey of current political science graduate students in the top 50 departments. We focus on mentorship, funding, sexual harassment, racism, homophobia, and labor exploitation: 20% of respondents report labor exploitation, 19% experienced racial discrimination, 9% report sexual harassment and 6% experienced homophobia. Discrimination is uneven across individuals: Some groups of graduate students experience widespread discrimination, especially racial discrimination, while other groups are largely unaware of these issues. We ran a survey experiment to gauge the impact of misconduct on formal reporting mechanisms and find that hearing about racial discrimination has a chilling effect on reporting. Importantly, we find that experiencing discrimination harms how satisfied students are in their programs. We find that factors linked to student vulnerability, like international status and funding, are significantly associated with harassment, and that reporting discrimination predicts more discrimination.

Abstract (en): We study the research productivity of new graduates from North American PhD programs in economics from 1986 to 2000. We find that research productivity drops off very quickly with class rank at all departments, and that the rank of the graduate departments themselves provides a surprisingly poor prediction of future research success. For example, at the top ten departments as a group, the median graduate has fewer than 0.03 American Economic Review (AER)-equivalent publications at year six after graduation, an untenurable record almost anywhere. We also find that PhD graduates of equal percentile rank from certain lower-ranked departments have stronger publication records than their counterparts at higher-ranked departments. In our data, for example, Carnegie Mellon's graduates at the 85th percentile of year-six research productivity outperform 85th percentile graduates of the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, and Berkeley. These results suggest that even the top departments are not doing a very good job of training the great majority of their students to be successful research economists. Hiring committees may find these results helpful when trying to balance class rank and place of graduate in evaluating job candidates, and current graduate students may wish to re-evaluate their academic strategies in light of these findings.

In 2025, the average salary of a graduate from the Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management in China with low work experience was ******* U.S. dollars (once adjusted for purchasing power parity). This was the highest in the world, ahead of students from the Shanghai Institute of Finance at Shanghai Jiao Tong University and HEC Paris. Salaries of MBA graduates The salaries of business school MBA graduates worldwide stood at ***********. dollars in 2024, while graduates who held a bachelor’s degree could expect a starting salary of ****** U.S. dollars. The largest university worldwide is located in Africa The university with the highest number of students in the world is found in Nigeria. Ambrose Alli University has more than ******* registered students. Tribhuvan University in Nepal and Payame Noor University in Iran round up the top three.

Observed, meritocratic, and random allocation to program level (BA, MA, NRC-bottom-half PhD, NRC-top-half PhD) by quartiles (“qtl”) of h and hIann. 1.

The recent movement underscoring the importance of career taxonomies has helped usher in a new era of transparency in PhD career outcomes. The convergence of discipline-specific organizational movements, interdisciplinary collaborations, and federal initiatives has helped to increase PhD career outcomes tracking and reporting. Transparent and publicly available PhD career outcomes are being used by institutions to attract top applicants, as prospective graduate students are factoring in these outcomes when deciding on the program and institution in which to enroll for their PhD studies. Given the increasing trend to track PhD career outcomes, the number of institutional efforts and supporting offices for these studies have increased, as has the variety of methods being used to classify and report/visualize outcomes. This report comprehensively synthesizes existing PhD career taxonomy tools, resources, and visualization options to help catalyze and empower institutions to develop and publish their own PhD career outcomes. Similar fields between taxonomies were mapped to create a new crosswalk tool, thereby serving as an empirical review of the career outcome tracking systems available. Moreover, this work spotlights organizations, consortia, and funding agencies that are steering policy changes toward greater transparency in PhD career outcomes reporting. Such transparency not only attracts top talent to universities, but also propels research progress and technological innovation forward. Therefore, university administrators must be well-versed in government policies that may impact their PhD students. Engaging with government relations offices and establishing dialogues with policymakers are crucial steps toward staying informed about relevant legislation and advocating for more resources. For instance, much of the recent science legislation in the U.S. Congress, including the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, significantly impacts federal agency programs influencing universities. To ensure sustained development, it is imperative to support initiatives that enhance transparency, both in terms of legislation and resources. Increased funding for programs supporting transparency will aid legislatures and institutions in staying informed and responsive. Many efforts presented in this publication have received support from federal and state governments or philantrophic sources, underscoring the need for multifaceted support to initiate and perpetuate this level of systemic change.

Data on the top universities for Social Sciences in 2025, including disciplines such as Communication & Media Studies, Geography, and Sociology.

