The manner by which colleges and universities prepare school leaders in doctoral programs is being called into question. One report is stirring much controversy for its unflattering portrayal of administrator preparation programs. In a 2005 report entitled "Educating School Leaders," former Columbia University president Art Levine characterizes the current state of leadership preparation as a "race to the bottom." In short, Levine suggests that an over abundance of degree-granting programs, many of which offered at non-research intensive institutions, is having the effect of diminishing the quality of leadership programming. He also laments the increase in "weaker research-intensive universities" pursuing doctoral programs which he argues "award doctorates that are doctoral in name only" and require coursework with minimal relevance to practice. With a greater number of degree outlets, rigor and quality become more suspect, Levine contends, where the overwhelming emphasis is placed on credit counting rather than crucial practical and theoretical knowledge and skill acquisition. While his depiction may be partly, wholly, or not accurate at all, little research exists in the area of leadership programming quality to refute such claims. Moreover, markers of quality in leadership programming differ widely and no consensus truly exists at this time. This study forges a new direction in evaluating leadership preparation programming by examining the perspective of the current student--more specifically, current doctoral students at elite leadership preparation institutions. To frame the study and data gathering, literature regarding the historical development of educational administration as a field of study and research pertaining to measures of quality in leadership programming is presented. A brief description of the method follows with results and conclusions offered in turn.