College and Research Libraries WILLIAM M. McCLELLAN Judging Music Libraries A survey of academic music librarians and members of the American Musicological Society provided a list of the top-ranked musU; libraries at academic institutions offering graduate degrees in music. A comparison be- tween this study and earlier surveys rating graduate programs and profes- sional schools demonstrates a strong relationship between the reputations qf graduate programs in music departments and schools and the reputations of academic music libraries supporting such programs. THE ASSESSMENT OF music libraries at institutions of higher education occurs at a time of uncertainty. It is an era of tight budgets, a time when most educational in- stitutions have initiated extensive reviews of their programs. These reviews consider such elements as scope, mission, goals, ob- jectives, needs, costs, and quality. They are undertaken in response to requests from in- side and outside the institutions, many times initiated by state and national agen- cies. Part of any such review involves evaluat- ing the quality of the resources available to students and faculty. Several items recently identified as closely related to the educa- tional quality of graduate programs include library resources, internal and external financial support, laboratory equipment, and computer facilities. 1 With the exception of many locally sponsored studies and evalua- tions of music library resources and services, no national attempt has yet been made to assess the music libraries at academic in- stitutions. THE SURVEY As a first step in a more extensive re- search project to develop guidelines for music library collections and services at in- stitutions of higher education, the author William M. McClellan is music librarian and professor of library administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The research for this study was supported by a fellowship from the Council on Library Resources. has identified what may be considered the top music libraries at academic institutions offering graduate programs in music. This was done by soliciting opinions of faculty, administrators, graduate students (members of the American Musicological Society), and music librarians employed at academic in- stitutions. A brief two-part questionnaire was mailed to 325 individuals selected from a membership list of the American Musicological Society (AMS) and a directory of music librarians. 2 One hundred names (3.2 percent of the total AMS membership) were selected from the list of 3,100 individual AMS members. Selection was limited to approximately 6.6 names per page and to those names that listed an academic address. Since the study was confined to the opinions of academic music faculty, administrators, and graduate students, this proved to be a successful way to exclude AMS members not affiliated with academic institutions. A larger sample of 225 names (38 percent of the total directory) was selected from the 593 names in the di- rectory of music librarians. An average of 7. 5 names of librarians affiliated with academic institutions were selected from each page in the directory. Questionnaires required answers to the following two questions: "What, in your opinion, are the top five music libraries at academic institutions offering undergraduate degrees in music?" and "What, in your opinion, are the top five music libraries at academic institutions offering graduate pro- I 281 282 I College & Research Libraries • July 1978 grams in music?" The latter question in-· volved institutions offering master's and/ or doctoral degrees in music. This survey used the same basic method employed by Peter Blau and Rebecca Margulies in their re- search on American professional schools. 3 The respondents were asked not to rank the music libraries and to exclude the in- stitution with which they were currently affiliated. The exclusion of libraries at in- stitutions where the respondents were cur- rently affiliated meant that some of the top- ranked libraries may have lost a few per- centage points in the final tally. Self-ratings, or nominations of schools by their own deans, were also excluded in the Blau- Margulies study, which polled deans of seventy accredited and university-affiliated music schools. In an earlier study conducted by Roose and Anderson, the 126 raters could include their own instititions in the questionnaire. 4 However, the Roose- Anderson study also analyzed the partici- pants by type (chairperson, senior scholar, junior scholar), by degree of rater ·associa- tion with the rated institution (employed by, earned Ph.D. from), and by geographic region of the rater's institution of employ- ment. To maintain a certain anonymity, the re- spondents were also asked not to sign their names; but they were asked to indicate their current occupation or position. A self- addressed, stamped envelope was enclosed for the convenience of the respondent. (The types of persons responding to the ques- tionnaire included assistant, associate, and full professors; some graduate students; administrators [deans, chairpersons, de- partment heads]; and music librarians [catalogers, fine arts librarians, department librarians, etc.l) No follow-ups were made to the initial mailing, which took place during March• 1976. Five of the original 325 requests were not delivered, and 156 (or 49 percent) usa- ble responses were returned. (Eleven