Title Closing the design cycle: A conclusive set of design principles for formative assessment plans AbstractDesigning a plan for formative assessment can support teachers in using formative assessment to inform their decisions about the best next steps in teaching and learning. In an earlier study, design principles were formulated to support teachers in designing a coherent and goal-oriented formative assessment plan. However, those design principles were based only on a theoretical exploration. In this study, teachers from four secondary schools used the principles to design and implement their own formative assessment plans over multiple design cycles. Their experiences became a basis for refining the design principles. The question in the current study is: What is a conclusive set of design principles for formative assessment plans for the purpose of supporting better-founded formative decision-making based on empirical and theoretical evidence? Through preparatory sessions and interviews with two teachers per school, suggestions were collected for modifying the design principles and essential characteristics of a plan to achieve better-informed formative decision-making. The outcome of this study is a refined set of design principles. It prescribes that a formative assessment plan that contributes to better-informed formative decisions must be constructively aligned, include decision-driven data collection and make room for adjustments and improvement in teaching and learning. Furthermore, it describes the procedures that teachers should follow during the design process to achieve these characteristics and outcomes. While this set of design principles is conclusive for now, further research on their practical efficacy may lead to future refinements. Description of the data included To come to a conclusive set of design principles, the eight teachers from four secondary schools were interviewed in pairs. Teachers reacted to the design principles in two ways: 1) directly, by giving suggestions for changes, improvements and additions for the procedural design principles and 2) indirectly, by focusing on the positive outcomes they experienced while working with formative assessment plans. These positive experiences made it possible to talk in the interviews about which design characteristics led to these positive outcomes, which could subsequently lead to new design principles. Teachers first spoke about these topics in a preparatory session in pairs at each school. Subsequently, interviews were conducted to deepen this conversation and link positive outcomes to characteristics and existing procedural design principles. 1. Four reports from the preparatory sessions prior to the interview During the preparatory session, the two teachers from each school prepared for the interview by completing the following assignments together: a. Name as many positive outcomes as you can think of that you experienced while working with a formative assessment plan. b. What features of your formative assessment plan do you believe caused these positive outcomes? In other words, what characteristics must a formative assessment plan have to achieve these results? c. Review the eight design principles (Fig. 1). Would you like to adjust, eliminate or add principles so this set of design principles leads to a formative assessment plan that has the most benefits for teachers and students? 2. Anonymized Transcripts of four interviews with pairs of teachers, from four secondary schools, who designed and implemented formative assessment plans. All the positive outcomes and beneficial characteristics that teachers wrote down in the preparatory session and the procedural design principles were put on individual cards per school in preparation for the interviews. Therefore, there were three sets of cards that were used during the interviews. The first set of cards with the positive outcomes the teachers had experienced, the second set contained the beneficial characteristics they reported, and the third set of cards were the procedural design principles. There was one interview planned at each school with the two selected teachers. Each interview lasted approximately 50 to 90 minutes. The interviews were conducted using these sequential steps: a. The interviewer began by asking clarifying questions about the notes from the preparatory session. These were meant to establish that the positive outcomes mentioned were really a result of working with formative assessment plans and that the participants agreed that the information on the cards was correct and complete. b. The next step was to draw lines on a poster to connect the cards describing the positive outcomes they experienced to the cards describing the beneficial characteristics they mentioned. Thus, at the end of the interview, each poster portrayed which (combination of) characteristics of a formative assessment plan had led to which experienced positive outcomes, according to the teachers. c. Subsequently, the teachers were asked to draw lines between the cards with the beneficial characteristics and the cards with the procedural design principles. d. After and during the process of drawing lines between the different cards, teachers were asked to reflect on and discuss what these connections and their experiences could mean for modifications to the existing design principles. e. Once all the positive outcomes they experienced were linked to the corresponding beneficial characteristics they saw and the procedural design principles, the interviewer concluded the interview with three final questions: I. Can the potential of working with formative programs be further increased? If so, in what way? What does this mean for the design principles? II. Look at the usability/added value in/for practice. Can the design principles be modified/supplemented to improve this? III. What are the disadvantages of working with formative assessment plans? Can the design principles be modified/supplemented to improve this? 3. Pictures of the four posters that were the outcome of the interviews.

Data on the top universities for Physical Sciences in 2025, including disciplines such as Chemistry, Geology, and Physics & Astronomy.

Walden University was the leading doctorate granting university in the United States in 2021, with *** doctorate recipients. Stanford University, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, University of California Berkeley, and Purdue University West Lafayette rounded out the top five doctorate granting universities.

