U S News World Report Undergraduate College Rankings by ramhood3

VIEWS: 107 PAGES: 21

									      U S News & World Report
   Undergraduate College Rankings


Ruth Kallio, Associate Director for Institutional Research
              Office of Budget and Planning

                 November 14, 2007
          8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Michigan Room
             Office of Budget & Planning


                                                             0
        USN&WR Undergraduate College
                   Rankings Background
   What do they rank?
       Undergraduate programs overall
            Some specialized undergraduate programs
       Graduate and professional programs overall
            Specialized graduate & professional programmatic areas
   When did they begin ranking programs?
       1983 undergraduate
       1987 graduate and professional




                                                                      1
USN&WR Undergraduate College Rankings
                          Background
   How many undergraduate colleges and
    universities are ranked?
       Institutions are grouped according to Carnegie
        classifications and for some categories, geographic
        region
            262 national universities
            266 liberal arts colleges
            574 master’s universities in 4 geographic regions
            320 baccalaureate colleges in 4 geographic regions
            1,422 institutions in total


                                                                  2
        USN&WR Undergraduate College
                   Rankings Background
   Who is U-M ranked against?
       U-M is in the “national universities” category
        which includes:
            Doctoral/Research Universities -- Extensive
            Doctoral Research Universities -- Intensive
       USN&WR publishes two sets of national
        universities rankings
            All national universities (N=262)
                59 of which we commonly use as “peers”

            All public national universities (N=163)
                33 of which we commonly use as “peers”



                                                           3
    USN&WR Undergraduate College Rankings
                       Background
   Where does U-M rank overall?
      Prior to 1988: 7th or 8th
     Since 1988: consistently between 21st and 25th

    -- Currently: 25th (in a tie with UCLA)
   Where does U-M rank among public
    universities?
       Consistently 2nd or 3rd
       Currently: 3rd (in a tie with UCLA and behind
        California Berkeley and Virginia)



                                                        4
              Ten-Year History of
             UM-Ann Arbor Rankings
Year      Overall Score Rank
1998-99       87       25th (tied w/ UCLA)

1999-00       73       25th (tied w/ UCLA)
2000-01       78       25th (tied w/ UCLA & UNC-Chapel Hill)

2001-02       77       25th

2002-03       72       25th (tied w/ UCLA & Wake Forest)

2003-04       75       25th

2004-05       76       22nd (tied w/ Carnegie Mellon & Univ. of Virginia)

2005-06       75       25th (tied w/ UCLA)

2006-07       75       24th (tied w/ Univ. of Virginia)
2007-08       73       25th (tied w/ UCLA)
                                                                            5
USN&WR Data Collection Procedures
   Surveys of colleges and universities
      Data are supposed to conform to national
       standards for formatting and definitions developed
       by college guide publishers in conjunction with
       representatives from the higher education
       community (aka, “Common Data Set”)
      92.4% of the institutions surveyed in 2007
       responded
      USN&WR will estimate data for any institution that
       cannot or will not provide them with some or all of
       the necessary data.
   Survey of presidents, provosts, and deans of
    admissions (51% response rate in 2007)
                                                             6
How does USN&WR arrive at the overall score
  and ranking for each national university?


    Three types of components
       Reputation

       Measures of Educational Success

       Resources




                                          7
         Breakdown of the Reputational Component
                                                      Weight in      U-M
                                                     Overall Score   Rank

   Peer Assessment Ranking                          25.0% 12th
        Avg. academic reputation score
         (survey of presidents, provosts, deans
         of admission)
   Student Selectivity                                 15.0% 23rd
        Avg. SAT/ACT scores of enrollees                7.5%
        % of enrollees in top 10% of high school class 6.0% 15th
        % of applicants who are admitted                1.5% 50th




                                                                            8
Breakdown of the Educational Success Component
                                                        Weight in      U-M
                                                       Overall Score   Rank


   Graduation & Retention                                 25.0%       26th
        % of entering class still enrolled one year later 4.0%        21st
        % of entering class who graduated in 6 years
         or less                                           16.0%       29th
        Graduation Rate Performance
         (Difference between a school’s actual and
         predicted 6-year graduation rate for an
         entering class)                                    5.0%       33rd




