Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStiftel, Bruceen
dc.contributor.authorRukmana, Dedenen
dc.contributor.authorAlam, Bhuiyanen
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-16T13:48:15Zen
dc.date.available2016-03-16T13:48:15Zen
dc.date.issued2004-12-01en
dc.identifier.citationA Reply to Graduate Planning School Study Responses 2004, 24 (2):128 Journal of Planning Education and Researchen
dc.identifier.issn0739-456Xen
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0739456X04271629en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11286/601426en
dc.description.abstractPublished responses to the study of faculty quality at U.S. urban and regional planning graduate programs (Stiftel, Rukmana, and Alam 2004) raise issues that deserve clarification and further comment. We begin by correcting misunderstandings about our work, acknowledge where we think the commentators have identified genuine weaknesses, report an error, and then move on to discuss suggestions made for more effective school performance measurement.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.relation.urlhttp://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0739456X04271629en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Journal of Planning Education and Researchen
dc.subjectUrban Planning Educationen
dc.subjectFaculty Qualityen
dc.subjectUniversity Performance Measurementen
dc.titleA Reply to Graduate Planning School Study Responsesen_US
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Urban Studies and Planningen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Planning Education and Researchen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record