In two recent studies, Morgan and Fitzgerald and Robey ranked American political science departments on the basis of their faculty's research productivity in the major political science journals. The rankings which they produced were at some variance with the reputational rankings reported by Somit and Tanenhaus, Cartter, and, more recently, Ladd and Lipset. In particular, Robey reports that “… some southern universities seem to have made great strides in the last ten years while some Ivy League schools do not seem to be producing at a rate equivalent with their reputations.” Morgan and Fitzgerald reach a similar conclusion about the relationship between reputation and productivity for the Ivy League and southern schools. These studies and their implications have generated a great deal of discussion among political scientists and, as might be expected, have been subjected to a variety of criticism. Criticisms, for example, have focused on the journals selected to measure productivity, the use of frequency of articles produced rather than their importance for the profession, and the failure to incorporate books and monographs in such evaluations.