Winthrop Kellogg's appointment brought a senior scholar with a distinguished research career and experience in doctoral training which greatly benefited the proposal submitted by Psychology in 1951 for a doctoral training program at the newly established Florida State University. Even a brief glance at the quality and quantity of research listed in Kellogg's CV (on pages 44-49 of the proposal) indicates that in these respects he stood far and above the other faculty listed. Of course, his experience in doctoral training was also unique among his new colleagues which was a strong positive for the proposal.
Another indication of Kellogg's influence in getting the doctoral program established is found in the recollections of a colleague at the time. On February 12, 1990, a former faculty member in the earliest years of FSU wrote to Howard Baker with his recollections of the Department as it prepared for a doctoral training program. Ralph Mason Dreger was hired as an assistant professor in 1949; he had just received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Southern California. Winthrop Kellogg came to the department in 1950. The following excerpt from Dreger's letter provides a view of Winthrop Kellogg's hands-on role in getting the doctoral program properly established, and a glimpse of the Department in the early 1950s.
The most outstanding departmental event in my recollections was the coming of Winthrop Kellogg and his work as chair of the curriculum committee which revamped the department offerings. We were, as you will recall, getting ready to install a doctoral program, upgrading from the master's degree we had been offering--you may have the records, but it must have been about 1952 or 1953. Instead of merely setting up a doctoral program, Winthrop insisted that the whole curriculum, from bottom to top of what we had had, be revised thoroughly to provide a solid base for the doctoral program. I remember that I was commissioned to find out how our course offerings compared with those of other similar universities. What I found was that our catalog listed more than twice the number of courses as any other institution's, and in some cases ten times the number. Ours had across the decades grown like Topsy until over a hundred courses were listed. Although we all participated in the restructuring of the department, I credit Kellogg with being the driving force for reform. It was also a privilege to be with him and observe his work. When he reported his work with porpoises, I would say to myself, "But he has not taken account of such-and-such variables;" yet almost before I could formulate my objection, he would report how he had controlled for just such variables-and not just once did this happen, but again and again. Although I differed with him philosophically (methodologically), I had the greatest respect for his scientific procedures and integrity.