people returned the requests with various explanations of why they could not answer either of the questions.) There were 52 usa- ble responses from the mailing to the 100 AMS members, and 104 usable responses from the 225 academic music librarians to whom requests were mailed. The responses to question number 1 were varied and included listings for both under- graduate and graduate institutions. Replies were received from 131 respondents (ap- proximately 41 percent) for this question. Although there are institutions of higher education that grant both undergraduate and graduate degrees in music, none is an e~clusively graduate-degree granting institu- tion. A small number of colleges, mainly liberal arts colleges, grant only undergradu- ate degrees in music, and the responses to this question indicated that there was not a clear consensus of top music libraries at undergraduate institutions. In seventy-seven of the responses to the first question, only graduate-level institu- tions were listed as having the top music li- braries to support undergraduate degrees in music, while thirty-seven respondents listed a mixture of both undergraduate and graduate-level institutions. Only seventeen respondents listed mainly undergraduate · in- stitutions. Because of this ambiguity in the first question, which failed to indicate that only academic institutions offering primarily undergraduate degrees in music were to be included in the response, the results of the survey did not prove valid for that question. RANKINGS OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS Table 1 shows the rankings of the music libraries at the institutions offering graduate programs in music, according to the judg- ment of academic music librarians and AMS members. These rankings are based on the total number of times a given school was mentioned by the respondents. Next to each institution in the table is the percent- age of respondents who rated the music li- brary at the institution as one of the top five. The fifteen institutions listed in column one represent 6.4 percent or more of the total respondents' choices. It was felt that listing institutions named by a total of less than 10 percent of the responses would not be meaningful, and so more are listed to show the breadth of responses. Caution should be used when interpret- ing the rankings based on small differences in the percentages; percentage differences are better indications of differences in repu- tations than are the ran kings. Based on these percentages, the fifteen institutions judging Music Libraries I 283 TABLE 1 RANKING OF MUSIC LIBRARIES BY MUSIC LmRARIANS AND AMS MEMBERS • Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Institution Music Librarians Institution Music Institution AMS and Librarians Members AMS Members 1. Berkeley 74.3 1. Eastman 75 1. Harvard 80.7 2. Eastman 70.5 2. Berkeley 74 2. Berkeley 75 3. Harvard 66.6 3. Yale 61.5 3. Yale 69.2 4. Yale 64.1 4. Harvard 60.5 4. Eastman 61.5 5. Illinois 38.4 5. Illinois 40.3 5. Princeton 38.4 6. Indiana 32.6 6. Indiana 35.5 6. Illinois 34.6 23 7. Michigan 24 7. Indiana 26.9 7. Michigan 8. Princeton 20.5 8. North Carolina 19.2 8. Michigan 21.1 9. Chicago 15.3 9. Chicago 13.4 9. Chicago 19.2 9. North Carolina 15.3 10. Princeton ll.5 10. Columbia ll .5 ll. UCLA 10.8 10. UCLA ll .5 10. Stanford ll .5 12. Columbia 9.6 12. Columbia 8.6 12. Cornell 9.6 13. Stanford 7.6 12. Northwestern 8.6 12. UCLA 9.6 13. Northwestern 7.6 14. North Texas 6.7 14. North Carolina 7.6 15. Cornell 6.4 15. Iowa (Iowa City) 5.7 14. Pennsylvania 7.6 15. Stanford . 15. usc 18. Cornell 19. Washington (St. Louis) "See appendix for full names of institutions listed. form five basic groups. Berkeley, Eastman, Harvard, and Yale constitute the first group at the top of the scale, with Illinois and In- diana paired together at least twenty-six or more points below Yale from the top group. The third group, consisting of Michigan , Princeton, Chicago, and North Carolina, is separated from the fourth group, l:JCLA and Columbia, by only five points, while the fifth group, Stanford, Northwestern, and Cornell, is only two to three points below Columbia. The relationship between the reputation rankings by academic m4sic librarians and those by the AMS members can be found in the second and third sections of table 1. Only two institutions show a marked dif- ference of four or more positions in compar- ing the rankings by academic music librar- ians with the rankings by the AMS mem- bers. Thus North Carolina ranked eighth on the music librarians' list and fourteenth on the AMS members' list, and Princeton ranked tenth ~m the music librarians' list and fifth on the AMS members' list. COMPARISON STUDIES For comparison purposes table 2 has been prepared to show the findings for music from two earlier surveys: the Blau- Margulies study, which ranked professional 5.7 5.7 4.8 4.8 schools in various fields according to the col- lective judgments of the dean in each of the fields of study; and the Roose-Anderson survey, which ranked departments in thirty-six disciplines according to their repu- tations among scholars in the field. Blau-Margulies Study In the Blau-Margulies study the deans of seventy accredited and university-affiliated music schools were asked to name the top five professional music schools. The results of this survey are found in column one of table 2. Only four of the eight institutions in the