TitleComparing Practical Skills Teaching by Near-Peers and Faculty Purpose Near-peer teaching is a vital teaching resource in most medical schools, but we know little about the comparative benefits of near-peers and faculty teaching or the learning mechanisms that underlie them. This study explored near-peers’ and students’ perceptions of differences between the way near-peers and faculty teach practical skills. Methods Using qualitative methodology, the authors conducted 4 focus groups with near-peers (n=22) and 4 focus groups with students (n=26, years 3-6) at the University of Bern, Switzerland, between Sept-Dec 2022. All participants recently participated in near-peer skills training. Vignettes of typical teaching situations guided the focus group discussions. The reflexive thematic analysis was both inductive and deductive; Cognitive Apprenticeship teaching methods informed the deductive analysis. Results Near-peers were perceived to establish a safer learning climate than faculty, lowering the threshold to ask questions. Near-peer teaching was oriented toward the formal curriculum and students’ learning needs, resulting in more tailored explanations focused on exam-relevant content. Faculty oriented their teaching towards clinical practice, which helped students transition to clinical practice but could overwhelm novice students. Faculty better stimulated students to think critically about unanswered questions and how to fill their competence gaps. Conclusions Skills teaching by near-peers and faculty differed in teaching climate and orientation. Near-peers saw students as “learners,” focused on the learning climate and on students’ needs. Faculty saw students as “future physicians” and facilitated the transition from curricular learning to clinical practice. Curricular design should capitalize on the complementary benefits of near-peer and faculty skills instructors, and seek to get the best of both worlds. Explanation of all the instruments used in the data collection (including phrasing of items in surveys) Baseline Questionnaire for near-peers and students, focus group guide using vignettes Explanation of the data files: what data is stored in what file? The study contained 8 transcrips of focus groups and one questionnaire with variants for near-peers and students: Folder name -.> Description Baseline Questionnaire_Students -> Questions in Baseline questionnaire for students (in German) Baseline Questionnaire_Peers -> Questions in Baseline questionnaire for Peers (in German) Participant Information -> Contains results from Baseline questionnaire Transcripts FG 1-8 -> Transcripts of the 8 focus groups In case of qualitative data: description of the structure of the data files The Transcript files contain the original focus group interview data in German. The Participant information sheet contain demographic data of the focus group participants

Introduction: In an age of increasingly face-to-face, blended, and online Health Professions Education, students have more selections of where they will receive a degree. For an applicant, oftentimes, the first step is to learn more about a program through its website. Websites allow programs to convey their unique voice and to share their mission and values with others, such as applicants, researchers, and academics. Additionally, as the number of Health Professions Education programs rapidly grows, websites can share the priorities of these programs. Methods: In this study, we conducted a website review of 158 Health Professions Education websites to explore their geographical distributions, missions, educational concentrations, and various programmatic components. Results: We compiled this information and synthesized pertinent aspects, such as program similarities and differences, or highlighted the omission of critical data. Conclusion: Given that websites are often the first point of contact for prospective applicants, curious collaborators, and potential faculty, the digital image of HPE programs matters. We believe our findings demonstrate opportunities for growth within institutions and assist the field in identifying the priorities of HPE programs. As programs begin to shape their websites with more intentionality, they can reflect their relative divergence/convergence compared to other programs as they see fit and, therefore, attract individuals to best match this identity. Periodic reviews of the breadth of programs, such as those undergone here, are necessary to capture diversifying goals, and serve to help advance the field of Health Professions Education as a whole. Methods Our team deduced that most HPE programs would have a website, and that this would serve as a representation of how individuals within the program choose to view themselves and hope to be viewed by others. Further, our team determined that these websites would be an efficient means of collecting programmatic information for the purposes of learning more about program growth, diversity, and values. We conducted the website review from August 2021 to April 2022 using a list of worldwide Health Professions Education programs, which was acquired from the Foundation of Advancement of International Medical Education and Research’s (FAIMER’s) website. FAIMER was chosen as the origin source of programs studied due to its use in another published study evaluating HPE programs. Each master's degree in HPE offered by a university was counted separately, allowing us to note the differences in course and time requirements across all programs. Only HPE master's programs were selected for this study. Certificate and Ph.D. programs were excluded. Next, we developed a data extraction tool. Categories were jointly identified for data collection by three of our authors (JS, SW, and HM). JS, SW, and HW worked independently through a set of three HPE programs, obtaining the data for our selected categories. Afterward, we cross-checked each other's work for verification purposes. For example, if JS obtained the information, SW or HM, who were blinded to JS’s findings, would independently find the answers to the same questions/ topics. This was performed until an agreement between pre and post-review information was above 95%. There was no discovered information that was not agreed upon after discussion. Once 100% agreement was reached with this method, the total number of HPE programs analyzed was split between JS and SW, and the raw data was obtained for the same categories. This data then underwent a review by the other two researchers to ensure high accuracy. This review consisted of information verification on individual program websites where it was originally obtained. For example, if JS found the information about a program, SW and HM (now not blinded) would both have to independently find the same information. Any identified discrepancies were rectified through discussion, and three-way agreement was mandatory for the team to move on to the next program.

