Yes, I think you’re right, which is why I added the information about the supplement after the “Edit:” placed in my comment. I should have made that edit more c

Yes, I think you’re right, which is why I added the information about the supplement after the “Edit:” placed in my comment. I should have made that edit more clear to say that I was mistaken with the first piece. If I understood the supplement to the paper correctly, there were only 205 CS departments investigated and fewer departments for business and history. The 461 would refer to the sum of universities across the CS (205) business (112), and history (143) fields, which is where faculty are currently teaching. The supplement had a statistic saying 87% of the profs in CS departments had “doctorates in sample.” Which meant 87% of the profs came from those 205 schools. I couldn’t find how many universities made up the remaining 13% of faculty. The supplement says 50% of CS faculty came from 18 universities. I believe the 25% is referring to the 205 CS programs (which is both where the profs are currently teaching but also where most of them earned their PhDs from - the 87% doctorates in sample statistic) which would be 51 universities producing most of the faculty at the 205 universities in the study. At least I think… For all I know, I am misunderstanding the supplement, and further muddying the waters with poor explanations.