Blau-Margulies study appear on the list of institutions in the first column of table 1. In this case there is little relation between reputable schools with applied music or conservatory-oriented programs and m~sic libraries at graduate institutions. The Curtis Institute of Music, Juilliard School, and Oberlin College have strong reputations in the world of music making, but not in grad- uate education. The University of Southern California, rated seventh in the Blau- Margulies study, is not ranked in the AMS list and is in fifteenth position on the academic music librarians' list in the second part of table 1. Roose-Anderson Study A stronger relation appears between the 284 I College & Research Libraries • july 1978 reputations of music libraries and the ratings of graduate music programs, as indi- cated by answers to two of the questions asked by the Roose-Anderson study. The Roose-Anderson ranking of graduate music programs was based on responses from 126 raters, consisting of music department chairpersons, full professors, associate and assistant professors, and a mix of junior and senior scholars within the various academic ranks. Respondents were asked to rate the qual- ity of the graduate faculty and the effective- ness of the doctoral program and to give an estimate of recent change in the quality of graduate education. The ratings indicated by respondents resulted in the rankings of institutions shown in columns two and three of table 2. Fourteen of the fifteen institu- tions with ranked music libraries in column one of table 1 are included in the rankings determined by answers to the two questions of the Roose-Anderson study. Two exceptions are Indiana and North- western. Indiana and Northwestern are not included on the list of institutions with rated doctoral programs (see column three, table 2), and Northwestern is also excluded from the ranked list of institutions with quality of graduate faculty (see column two, table 2). It should be mentioned, however, that Indiana and Northwestern were listed in the alphabetical group of institutions not ranked according to these questions in the Roose-Anderson study. In other words, those institutions having a total score below a certain number were not included in the rankings. 5 Seven of the institutions in column one of table 1 show a difference of four or more positions in a comparison of these rankings with the two Roose-Anderson rankings. Placed ninth among music libraries (column one, table 1), Chicago appears fifth in qual- ity of graduate faculty, while Eastman, sec- ond among music libraries, is ranked four- teenth in quality of graduate faculty and twelfth in effectiveness of doctoral program. Indiana ranked sixth among music libraries and thirteenth in quality of graduate faculty. Although North Carolina is ranked ninth- along with Chicago-in column one of table . 1,. it appears fourteenth in quality of gradu- ate faculty, while Princeton ranked eighth among music libraries and second for both quality of the graduate faculty and the effec- tiveness of the doctoral program. Ranked thirteenth in the list of music libraries (col- umn one, table 1), Stanford appears eighth in effectiveness of doctoral program. While Cornell was ranked fifteenth among music libraries, it ranked tenth in quality of grad- TABLE 2 RANKING OF PROFESSIONAL MUSIC SCHOOLS AND GRADUATE MUSIC PROGRAMS • Blau-Marguhes, Reputations of Professional Schools (1974) 00 1. Indiana 2. Eastman 3. Michigan 4. Juilliard 5. Illinois 6. Curtis 7. usc 8. Oberlin Roose-Anderson, Quality of Graduate Faculty (1970)••• 1. Harvard 2. Berkeley 2. Princeton 4. Yale 5. Chicago 6. Illinois 6. Michigan 6. NYU 9. Columbia 10. UCLA 10. Cornell 10. Stanford 13. Indiana 14. North Carolina 14. Eastman 16. Brandeis 17. usc Roose-Anderson, Effectiveness of Doctoral Programs (1970)••• !.Harvard 2. Princeton 3. Berkeley 3. Yale 5. Illinois 5. Michigan 5. NYU 8. UCLA 8. Chicago 8. Cornell 8. Stanford 12. North Carolina 12. Eastman 14. Columbia "See appendix fOr full names of institutions hsted. •-peter M. Blau and Rebecca z. Marguhes, "The Reputations of American Professional Schools," Change 6:42-47 (Dec.-Jan. 1974-75). ••OJCenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Anderson, A Roling of Graduate Programs (Washington, D .C. : American Council on Education, 1970), p.48-49. Seventeen departments were not ranked in the Roose-Anderson study but grouped alphabetically after the ranked de- partments. J uate faculty and eighth in effectiveness of doctoral program. The other seven institutions in column one of table 1 show a difference of three ranked positions or less in comparison with the Roose-Anderson ratings. One final com- parison should be noted between the fifteen music libraries ranked in column one of table 1 and the Roose-Anderson ratings. New York University, which appears sixth with Illinois and Michigan in quality of graduate faculty and fifth with Illinois and Michigan in effectiveness of doctoral pro- gram, was mentioned only twice by the 156 respondents who answered the question concerning the top five music libraries. DISCUSSION Although there appears to be a fairly high overall relationship among studies of music schools and libraries, criticism of rankings and ratings of academic programs and disci- plines has been expressed in connection with the Blau-Margulies study, the Roose- Anderson ratings, and this study ranking music libraries. Those