OVERVIEW

This data file, compiled from multiple online sources, presents 2013–2017 publication counts—articles, articles in high-impact journals, books, and books from high-impact publishers—for 2,132 professors and associate professors in 426 U.S. departments of sociology. It also includes information on institutional characteristics (e.g., institution type, highest sociology degree offered, department size) and individual characteristics (e.g., academic rank, gender, PhD year, PhD institution).

The data may be useful for investigations of scholarly productivity, the correlates of scholarly productivity, and the contributions of particular individuals and institutions. Complete population data are presented for the top 26 doctoral programs, doctoral institutions other than R1 universities, the top liberal arts colleges, and other bachelor's institutions. Sample data are presented for Carnegie R1 universities (other than the top 26) and master's institutions.

USER NOTES

Please see our paper in Scholarly Assessment Reports, freely available at https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.36 , for full information about the data set and the methods used in its compilation. The section numbers used here refer to the Appendix of that paper. See the References, below, for other papers that have made use of these data.

The data file is a single Excel file with five worksheets: Sampling, Articles, Books, Individuals, and Departments. Each worksheet has a simple rectangular format, and the cells include just text and values—no formulas or links. A few general notes apply to all five worksheets.

• The yellow column headings represent institutional (departmental) data. The blue column headings represent data for individual faculty.

• iType is institution type, as described in section A.2—TopR (top research universities), R1 (other R1 universities), OD (other doctoral universities), M (master's institutions), TopLA (top liberal arts colleges), or B (other bachelor's institutions). nType provides the same information, but as a single-digit code that is more useful for sorting the rows; 1=TopR, 2=R1, 3=OD, 4=M, 5=TopLA, and 6=B.

• Inst is a four-digit institution code. The first digit corresponds to nType, and the last three digits allow for alphabetical sorting by institution name. Indiv is a one- or two-digit code that can be used to sort the individuals by name within each department. The Inst, nType, and Indiv codes are consistent across the five worksheets.

• For binary variables such as Full professor and Female, 1 indicates yes (full professor or female) and 0 indicates no (associate professor or male).

The five worksheets represent five distinct stages in the data compilation process. First, the Sampling worksheet lists the 1,530 base-population institutions (see section A.3) and presents the characteristics of the faculty included in the data file. Each row with an entry in the Individual column represents a faculty member at one of the 426 institutions included in the data set. Each row without an entry in the Individual column represents an institution that either (a) did not meet the criteria for inclusion (section A.1) or (b) was not needed to attain the desired sample size for the R1 or M groups (section A.3).

The Articles worksheet includes the data compiled from SocINDEX, as described in section A.6. Each row with an entry in the Journal column represents an article written by one of the 2,132 faculty included in the data. Each row without an entry in the Journal column represents a faculty member without any article listings in SocINDEX for the 2013–2017 period. (Note that SocINDEX items other than peer-reviewed articles—editorials, letters, etc.—may be listed in the Journal column but assigned a value of 1 in the Excluded column and a value of 0 in the Article credit and HI article credit columns. We assigned no credit for items such as editorial and letters, but other researchers may wish to include them.) The N and i columns represent, for each article, the number of authors (N) and the faculty member's place in the byline (i), as described in section A.8. The CiteScore and Highest percentile columns were used to identify high-impact journals, as indicated in the HI journal column. The Article credit and HI article credit columns are article counts, adjusted for co-authorship.

The Books worksheet includes data compiled from Amazon and other sources, as described in section A.7. Each row with an entry in the Book column represents a book written by one of the 2,132 faculty. Each row without an entry in the Book column represents a faculty member without any book listings in Amazon during the 2013–2017 period. The publication counts in the Books worksheet—Book credit and HI book credit—follow the same format as those in the Articles worksheet.