                                                                              9
          Breakdown of the Resources Component
                                                              Weight in      U-M
                                                             Overall Score   Rank

   Faculty Resources                                          20.0%         69th
         Avg. faculty salary + benefits adjusted for
          regional differences in cost of living                7.0%
         % of undergrad class sections fewer than
          20 students                                           6.0%         69th
         % of undergrad class sections 50 or more
           students                                             2.0%         103rd
         Student/faculty ratio                                 1.0%          73rd
         % of faculty with highest degree in their fields      3.0%
         % of faculty who are full-time                        1.0%          83rd

   Financial resources                                       10.0%           29th
         Expenditures per student

   Alumni Giving                                               5.0%         83rd
         % of undergraduate alumni who donated money
          to their school
                                                                                    10
    U-M’s Strengths and Weaknesses
             in the Rankings
   U-M scores well on measures of
    reputation and educational success
   U-M’s scale causes it to rank less well
    on per capita resource measures




                                              11
USN&WR Supplementary Information

   Lists of leading institutions based on
    other information not included in the
    rankings calculations
   Quantitative measures
       Racial diversity
       Economic diversity (U-M ranked 6th)
       International Students

                                              12
USN&WR Supplementary Information

   Qualitative information
       Internships
       Senior Capstone
       First-Year Experience*
       Undergraduate Research/Creative Projects*
       Learning Communities*
       Study Abroad
       Service Learning*
       Writing in the Disciplines

*U-M listed as a leading institution
                                                    13
What affects the rankings from one
         year to the next?
   A change in the USN&WR methodology
   A real change in an institution’s data
   A real change in the data for other
    institutions
   A change in how many institutions
    USN&WR chooses to publish on a given
    ranking
                                             14
           Issues/Concerns regarding
               USN&WR rankings
   Affect of rankings on students’ decisions
   Subjectiveness of the reputational component
   Subjectiveness of the assigned weight for each
    component
   Component items may not measure what they are
    assumed to
   Consistency and definition problems found in data
    collection
   Ability of institutions to manipulate their data
   Rankings measures are biased in favor of private
    institutions
                                                        15
            Issues/Concerns regarding
                USN&WR rankings
   Rankings falsely imply a precision in the numbers and
    a significant difference between one rank and the
    next
   Rankings do not capture some of the most important
    components of a student’s college experience --
    especially learning outcomes




                                                            16
    Alternatives to USN&WR Rankings
   Undergraduate
       Media sponsored rankings
            Washington Monthly, Business Week, Kiplinger’s, Wall Street
             Journal
       Other
            Gourman Report, Princeton Review
   Graduate
       Media sponsored rankings
            Business Week, Wall Street Journal, etc.
       Other
            NRC, Gourman Report
   For more examples of other rankings see:
       http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankings.htm
   Many of these share the same problems and
    weaknesses of USN&WR rankings--if not more!                            17
    Movements Away From Rankings

   Current protest by liberal arts colleges on the
    value of USN&WR rankings
       40 institutions have pledged not to fill out the
        USN&WR reputational survey and not to use the
        rankings in promotional efforts
   The national “Accountability” movement
       Voluntary System Accountability (VSA)
            NASULGC, AASCU
       Annapolis Group, NAICU, The Education
        Conservancy



                                                           18
    How OBP Uses USN&WR Rankings

   In general not used to define our peers
       “Official” peers (19 institutions)
       Big Ten peers
       AAU peers (61 institutions)
   Publish but do not endorse the rankings
    on our website
       (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/obpinfo/home
        )
                                                   19
    How OBP Uses USN&WR Rankings

   The rankings provide a quick source of
    selected comparative information on our
    “peers”
   Mainly use on an ad hoc basis
       To identify other peers that may not be in our
        traditional peer groups (e.g., Notre Dame for
        undergraduate tuition comparisons)
       To narrow down our official peers (e.g.,
        institutions with the most top ranked graduate
        programs in engineering and the sciences for the
        Advanced Project)


                                                           20

								
To top