who oppose the rank- ing of any departments, schools, or institu- tions contend that ranking hurts many good schools that didn't quite make the list, es- tablishes a pecking order, and fails to reflect recent deterioration of schools that were once considered quite good. They feel that judgment of deans, peers, and scholars in a field is based on hearsay, lacks firsthand knowledge, and neglects objective measures of quality and achievement. It is difficult to learn objectively what went through people's minds when they replied to a subjective question such as , "What, in your opinion, are the top five ... ?" In some cases, the prestige of the total institution may affect the answer, while in others the reputations of faculty and li- brarians, who are known to ·the respondent, may influence the answer to the question. There is general agreement, however, that ratings of faculty, doctoral programs, and li- braries constitute only three of several in- dicators of quality in an academic program and that these indicators should be corre- lated with more detailed program facets, such as those mentioned at the beginning of this article. Further analyses and interpretations of judging Music Libraries I 285 this survey of music libraries may be forth- coming, but I would like to point out three conclusions which should not be drawn from the survey. First, the music libraries at the fifteen in- stitutions listed in column one of table 1 should not be considered the only note- worthy music libraries. Music libraries at other institutions may reveal, upon detailed examination of such factors as materials and services, that they have resources and sub- ject strengths superior to any of the fifteen- ranked libraries. Second, the survey does not take into consideration the rich music research re- sources that may fall outside the jurisdiction of a given academic institution but remain easily accessible to the members of that in- stitution by being located within the same geographical area. Students and faculty at Columbia and New York University, for example, have access to the extensive music research collections at the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center. Third, until a more detailed study is made, it should not be concluded that a strong relation necessarily exists between fields of study offered by a department or school and the strengths of the music library resources. Strong library collections might be expected in the primary fields of study offered by a given institution, but factors other than opinions would have to be con- sidered in establishing such a connection. In the fields of music theory and/or composi- tion, for example, I suspect that the music library resources available to support the teaching programs would vary a great deal from one institution to another. In summary, the assessment of music li- braries at graduate institutions discloses that, in the judgment of the academic music librarians and AMS members, the quality of fifteen music libraries is high enough to merit a national reputation. In addition, a strong relation exists between the reputa- tions of music departments and schools (especially as related to the quality of the graduate faculty and the effectiveness of the doctoral program) and the reputations of academic music libraries supporting gradu- ate programs. This study constitutes the necessary initial step in a more detailed ex- amination of the characteristics of academic music libraries in the United States. 286 I College ~ Research Libraries • july 1978 APPENDIX INSTITUTIONS INCLUDED IN THE TABLES ABBREVIATED NAME Berkeley Brandeis Chicago Columbia Cornell Curtis Eastman Harvard Illinois Indiana Iowa (Iowa City) Juilliard FULL NAME AND STATE University of California, Berkeley Brandeis University (Massachusetts) University of Chicago (Il- linois) Columbia University (New York) Cornell University (New York) Curtis Institute of Music (Pennsylvania) University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music (New York) Harvard University (Mas- sachusetts) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Indiana University University of Iowa Juilliard School (New York) Michigan NYU North Carolina North Texas Northwestern Oberlin Pennsylvania Princeton Stanford UCLA usc Washington (St. Louis) Yale University of Michigan New York University University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Texas State Uni- versity Northwestern University (Illinois) Oberlin College (Ohio) University of Pennsyl- vania Princeton University (New Jersey) Stanford University (California) University of California, Los Angeles University of Southern California Washington University (Missouri) Yale University (Connect- icut) REFERENCES l. Malcolm G . Scully, "How to Evaluate Gradu- ate Programs," Chronicle of Higher Education 13:11 (Dec. 6, 1976). 2. List of Members and Subscribers, 1974-1975 (Denton, Tex.: American Musicological Soci- ety, 1975); Don Phillips, ed., Directory of Music Librarians in the United States and Canada, a preliminary ed. (Ann Arbor, Mich . : Music Library Association, 1976). 3. Peter M. Blau and Rebecca Z. Margulies, "The Reputations of American Professional Schools," Change 6:42-47 (Dec.-Jan . 1974- 75). 4. Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Anderson, A Rating of Graduate Programs (Washington, D.C .: American Council on Education, 1970), p.48-49. 5. Ibid., p.49. ,,. I