The Individuals worksheet consolidates information from the Articles and Books worksheets so that each of the 2,132 individuals is represented by a single row. The worksheet also includes several categorical variables calculated or otherwise derived from the raw data—Years since PhD, for instance, and the three corresponding binary variables. We suspect that many data users will be most interested in the Individuals worksheet.

The Departments worksheet collapses the individual data so that each of the 426 institutions (departments) is represented by a single row. Individual characteristics such as Female and Years since PhD are presented as percentages or averages—% Female and Avg years since PhD, for instance. Each of the four productivity measures is represented by a departmental total, an average (the total divided by the number of full and associate professors), a departmental standard deviation, and a departmental median.

Context

PhD candidates typically get paid to study.

Content

Self-reported PhD salaries from phdstipends.com.

['University', 'Department', 'Overall Pay', 'Living Wage Ratio', 'Academic Year', 'Program Year', etc.]

Acknowledgements

Data from http://www.phdstipends.com/csv

License: Unknown + https://twitter.com/pfforphds/status/1222921605493313537?s=12

Banner Photo by Photo by Good Free Photos on Unsplash

Context

Pakistan has a large number of public and private universities offering degrees in multiple disciplines. There are 162 universities out of which 64 are in private sector and 98 are public sector/government universities recognized by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC).

According to HEC, Pakistani universities are producing over half a million graduates per year, which include over more than 10,000 Computer Science/IT graduates.

From year 2001 to 2015 there is a mass increase in number of enrollment in universities. The recent statistics shows that in 2015, 1,298,600 students enrolled in different levels of degree, 869,378 in Bachelors (16 years), 63,412 in Bachelors (17 years), 219,280 in Masters (16 years), 124,107 in M.Phil/MS, 14,373 in Ph.D, and 8,319 in P.G.D. However, in 2014 the number of doctoral degree awarded were 1,351 only.

Moreover, according to HEC report, in 2014-2015 there are over 10,125 fulltime Ph.D. faculty teaching in Pakistan in all disciplines. Computer Science and related disciplines are widely taught in Pakistan with over 90 universities offering this discipline with qualified faculty. According to our dataset, there are 504 PhD faculty members in Computer Science in Pakistan for 10,000 students. So we have a PhD faculty member for every 20 students on average in computer science program.

Current Student to PhD Professor Ratio in Pakistan is 130:1 (while India is going towards 10:1 in Post-Graduate and 25:1 in Undergrad education).

Here is world's Top 100 universities with Student to Staff Ratio.

Content

Dataset: The dataset contains list of computer science/IT professors from 89 different universities of Pakistan.

Variables: The dataset contains Serial No, Teacher’s Name, University Currently Teaching, Department, Province University Located, Designation, Terminal Degree, Graduated from (university for professor), Country of graduation, Year, Area of Specialization/Research Interests, and some Other Information

Acknowledgements

Data has been collected from respective university websites. Some of the universities did not mention about their faculty profiles or were unavailable (hence the limitation of this dataset). The statistics mentioned above are gathered by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) website and other web resources.

Inspiration

Here is what I like you to do:

1. Which area of interest/expertise is in abundance in Pakistan and where we need more people?
2. How many professors we have in Data Sciences, Artificial Intelligence, or Machine Learning?
3. Which country and university hosted majority of our teachers?
4. Which research areas were most common in Pakistan?
5. How does Pakistan Student to PhD Professor Ratio compare against rest of the world, especially with USA, India and China?
6. Any visualization and patterns you can generate from this data

Let me know how I can improve this dataset and best of luck with your work

This data file, compiled from multiple online sources, presents 2013–2017 publication counts—articles, articles in high-impact journals, books, and books from high-impact publishers—for 2,132 professors and associate professors in 426 U.S. departments of sociology. It also includes information on institutional characteristics (e.g., institution type, highest sociology degree offered, department size) and individual characteristics (e.g., academic rank, gender, PhD year, PhD institution).The data may be useful for investigations of scholarly productivity, the correlates of scholarly productivity, and the contributions of particular individuals and institutions.Complete population data are presented for the top 26 doctoral programs, doctoral institutions other than R1 universities, the top liberal arts colleges, and other bachelor's institutions. Sample data are presented for Carnegie R1 universities (other than the top 26) and master's institutions.All the data were compiled from publicly available sources, and the data collection process did not involve interaction with human subjects.